[Federal Register: July 9, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 130)]
[Notices]
[Page 33001-33003]
[DOCID:fr09jy09-132]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60211; File No. SR-Phlx-009-51]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
the Extension of the Penny Pilot Program

July 1, 2009.
    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 June 26, 2009, NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
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 extend a pilot (the ``pilot'') that
permits certain options series to be quoted and traded in increments of
$0.01. The Exchange proposes to extend the pilot through October 31,
2009.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com/NASDAQOMXPHLX/
Filings/, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at

the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to continue to permit
specified options series to be quoted and traded in increments of $0.01
by extending the pilot through October 31, 2009.
    The pilot began on January 26, 2007.\3\ All series in options
included in the pilot (``pilot options'') trading at a price of less
than $3.00 are currently quoted and traded in minimum increments of
$0.01, and pilot options with a price of $3.00 or higher are currently
quoted and traded in minimum increments of $0.05, except that options
overlying the PowerShares QQQQ Trust (``QQQQ'') are quoted and traded
in minimum increments of $0.01 for all series regardless of the price.
A list of all pilot options was communicated to membership via Exchange
circular.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55153 (January 23,
2007), 72 FR 4553 (January 31, 2007) (SR-Phlx-2006-74). In that
filing, the Exchange also made conforming amendments to various
Exchange rules in order to be consistent with the pilot. These
conforming changes were also approved on a pilot basis. The pilot
was subsequently extended through July 3, 2009. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 59631 (March 26, 2009), 74 FR 15022 (April
2, 2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-25).
    \4\ Any additions to or deletions from the list will be
published in an Options Trader Alert, which will be available on the
Exchange's Web site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Report to the Commission
    Throughout the pilot, the Exchange has prepared and submitted
periodic analytical reports (``reports'') to the Commission that
address the impact of the pilot on the quality of the Exchange's
markets and option quote traffic and capacity. The Exchange will submit
another such report not later than the last business day of August,
2009, covering the period from May 1, 2009 through July 31, 2009, and
will submit further reports as requested by the Commission as the pilot
continues. The Exchange will amend its rules accordingly.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \5\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \6\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest,
by ensuring the orderly continuity of the pilot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change: (1) Does not
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (2) does not impose any significant burden on competition;
and (3) by its terms does not become operative for 30 days after the
date of this filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may
designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \7\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-
4 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 provide the Commission
with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change,
along with a brief description and 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 under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \9\ normally
does not become operative for 30 days after the date of 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 requests that the
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may
become operative immediately upon filing to ensure continuity of the
pilot, which is scheduled to expire July 3, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because such waiver will allow the pilot to continue without
interruption through October 31, 2009.\11\ Accordingly, the Commission
designates the proposed rule change operative upon filing with the
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For the 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.
78(c)(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2009-51 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2009-51. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your

comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission
will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, 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 inspection and copying in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File No. SR-NASDAQ-2009-51 and should be submitted on or before July
30, 2009.

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

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

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-16179 Filed 7-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: October 17, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 200)]
[Notices]
[Page 61036]
[DOCID:fr17oc06-75]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP03-36-020]

Dauphin Island Gathering Partners; Notice of Negotiated Rate

October 11, 2006.
    Take notice that on October 6, 2006, Dauphin Island Gathering
Partners (Dauphin Island) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas
Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the revised tariff sheets listed
below to become effective November 6, 2006: Twenty-Seventh Sheet No. 9;
Twenty-Third Revised Sheet No. 10.
    Dauphin Island states that copies of the filing are being served
contemporaneously on its customers and other interested parties.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-17211 Filed 10-16-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 11, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32116-32117]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14767]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Commission Staff Attendance

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives
notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following
meetings related to the transmission planning activities of the New
York Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO):

NYISO Business Issues Committee Meeting

July 11, 2018, 10:00 a.m.-2:00 p.m. (EST)

    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and
teleconference.
    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
    Further information may be found at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/committees/documents.jsp?com=bic&directory=2018-07-11.

NYISO Operating Committee Meeting

July 12, 2018, 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. (EST)

    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and
teleconference.
    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
    Further information may be found at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/committees/documents.jsp?com=oc&directory=2018-07-12.

NYISO Electric System Planning Working Group Meeting

July 19, 2018, 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. (EST)

    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and
teleconference.
    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
    Further information may be found at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/committees/documents.jsp?com=bic_espwg&directory=2018-07-19.

NYISO Management Committee Meeting

July 25, 2018, 10:00 a.m.-2:00 p.m. (EST)

    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and
teleconference.
    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
    Further information may be found at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/committees/documents.jsp?com=mc&directory=2018-07-25.

    The discussions at the meetings described above may address matters
at issue in the following proceedings:
New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER13-102.
New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER15-2059.
New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER17-2327.
    For more information, contact James Eason, Office of Energy Market
Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
[email protected].

    Dated: June 28, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-14767 Filed 7-10-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: January 26, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 17)]
[Notices]
[Page 3880-3882]
[DOCID:fr26ja07-150]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 27669; 812-13308]

American Capital Strategies, Ltd.; Notice of Application

January 19, 2007.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of an application for an order under section 61(a)(3)(B)
of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the ``Act'').

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

    Summary of Application: Applicant, American Capital Strategies,
Ltd., requests an order approving a proposal to grant certain stock
options to directors who are not also employees or officers of the
applicant (the ``Non-employee Directors'') under its 2006 Stock Option
Plan (the ``Plan'').
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on June 2, 2006 and amended
on January 19, 2007.
    Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the
application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's
Secretary and serving applicant with a copy of the request, personally
or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by
5:30 p.m. on February 15, 2007, and should be accompanied by proof of
service on applicant, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a
certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the
writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues
contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request
notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Commission, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicant, 2 Bethesda Metro Center,
14th Floor, Bethesda, Maryland, 20814.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura J. Riegel, Senior Counsel, at
(202) 551-6873, or Nadya B. Roytblat, Assistant Director, at (202) 551-
6821 (Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company
Regulation).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application is available for a fee at the
Public Reference Desk, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-0102 (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>).

Applicant's Representations

    1. Applicant, a Delaware corporation, is a business development
company (``BDC'') within the meaning of section 2(a)(48) of the Act.\1\
Applicant's primary business objectives are to increase its net
operating income and net asset value by investing its assets in senior
debt, subordinated debt, with and without detachable warrants, and
equity of small to medium sized businesses with attractive current
yields and potential for equity appreciation. Applicant's investment
decisions are either made by its board of directors (the ``Board''),
based on recommendations of an investment committee comprised of senior
officers of applicant, or, for investments that meet certain objective
criteria established by the Board, by the executive officers of
applicant, under authority delegated by the Board. Applicant does not
have an external investment adviser within the meaning of section
2(a)(20) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 2(a)(48) defines a BDC to be any closed-end
investment company that operates for the purpose of making
investments in securities described in sections 55(a)(1) through
55(a)(3) of the Act and makes available significant managerial
assistance with respect to the issuers of such securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Applicant requests an order under section 61(a)(3)(B) of the Act
approving its proposal to grant certain stock options under the Plan to
its Non-employee Directors.\2\ Applicant has a nine member Board. Six
of the seven current members of the Board are not ``interested
persons'' (as defined in section 2(a)(19) of the Act) of the applicant
(``Disinterested Directors'').\3\ The Board approved the Plan at a
meeting held on March 23, 2006 and amended the Plan at meetings held on
April 6, 2006 and December 7, 2006. Applicant's stockholders approved
the Plan at the annual meeting of stockholders held on May 11, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Non-employee Directors receive a $75,000 per year
retainer payment and $2,500 for each Board or committee meeting
attended, and reimbursement for related expenses. Additionally,
under the terms of a disinterested director retention plan that
applicant established in 2006, Non-employee Directors are generally
entitled to receive a payment upon termination of service as a
director equal to a multiple of the number of years of service as a
Non-employee Director and the retainer payment then in effect.
    \3\ The Board presently has two vacancies. All of the Non-
employee Director are Disinterested Directors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Applicant's officers and employees, and Non-employee Directors
are eligible to receive options under the Plan. Under the Plan, a
maximum of 320,000 shares of applicant's common stock, in the
aggregate, may be issued to Non-employee Directors and 40,000 shares of
applicant's common stock may be issued to any one Non-employee
Director. Each of the six Non-employee Directors serving on the Board
as of May 11, 2006 will be granted options to purchase 40,000 shares of
applicant's common stock (the ``Initial Grants'') on the date that the
Commission issues an order on the application (``Order Date''). The
options issued under the Initial Grants will vest in three equal parts
on each of the first three anniversaries of May 11, 2006. Any person
who becomes a Non-employee Director after May 11, 2006 will be entitled
to receive options to purchase 40,000 shares of applicant's common
stock (the ``Other Grants'') on the later of the date such person
becomes a Non-employee Director and the Order Date. The options issued
under the Other Grants will vest in three equal parts on each of the
first three anniversaries of the date such person becomes a Non-
employee Director.
    4. Under the terms of the Plan, the exercise price of an option
will not be less than 100% of the current market value of, or if no
such market value exists, the current net asset value per share of,
applicant's common stock on the date of the issuance of the option.\4\
Options granted under the Plan will expire ten years from the date of
grant and may not be assigned or transferred other than by will or the
laws of descent and distribution. In the event of the death or
disability of a Non-employee Director during such director's service,
all such director's unexercised options will immediately become
exercisable and may be exercised for a period of three years following
the date of death (by such director's personal representative) or one
year following the date of disability, but in no event after the
respective expiration dates of such options. In the event of the
termination of a Non-employee Director for cause, any unexercised
options will terminate immediately. If a Non-employee Director's
service is terminated for any reason other than by death, disability,
or for cause, the options may be exercised within one year immediately
following the date of termination, but in no event later than the
expiration date of such options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Under the Plan, ``current market value'' (defined as ``fair
market value'') is generally the closing sales price of applicant's
shares as quoted on the Nasdaq Stock Market, or alternatively, on
the exchange where applicant's shares are traded, on the day the
option is granted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Applicant's officers and employees are eligible or have been
eligible to receive options under applicant's six other stock option
plans under which Non-employee Directors are not entitled to
participate (the ``Employee Plans''). The remaining 16,990,212 shares
of applicant's common stock subject to issuance to officers and
employees under the Employee Plans and the Plan represent 11.5% of the
147,613,188 shares of applicant's common stock outstanding as of
December 31, 2006. Non-employee Directors are eligible or have been
eligible to participate in applicant's Disinterested Director stock
option plans (together with the Employee Plans, the ``Other Plans'')

under which 225,000 shares of applicant's common stock remain for
issuance, representing 0.2% of shares of applicant's common stock
outstanding as of December 31, 2006. The 320,000 shares of applicant's
common stock that may be issued to Non-employee Directors under the
Plan represent 0.2% of shares of applicant's common stock outstanding
as of December 31, 2006. Therefore, the maximum number of applicant's
voting securities that would result from the exercise of all
outstanding options issued and all options issuable to directors,
officers, and employees under the Other Plans and the Plan would be
17,535, 212 shares of applicant's common stock, or approximately 11.9%
of shares of applicant's common stock outstanding as of December 31,
2006. Applicant has no outstanding warrants, options, or rights to
purchase its voting securities, other than the options granted or to be
granted to its directors, officers, and employees under the Other Plans
and the Plan.

Applicant's Legal Analysis

    1. Section 63(3) of the Act permits a BDC to sell its common stock
at a price below current net asset value upon the exercise of any
option issued in accordance with section 61(a)(3). Section 61(a)(3)(B)
provides, in pertinent part, that a BDC may issue to its non-employee
directors options to purchase its voting securities pursuant to an
executive compensation plan, provided that: (a) The options expire by
their terms within ten years; (b) the exercise price of the options is
not less than the current market value of the underlying securities at
the date of the issuance of the options, or if no market exists, the
current net asset value of the voting securities; (c) the proposal to
issue the options is authorized by the BDC's shareholders, and is
approved by order of the Commission upon application; (d) the options
are not transferable except for disposition by gift, will or intestacy;
(e) no investment adviser of the BDC receives any compensation
described in section 205(a)(1) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940,
except to the extent permitted by clause (b)(1) or (b)(2) of that
section; and (f) the BDC does not have a profit-sharing plan as
described in section 57(n) of the Act.
    2. In addition, section 61(a)(3) provides that the amount of the
BDC's voting securities that would result from the exercise of all
outstanding warrants, options, and rights at the time of issuance may
not exceed 25% of the BDC's outstanding voting securities, except that
if the amount of voting securities that would result from the exercise
of all outstanding warrants, options, and rights issued to the BDC's
directors, officers, and employees pursuant to an executive
compensation plan would exceed 15% of the BDC's outstanding voting
securities, then the total amount of voting securities that would
result from the exercise of all outstanding warrants, options, and
rights at the time of issuance will not exceed 20% of the outstanding
voting securities of the BDC.
    3. Applicant represents that its proposal to grant certain stock
options to Non-employee Directors under the Plan meets all the
requirements of section 61(a)(3)(B). Applicant states that the Board is
actively involved in the oversight of applicant's affairs and that it
relies extensively on the judgment and experience of its Board. In
addition to their duties as Board members generally, applicant states
that the Non-employee Directors provide guidance and advice on
operational issues, underwriting policies, credit policies, asset
valuation and strategic direction, as well as serving on committees.
Applicant believes that the availability of options under the Plan will
provide significant at-risk incentives to Non-employee Directors to
remain on the Board and devote their best efforts to ensure applicant's
success. Applicant states that the options will provide a means for the
Non-employee Directors to increase their ownership interests in
applicant, thereby ensuring close identification of their interests
with those of applicant and its stockholders. Applicant asserts that by
providing incentives such as options, applicant will be better able to
maintain continuity in the Board's membership and to attract and retain
the highly experienced, successful and dedicated business and
professional people who are critical to applicant's success as a BDC.
    4. Applicant states that the maximum amount of voting securities
that would result from the exercise of all outstanding options issued
to the directors, officers, and employees under the Other Plans and the
Plan would be 14,258,728 shares of applicant's common stock, or
approximately 9.7% of applicant's shares of common stock outstanding as
of December 31, 2006, which is below the percentage limitations in the
Act. Applicant asserts that, given the relatively small amount of
common stock issuable to Non-employee Directors upon their exercise of
options under the Plan, the exercise of such options would not, absent
extraordinary circumstances, have a substantial dilutive effect on the
net asset value of applicant's common stock.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
pursuant to delegated authority.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-1228 Filed 1-25-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


project incidence rates for each of these different groups.
What you can see is that the incidence rate in some
settings, like the high prevalence donors, is 1.9 percent
annual incidence -- just an extraordinarily high incidence
rate.  If we then translate that into the window period
yield by adding nucleic acid testing, they would pick up
8/10,000 donations as viremic and seronegative from this
high prevalence setting.  As I think we will see later in a
trial that Chiron has done in South Africa, they, indeed,
have picked up in the range of 1/1000 NAT positive,
antibody negative donations in this high prevalence

sgg
MILLER REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
735 8th Street, S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20003-2802
(202) 546-6666
setting.  So, one of the things that I hope this meeting
will at least briefly address is the technology transfer of
nucleic acid testing so it can become available in these
resource-poor countries.
[Slide]
Finally, my last slide is just to mention that I
think the availability of NAT really presents us with
important opportunities to contribute to the broader
research agenda around these various infections.  By
identifying large numbers of donors in the plasma and whole
blood screening sector in these very early primary
infection stages, we can help characterize the epidemiology
of these infections in the broad, general populations
looking at incidence trends, the demographics and the risk
factors associated with acquisition of these infections.
We can contribute to the molecular surveillance,
characterizing the subtypes and the resistance patterns of
these newly transmitting strains in the donor pool.  We can
help identify patients and enroll them into pathogenesis
studies, particularly important for both HIV and HCV where
there is enormous interest in better understanding the
mechanisms of  control of viremia in early infection,
contributing towards development of vaccine strategies or
early treatment strategies.
There, again, I think there is just a recent New
England Journal paper on the benefits of early HCV

sgg
MILLER REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
735 8th Street, S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20003-2802
(202) 546-6666
treatment -- still controversial, but through NAT screening
we are identifying hundreds of people in the viremic pre-
seroconversion phase who could then be enrolled into early
treatment trials to evaluate the relative benefit of early
versus delayed treatment, and begin to look not only at
early antiviral therapies but immune enhancement
strategies, such as supplemental vaccination or
immunomodulatory strategies.
So, that is the conclusion of my talk.  What I
have tried to do is to frame the broad issues both in terms
of the window period, as well as the yield of NAT and,
again, tried to focus a little bit in the end on the cost
effectiveness and the important challenge of bringing this
technology to developing countries.  Thank you.
DR. EPSTEIN:  Thank you.  We are running a little
bit late but perhaps one or two questions if there is a
burning question.  Yes, Jean-Pierre?
DR. ALLAIN:  Mike, I didn't remember exactly in
the Schuttler paper, in Lancet, whether the individual who
received platelets was significantly or not
immunosuppressed.  Because I think in the infectivity
studies the state of the recipient is a complicating factor
and that has to be taken into consideration because the
same amount of viral copies in an individual

sgg
MILLER REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
735 8th Street, S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20003-2802
(202) 546-6666
immunosuppressed is probably more infectious than in an
immunocompetent individual.
DR. BUSCH:  That is an excellent point.  I
honestly don't recall either.  It also points out that in
many of our populations there are immunosuppressed patients
who could have more prolonged eclipse and early phenomenon.
So, what we are doing with these window period models is
really using plasma donors, healthy people, community
acquired infections.  So, as we are looking at recipients -
-
you know, Harvey Alter's ongoing NIH studies -- these
recipients are being monitored by nucleic acid tests in
addition to serologic methods to be sure we are not missing
some transmissions in that setting.
DR. EPSTEIN:  Thank you very much, Mike.  Now I
would like to call on Harvey Alter, from the NIH, who will
discuss new hepatitis viruses: Do they make sense?
New "Hepatitis" Viruses: Do They Make Sense?
DR. ALTER:  Well, my talk is a little bit out of
order because I have to leave for another meeting.
[Slide]
So, putting these emerging agents at the
beginning of this session is like putting the cart before
the horse.  If the horse represents me, it is because when
it comes to a test of these agents I am sort of a naysayer.
If the cart looks empty, it is because it is hard to

sgg
MILLER REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
735 8th Street, S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20003-2802
(202) 546-6666
interpret the data that I will be presenting.  But I think
it is an interesting group of viruses.
[Slide]
In any event, I will proceed by saying that my
talk will prove that there is absolutely no substitute for
a genuine lack of preparation.
[Laughter]
When HCV was discovered there was some evidence,
that I am not going to get into because there isn't time,
to suggest that there might be additional hepatitis agents,
so-called non-ABC agents.  And, the commercial success of
hepatitis C testing led companies to pursue the potential
of the hepatitis agents.
[Slide]
The first discovery, if you will, was the
resurrection of the GB story.  GB was a surgeon who
developed acute hepatitis in the 1950's.  His serum was
transmitted to or put into marmosets and caused hepatitis
in the marmoset model.  The marmoset infection could then
be serial passaged to other marmosets.
Then a tremendous debate ensued as to whether
this was a human hepatitis agent that had been transmitted
or a marmoset agent that had been reactivated.  This was
never resolved, but the debate was quite vigorous.  Then
this story just kind of died.

sgg
MILLER REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
735 8th Street, S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20003-2802
(202) 546-6666
In the 1990's Abbott resurrected these serial
passage samples from the marmoset and, using new technology
of representational difficult analysis, and having pre and
post transfusion samples from the marmoset, Abbott
discovered a new agent that they termed GBV-A.  GB, for the
surgeon's initials; virus A.  It turns out that GBV-A was a
marmoset agent, but as they continued to work they found
GBV-B and eventually then, using the degenerate primers
between these agents and hepatitis C virus, they found GBV-
C which is, indeed, a human agent.  And, they showed that
GBV-C is transmissible to man and to the chimpanzee.
[Slide]
Well, simultaneously, Gene Labs found another
agent that was called the hepatitis G virus.  This is the
genomic map of the hepatitis G virus.  As you will see, it
is very similar to hepatitis C virus because these agents,
GBV and HCV and HGV are flaviviruses, very similar to HCV
but the one difference is that they seem to lack a core
region.  Otherwise, the non-structural regions and the
envelope region seem very similar.  One can speculate that
it is the absence of this core region that might attenuate
the pathogenicity of these agents, but nobody has proven
that.  But what was shown is that GVC and HGV are
essentially the same agent, just strain variants of the
same agent discovered by different companies.

sgg
MILLER REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
735 8th Street, S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20003-2802
(202) 546-6666
[Slide]
We then began to look at HGV in particular but
the data are interchangeable.  What you find is that in the
volunteer donor population the rate of viremia was
somewhere between one to two percent, and an additional
relatively small number had antibody to HGV.  So, the total
burden in the donor population was not excessively high.
But when we went to commercial donors you can see that
there was a high rate of viremia, 17 percent; 57 percent
had been exposed to these agents.  When you went to
intravenous drug use, 15 percent were carriers and 82
percent overall had been exposed.  So, these were
parenterally treated donors.
[Slide]
We then looked at our prospective study of donors
and recipients and we found that we only had 13 cases of
non-ABC hepatitis in the prospective studies.  Twenty-three
percent of these patients developed an acute HGV infection
in the wake of blood transfusion.  However, this rate was
not significantly different than the rate of new HGV
infections, patients who had minor ALT raises that we
didn't really consider post-transfusion hepatitis or
patients who had no hepatitis at all.  It looks like more
but the numbers are small and statistically these are not
different.  The only difference was that these agents were

sgg
MILLER REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
735 8th Street, S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20003-2802
(202) 546-6666
clearly much higher in the patients who were not
transfused.  So, this was a transmissible disease that was
not clearly associated with non-ABC hepatitis.
[Slide]
Overall, we calculated that since the number of
hepatitis cases was small and the number of non-hepatitis
cases was very large that even if HGV was a cause of
hepatitis, no more than four percent of HGV infections
would have transmitted hepatitis and the vast majority of
people who got this infection either had no hepatitis or
had coexistent hepatitis C.
[Slide]
Time is short and I am not going to show you
data, but we then went on to show that we couldn't find
this agent in the liver, or the techniques were not good.
But we did look at different disease states.  This actually
is a study from Thomas and Hadzylannis, in England, and it
showed that the rate of HGV in patients with acute non-AB
hepatitis or chronic hepatitis was relatively low and that
it didn't differ from the rate in patients who had immune
hepatitis or alcoholic group of diseases or chronic HBV or
HCV.  So, there is no specific hepatitis association of
these agents.
[Slide]

sgg
MILLER REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
735 8th Street, S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20003-2802
(202) 546-6666
So, we kind of dropped the HGV story.  It seemed
like an unimportant virus.  But just recently there have
been two studies reported in The New England Journal of
Medicine.  This is the first one from Tillman, in Germany.
This is Michael Monza's group.  For reasons not clear, they
looked at cases of HIV infection and looked at those who
were co-infected with GBV-C in this case, but synonymous
with HCV, and basically showed that if you were infected
with HIV and then co-infected with GBV-C your survival was
very significantly improved over patients who had never
been exposed to GBV-C, and intermediate were patients who
had been previously exposed who had antibody to the
envelope GBV-C or were not viremic.  A very striking
difference.
[Slide]
That difference was shown even in patients who
had already developed AIDS, in patients who already had
AIDS.  If you were GBV-C positive your survival was much
longer than patients who were GBV-C negative or had prior
exposure to GBV.
[Slide]
One could be skeptical about a finding that one
doesn't expect, but simultaneously Jack Stapleton's group,
in Iowa, and Dr. Xiang found exactly the same thing in
another large HIV cohort.  Patients who were GBV-C/HIV co-

sgg
MILLER REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
735 8th Street, S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20003-2802
(202) 546-6666
infected have a significantly better survival than patients
who were GBV-C negative.
[Slide]
Stapleton then went on to see if he could figure
out why and they did in vitro studies where they used
peripheral blood mononuclear cells and infected them with
HIV, and then used an infectious clone for GBV-C.
Basically, what this shows is the six-day production of p24
antigen in cultured mononuclear cells.  This would be HIV
alone, so a high level p24 antigen; a significantly lower
level of p24 antigen.  This is only about a third of the
production in patients who were given HGV in cells that
were inoculated with HIV and GBV-C simultaneously, or cells
that were given HIV first, followed 24 hours later by GBV-
C.
What was dramatic is that if the cells were first
infected with GBV-C and then HIV inoculated 24 hours later,
there was a 98 percent reduction in p24 antigen production.
So, there was an in vitro inhibition, and this is the mock
infection so it is almost the same as a mock infection.
They speculated that somehow GBV-C/HGB was inhibiting the
replication of HIV; that it wasn't a matter of cell surface
receptor or entry into the cell; it was a matter of
intracellular replication by mechanisms which aren't yet
clear.

sgg
MILLER REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
735 8th Street, S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20003-2802
(202) 546-6666
[Slide]
So, we have been scratching our heads about this.
It doesn't make a lot of sense but it probably is true.  It
may be the production of intracellular cytokines from one
viral agent interfering with another, but we don't really
know at this point.
[Slide]
There are a lot of things we don't know, such as
why they sterilize needles for lethal injections.
[Laughter]
[Slide]
Anyway, that is where the HGV story is right now.
Subsequently, a Japanese group with Dr. Nishizawa reported
a new agent called TT virus -- TT for the initials of the
first patient in which this virus was found.  This is three
patients out of five that they studied with post-
transfusion hepatitis.  Shown here, in blue, are the ALT
levels and, in yellow, the level of TT viremia.
What you can see is that post-transfusion there
is the appearance of this new agent and a rough correlation
with ALT levels, sometimes a very close correlation.  They
suggested that TT was a new agent of post-transfusion
hepatitis accounting for the non-ABC cases.
[Slide]

sgg
MILLER REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
735 8th Street, S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20003-2802
(202) 546-6666
As it turns out, the characteristics of TTV are
that it is a very small virus, about 3700 nucleotides.  It
is non-envelope so it has proved to be an important agent.
It would not be killed by solvent detergent.  It is a
single-stranded, circular DNA virus.  It is clearly
transmitted parenterally but there is also evidence that it
is transmitted fecaly/orally.  And, there is evidence for
this agent that it does replicate in the liver.  There are
now an increasing number of members in this group,
including the prototype TTV virus, some later Japanese
isolates named YONBAN and SANBAN, the SEN agent that I will
talk about and many others.  So, this family is now felt to
be members of the circoviridae which are classically animal
and plant viruses.
[Slide]
The prevalence of TTV is higher than HTV, about
7.5 percent of the volunteer donors in the U.S.  This is
patients sampled prior to transfusion, so somewhere between
seven and ten percent of the population is TTV infected.
But this was using initial primers.  The Japanese used a
more inclusive primer set and found that over 19 percent of
Japanese donors were TTV infected.  I am sure if we had
used those primers in the U.S. population these numbers
would be higher.  So, it is a very prevalent agent.
[Slide]

sgg
MILLER REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
735 8th Street, S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20003-2802
(202) 546-6666
In this study, as we did with HTV, we then looked
at patients who had been prospectively followed post-
transfusion.  What we found is that among transfused
patients 26 percent were TTV negative prior to transfusion
and developed an acute TTV infection following transfusion.
This difference was highly significant.  This was highly
significantly different from those who were not transfused,
but almost five percent of patients who were not transfused
also acquired a new TTV infection while in the hospital so
this has a nosocomial route of transmission that is quite
prevalent.
[Slide]
I didn't show you on a prior slide to save time
that clearly this was a transfusion transmitted disease,
and we could sequence donor and recipient samples and prove
that there was donor-recipient transmission.  But, again,
the key was to look at the patients who had non-A-to-G
hepatitis versus those who were transfused and had no
hepatitis.  There is absolutely no difference in the rate
of TTV infection.  The rate in patients who developed
hepatitis C appeared higher but it was not significantly
higher, and it is because this group received more blood
transfusions.  So, we could show no direct association with
post-transfusion of non-ABC hepatitis.
[Slide]

sgg
MILLER REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
735 8th Street, S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20003-2802
(202) 546-6666
We looked at patients who had hepatitis C
infection.  There was no impact of coexistent TTV infection
either on the peak of the ALT level or in the rate of
chronic HCV infection.  So, these agents were the same; had
no apparent impact on other known hepatitis viruses.
[Slide]
So, this looks like deja-G all over again and we
were ready to bury the whole other viruses story when
Danieli Primi approached us with still a new agent that he
called SEN, again the initials of the patient, SEN.  He
swore this was not TTV.  He had discovered this agent using
the highly degenerate primers from TTV but felt this was
not TTV.  Well, it turns out that SEN is a highly diverse
family.  Shown here in pink is the total diversity of the
hepatitis C virus.  You can see the diversity of the SEN
family is dramatically more so than HCV.  Members of this
same family differ from each other by 50 percent in
nucleotide sequences.
[Slide]
I hate to show phylogenetic maps but just quickly
to give you the idea that there seemed to be -- and this is
from Dr. Tanaka in our own group -- there appear to be four
major groups of these circoviruses.  Here is TTV in group
2.  Here is the YONBAN, the second finding of the Japanese.
Here is still another Japanese agent called PMV.  Here is

sgg
MILLER REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
735 8th Street, S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20003-2802
(202) 546-6666
the SEN family which also includes the Japanese-discovered
agent TUS.  You can see how diverse the SEN family is and
how far away it is from TTV.  Yet, these are all
circoviridae and they have similar physical
characteristics.
[Slide]
When one goes to the same algorithms for SEN, you
find it in low prevalence in the U.S. donor population,
volunteer population, about two percent, but very high
prevalence in the Japanese population.  All of these
circoviridae are more prevalent, highly more prevalent in
Japan for reasons which aren't clear.  When you look at
parenterally exposed groups where the transfused subjects
are drug users or dialyses patients, again, very high rates
of transmission and prevalence.
[Slide]
The same procedures with SEN came up with a
different outcome.  Again, when we looked at transfused
subjects versus non-transfused subjects 30 percent of
transfused subjects developed a new SEN infection, again
highly different than the non-transfused subjects but,
again, there was a background transmission, a nosocomial
transmission even in those not transfused.
[Slide]

sgg
MILLER REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
735 8th Street, S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20003-2802
(202) 546-6666
But the difference was in this slide.  When we
looked at 12 of those same 13 cases of post-transfusion
non-ABC hepatitis, 11 out of 12, or 92 percent of them,
developed a new SEN infection post transfusion.  We were
looking at only two of the SEN agents, SEN-D and SEN-H,
because we had previously shown that these agents were in
relatively low prevalence of the donor supply and seemed to
associate with the hepatitis cases.
So, we selected the agents that might be most
likely to pay off, and it seemed to pay off in that there
was a high rate of positivity in the hepatitis cases; a
significantly lower rate in the non-hepatitis cases, but
the rate was still high in patients who didn't get
hepatitis.  Again, because this group was large and this
group was small, one could calculate that no more than five
percent of all SEN infections would have been associated
with hepatitis.  It was co-associated with hepatitis C
virus, and here is the rate of non-transfused people.  So,
we are stuck with a significant association with post-
transfusion non-ABC hepatitis, but that doesn't necessarily
mean that it is a causal association.
[Slide]
When we looked at people with other liver
diseases the rate of SEN infection, the same two agents,
was identical in patients who had non-AB hepatitis.  We

sgg
MILLER REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
735 8th Street, S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20003-2802
(202) 546-6666
looked at patients with acute liver failure because most of
these cases are unexplained.  It doesn't look like SEN is
the answer to these, and the rates in hepatitis B and C and
even non-viral liver disease are all the same.  So, the
only association of these SEN agents with hepatitis is that
they were found in a very high rate in this particular
group of post-transfusion cases.  We are waiting for
analysis of the TTV study that Blaine Hollinger is doing to


MEMORANDUM

DATE: 11/24/14

FROM: 		Ken Mitchell/EPA Region 4

TO:CLEAN POWER PLAN FOR EXISTING POWER PLANTS; DOCKET ID: OAR - 2013-0602

SUBJECT:DISCUSSION OF THE CLEAN POWER Plan at a Symposium Organized by the Duke Nicholas Institute and the Georgia Institute of Technology

SUMMARY:
EPA Region 4 and OAP participated in a symposium entitled "Shaping the Southeast's Energy Future -
Regional Electricity Trends and the EPA's Clean Power Plan" organized by the Duke Nicholas Institute
and the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, GA, on September 26, 2014.  The Clean Power Plan
for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014.
ATTENDEES:

EPA
Ken Mitchell/EPA R4
Beverly Banister/EPA R4
Julia Miller/EPA OAP

External Stakeholders
Marilyn Brown/Georgia Tech
Tim Profeta/Duke Nicholas Institute
Gary Brinkworth/TVA
Jeremy Tarr/Duke Nicholas Institute
Dan Matisoff/Georgia Tech
Myra Reece/SC Department of Health and Environmental Control
Paula Cobb/Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Luis Martinez/National Resources Defense Council
Diane Denton/Duke Energy
James McLawhorn/NC Utilities Commission Public Staff
Chuck Eaton/GA PSC
Mandy Mahoney/Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance
John Morrison/Strata Solar
Jonas Monast/Duke Nicholas Institute
Brian Toth/Southern Company
Franz Litz/Great Plains Institute
Frank Rambo/Southern Environmental Law Center
Approximately 50 additional attendees


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 92 (Friday, May 14, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26370-26373]
[FR Doc No: 2021-10262]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0341; Project Identifier AD-2021-00325-T;
Amendment 39-21529; AD 2021-09-15]
RIN 2120-AA64

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

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Model
382, 382B, 382E, 382F, and 382G airplanes, type certificated in any
category; and Model C-130A, C-130B, C-130BL, C-130E, C-130H, C-130H-30,
C-130J, C-130J-30, EC-130Q, HC-130H, KC-130H, NC-130B, NC-130, and WC-
130H airplanes, type certificated in the restricted or amateur
category. This AD was prompted by a crack found on the web attachment
flange of the center wing upper forward corner fitting. This AD
requires an eddy current surface scan for cracks of the center wing
upper and lower forward corner fittings and fasteners, a torque check
of the left and right outer-wing-to-center-wing front-beam-web-joint-
splice-angle fasteners, and repair, retorqueing, or replacement if
necessary. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition
on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective June 1, 2021.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of June 1,
2021.
    The FAA must receive comments on this AD by June 28, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this final rule, contact
Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company,
Customer Support Center, Dept. 3E1M, Zone 0591, 86 S Cobb Drive,
Marietta, GA 30063; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet https://www.lockheedmartin.com. You
may view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products
Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines,
WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available at https://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0341.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0341; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal

holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Operations is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Caplan, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Section, FAA, Atlanta ACO Branch, 1701 Columbia Avenue,
College Park, GA 30337; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA has received a report indicating that a crack was found on
the web attachment flange of the center wing upper forward corner
fitting. Loose fasteners in the wing station 220 wing joint at the
front beam web can cause internal load redistribution and consequent
cracked center wing upper and lower corner fittings and failed
fasteners in those fittings. This condition, if not addressed, could
result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane and loss of
control of the airplane. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these products.

FAA's Determination

    The FAA is issuing this AD because the agency has determined the
unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in
other products of the same type design.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Alert Service
Bulletin A382-57-99, Revision 1, dated February 17, 2021. This service
information specifies procedures for an eddy current surface scan for
cracks of the center wing upper and lower forward corner fittings and
fasteners (including the exterior of the vertical flange of the corner
fitting common to the front beam web and interior surfaces of the
corner fitting horizontal and vertical flanges common to the beam cap),
a torque check of left and right outer-wing-to-center-wing front-beam-
web-joint-splice-angle fasteners (including checking for any loose,
sheared, broken, or missing fasteners), retorqueing the outer-wing-to-
center-wing front-beam-web-joint-splice-angle fasteners, and repair or
replacement. This service information is reasonably available because
the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in the service
information already described, except as discussed under ``Differences
Between this AD and the Service Information.''

Differences Between This AD and the Service Information

    Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Alert Service Bulletin A382-57-
99, Revision 1, dated February 17, 2021, applies to Model 382, 382B,
382E, 382F, and 382G airplanes. This AD applies to Model C-130A, C-
130B, C-130BL, C-130E, C-130H, C-130H-30, C-130J, C-130J-30, EC-130Q,
HC-130H, KC-130H, NC-130B, NC-130, and WC-130H airplanes as well as the
airplanes specified in Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Alert
Service Bulletin A382-57-99, Revision 1, dated February 17, 2021. The
FAA has confirmed that all airplanes identified in paragraph (c) of
this AD can comply with the actions specified in Lockheed Martin
Aeronautics Company Alert Service Bulletin A382-57-99, Revision 1,
dated February 17, 2021.

Impact on Intrastate Aviation in Alaska

    In light of the heavy reliance on aviation for intrastate
transportation in Alaska, the FAA has fully considered the effects of
this AD (including costs to be borne by affected operators) from the
earliest possible stages of AD development. This AD is based on those
considerations, and was developed with regard to minimizing the
economic impact on operators to the extent possible, consistent with
the safety objectives of this AD. In any event, the Federal Aviation
Regulations require operators to correct an unsafe condition identified
on an airplane to ensure operation of that airplane in an airworthy
condition. The FAA has determined in this case that the requirements
are necessary and the indirect costs would be outweighed by the safety
benefits of the AD.

Justification for Immediate Adoption and Determination of the Effective
Date

    Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5
U.S.C. 551 et seq.) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and
comment procedures for rules when the agency, for ``good cause,'' finds
that those procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to
the public interest.'' Under this section, an agency, upon finding good
cause, may issue a final rule without providing notice and seeking
comment prior to issuance. Further, section 553(d) of the APA
authorizes agencies to make rules effective in less than thirty days,
upon a finding of good cause.
    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to
adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public
justifies forgoing notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule
because loose fasteners in the wing station 220 wing joint at the front
beam web can cause internal load redistribution, and consequent cracked
center wing upper and lower corner fittings and failed fasteners in
those fittings, resulting in reduced structural integrity of the
airplane and loss of control of the airplane. Accordingly, notice and
opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and contrary to
the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).
    In addition, the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days,
for the same reasons the FAA found good cause to forgo notice and
comment.

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments
about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under
ADDRESSES. Include Docket No. FAA-2021-0341 and Project Identifier AD-
2021-00325-T at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the final rule, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this final rule because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this final rule.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this AD contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this AD,

it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as
CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as
``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential
under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of
this AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Fred Caplan,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Atlanta ACO Branch, 1701
Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 404-
474-5606; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Any commentary that the
FAA receives that is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed
in the public docket for this rulemaking.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) do not
apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt
a rule without prior notice and comment. Because the FAA has determined
that it has good cause to adopt this rule without notice and comment,
RFA analysis is not required.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 20 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection, torque check, and retorque  40 work-hours x $85 per               $0          $3,400         $68,000
                                         hour = $3,400.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary
replacements that would be required based on the results of the
inspection. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft
that might need these replacements:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Action                    Labor cost                 Parts cost                Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement...................  Up to 120 work-hours x  Up to $100.................  Up to $10,300.
                                 $85 per hour = Up to
                                 $10,200.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost
estimates for the on-condition repairs 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.
    The FAA is 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:
    Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866.

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:

2021-09-15 Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics
Company: Amendment 39-21529; Docket No. FAA-2021-0341; Project
Identifier AD-2021-00325-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective June 1, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed
Martin Aeronautics Company Model 382, 382B, 382E, 382F, and 382G
airplanes, type certificated in any category; and Model C-130A, C-
130B, C-130BL, C-130E, C-130H, C-130H-30, C-130J, C-130J-30, EC-
130Q, HC-130H, KC-130H, NC-130B, NC-130, and WC-130H airplanes, type
certificated in the restricted or amateur category. The restricted
and amateur category airplanes were originally manufactured by
Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company;
current type certificate holders include, but are not limited to,
those specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (9) of this AD.
    (1) LeSEA Model C-130A airplanes, Type Certificate Data Sheet
(TCDS) A34SO, Revision 1.
    (2) T.B.M, Inc. (transferred from Central Air Services, Inc.),
Model C-130A airplanes, TCDS A39CE, Revision 3.
    (3) Western International Aviation, Inc., Model C-130A
airplanes, TCDS A33NM.
    (4) USDA Forest Service Model C-130A airplanes, TCDS A15NM,
Revision 4.
    (5) Snow Aviation International, Inc., Model C-130A airplanes,
TCDS TQ3CH, Revision 1.
    (6) Heavylift Helicopter, Inc. (transferred from Hemet Valley
Flying Service), Model C-130A, TCDS A31NM airplanes, Revision 1.

    (7) Heavylift Helicopters, Inc., Model C-130B airplanes, TCDS
A35NM, Revision 1.
    (8) Hawkins & Powers Aviation, Inc., Model HP-C-130A airplanes,
TCDS A30NM, Revision 1.
    (9) Coulson Aviation (USA), Inc., Model EC-130Q airplanes, TCDS
T00019LA, Revision 2.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of a crack found on the web
attachment flange of the center wing upper forward corner fitting.
The FAA is issuing this AD to address loose fasteners in a certain
wing joint at the front beam web, which can cause internal load
redistribution, and consequent cracked center wing upper and lower
corner fittings and failed fasteners in those fittings, resulting in
reduced structural integrity of the airplane and loss of control of
the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection, Torque Check, and Corrective Actions

    At the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph (g)(1)
or (2) of this AD, do an eddy current surface scan for cracks of the
center wing upper and lower forward corner fittings and fasteners,
and do a torque check of the left and right outer-wing-to-center-
wing front-beam-web-joint-splice-angle fasteners (including checking
for any loose, sheared, broken, or missing fasteners), in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Lockheed Martin Aeronautics
Company Alert Service Bulletin A382-57-99, Revision 1, dated
February 17, 2021. If any cracking is found during the inspection,
repair before further flight using a method approved in accordance
with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD. If any
loose fastener is found during the torque check, retorque the
fastener before further flight, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company
Alert Service Bulletin A382-57-99, Revision 1, dated February 17,
2021. If any sheared, broken, or missing fastener is found during
the torque check, replace the fastener before further flight.
    (1) For airplanes that have accumulated 2,500 or more flight
hours as of the effective date of this AD: Within 90 days after the
effective date of this AD.
    (2) For airplanes that have accumulated less than 2,500 flight
hours as of the effective date of this AD: Within 270 days after the
effective date of this AD.

(h) No Reporting

    Although Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Alert Service
Bulletin A382-57-99, Revision 1, dated February 17, 2021, specifies
to report inspection findings, this AD does not require any report.

(i) Special Flight Permit

    Special flight permits, as described in 14 CFR 21.197 and
21.199, are not allowed.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Atlanta ACO Branch, 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 responsible Flight Standards Office,
as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of
the certification office, send it to the attention of the person
identified in Related Information.
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration 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 Branch, FAA, to make
those findings. To be approved, the repair, modification deviation,
or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the
airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.

(k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Fred Caplan,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Atlanta ACO Branch, 1701
Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:
404-474-5606; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(l) 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 Alert Service Bulletin
A382-57-99, Revision 1, dated February 17, 2021.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company,
Customer Support Center, Dept. 3E1M, Zone 0591, 86 S Cobb Drive,
Marietta, GA 30063; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet https://www.lockheedmartin.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (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, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on April 23, 2021.
Gaetano A. Sciortino,
Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-10262 Filed 5-11-21; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 202 (Tuesday, October 20, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63601-63603]
[FR Doc No: 2015-26580]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76159; File No. SR-EDGX-2015-44]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt
Rule 3.20, Influencing or Rewarding Employees of Others, Concerning
Gifts and Gratuities in Relation to the Business of the Employer of the
Recipient

October 15, 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 September 30, 2015, EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Exchange has designated this proposal as a ``non-controversial''
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon
filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to adopt Rule 3.20 to conform to the
rules of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'')
for purposes of an agreement between the Exchange and FINRA pursuant to
Rule 17d-2 under the Act.\5\ The Exchange also proposes to adopt Rule
3.20 to conform to the rules of BATS Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'') and BATS
Y-Exchange, Inc. (``BYX'').\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 240.17d-2.
    \6\ See SR-BATS-2015-79 and SR-BYX-2015-43 (filed September 30,
2015) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness to Amend Rule
3.22 to Conform to FINRA Rule 3220).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    Pursuant to Rule 17d-2 under the Act,\7\ the Exchange and FINRA
entered into an agreement to allocate regulatory responsibility for
common rules (the ``17d-2 Agreement''). The 17d-2 Agreement covers
common members of the Exchange and FINRA and allocates to FINRA
regulatory responsibility, with respect to common members, for the
following: (i) Examination of common members of the Exchange and FINRA
for compliance with certain federal securities laws, rules and
regulations and rules of the Exchange that the Exchange has certified
as identical or substantially similar to FINRA rules; (ii)
investigation of common members of the Exchange and FINRA for
violations of certain federal securities laws, rules or regulations, or
Exchange rules that the Exchange has certified as identical or
substantially identical to a FINRA rule; and (iii) enforcement of
compliance by common members with certain federal securities laws,
rules and regulations, and the rules of the Exchange that the Exchange
has certified as identical or substantially similar to FINRA rules.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 240.17d-2.
    \8\ See Securities and Exchange Release No. 62079 (May11, 2010),
75 FR 28080 (May 19, 2010) (approving File No. 4-598).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 17d-2 Agreement included a certification by the Exchange that
states that the requirements contained in certain Exchange rules are
identical to, or substantially similar to, certain FINRA rules that
have been identified as comparable. The Exchange does not currently
maintain a rule similar to FINRA Rule 3220 governing a Member's giving
of gifts. To conform to comparable FINRA rules for purposes of the 17d-
2 Agreement, the Exchange

proposes [sic] adopt Rule 3.20, Influencing or Rewarding Employees of
Others, that is identical to FINRA Rule 3220. The proposed rule text is
also identical to New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NYSE'') Rule 3220,
which has been approved by the Commission.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59965 (May 21,
2009), 74 FR 25783 (May 29, 2009) (SR-NYSE-2009-25).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that these changes will help to avoid
confusion among Members of the Exchange that are also members of FINRA
by further aligning the Exchange Rules with FINRA Rule 3220. The
proposed adoption of Rule 3.20 is designed to enable the Exchange to
incorporate Rule 3.20 into the 17d-2 Agreement, further harmonizing
regulation of Members that are also members of FINRA. For the avoidance
of doubt, Rule 3.20 would equally apply to Exchange-only Members as the
Exchange believes it appropriately protects against improprieties that
might arise when substantial gifts or monetary payments are given to
certain persons. The Exchange will issue a Regulatory Notice to its
Members, including Exchange-only Members that may not also be FINRA
Members, and those Members registered with FINRA, clarifying that
FINRA's interpretive guidance related to FINRA Rule 3220 is considered
part of Exchange Rule 3.20, and that all Members are required to
regulate their conduct according to Rule 3.20 and the interpretive
guidance related to FINRA Rule 3220.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See, e.g., FINRA's interpretative guidance concerning
business entertainment expenses, including a June 24, 1999, Letter
to Henry H. Hopkins and Sarah McCafferty, T. Rowe Price Investment
Services, Inc. This interpretative letter and other interpretive
guidance concerning gifts and gratuities expenses are currently
available at FINRA's Web site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As amended, like FINRA Rule 3220(a), proposed paragraph (a) of Rule
3.20 would prevent gifts in excess of $100.00 per individual per year
where the gift or gratuity is in relation to the business of the
employee \11\ of the recipient. A gift of any kind would be considered
a gratuity. The Rule would also contain an express exclusion for
payments made pursuant to bona fide, written employment contracts.
Specifically, like FINRA Rule 3220(b), proposed paragraph (b) of Rule
3.20 would state that the rule would not apply to contracts of
employment with or to compensation for services rendered by persons
enumerated in paragraph (a) of the Rule, provided that there is in
existence prior to the time of employment or before the services are
rendered, a written agreement between the member and the person who is
to be employed to perform such services. Proposed paragraph (c) would
require such agreement to include the nature of the proposed
employment, the amount of the proposed compensation, and the written
consent of such person's employer or principal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Commission notes that both FINRA Rule 3220 and proposed
EDGX Rule 3.20 limit gifts and gratuities in relation to the
employer of the recipient, rather than those in relation to the
``employee'' of the recipient as stated above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Rule would also require each Member to maintain a separate
record of all gifts or gratuities. Like FINRA Rule 3220(c), proposed
paragraph (c) of Rule 3.20 would require a separate record of all
payments or gratuities in any amount known to the member, the
employment agreement referred to in proposed paragraph (b) of Rule 3.20
and any employment compensation paid as a result thereof shall be
retained by the member for the period specified by Exchange Act Rule
17a-4.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 240.17a-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In early 2014, the Exchange and its affiliate, EDGA Exchange, Inc.
(``EDGA'') received approval to effect a merger (the ``Merger'') of the
Exchange's parent company, Direct Edge Holdings LLC, with BATS Global
Markets, Inc., the parent of BZX and the BYX (together with BZX, EDGA
and EDGX, the ``BGM Affiliated Exchanges'').\13\ In the context of the
Merger, the BGM Affiliated Exchanges are working to align their rules,
retaining only intended differences between the BGM Affiliated
Exchanges. Thus, the proposed text of Rule 3.20 is also identical to
recent rule changes filed with the Commission by BZX and BYX to adopt
identical rule text to that proposed herein and FINRA Rule 3220. This
proposed rule change would enable the Exchange to adopt rules that
correspond to rules of BYX and BZX and provide a consistent rule set
across each of the BGM Affiliated Exchanges.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71449 (January 30,
2014), 79 FR 6961 (February 5, 2014) (SR-EDGX-2013-43; SR-EDGA-2013-
34).
    \14\ The Exchange notes that EDGA intends to file an identical
proposal with the Commission to adopt Rule 3.20, Influencing or
Rewarding Employees of Others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\15\ which requires, among other things,
that the Exchange's rules be designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system. The Exchange believes that the
proposed rule change will further these requirements by providing
greater harmonization between Exchange and FINRA rules of similar
purpose, resulting in greater uniformity and less burdensome and more
efficient regulatory compliance. As such, the proposed rule change
would foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
facilitating transactions in securities and would remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In addition, the proposed rule change would provide greater
harmonization between rules of similar purpose on the BGM Affiliated
Exchanges, resulting in greater uniformity and less burdensome and more
efficient regulatory compliance and understanding of Exchange Rules. As
such, the proposed rule change would foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities and would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of
a free and open market and a national market system. Similarly, the
Exchange also believes that, by harmonizing the rules across each BGM
Affiliated Exchange, the proposal will enhance the Exchange's ability
to fairly and efficiently regulate its Members, meaning that the
proposed rule change would promote just and equitable principles of
trade in accordance with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would
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 competitive issues but rather to provide
greater harmonization among Exchange and FINRA rules of similar
purpose, resulting in less burdensome and more efficient regulatory
compliance for common members and facilitating FINRA's performance of
its regulatory functions under the 17d-2 Agreement. In addition,
allowing the Exchange to implement substantively identical rules that
apply to all members of the BGM Affiliated Exchanges across each of the
BGM Affiliated Exchanges does not present any competitive issues, but
rather is designed to provide greater

harmonization among Exchange, BZX, BYX, and EDGA rules of similar
purpose.

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

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

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

    The Exchange has designated this rule filing as non-controversial
under Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \17\ and paragraph (f)(6) of Rule
19b-4 thereunder.\18\ The proposed rule change effects a change that
(A) does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the
public interest; (B) does not impose any significant burden on
competition; and (C) by its terms, does not become operative for 30
days after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest; provided that the self-regulatory organization
has given the Commission written notice of its intent to file the
proposed rule change, along with a brief description and 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (1)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (2) for the protection
of investors; or (3) 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 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 proposal is
consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the
following methods:

Electronic comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-EDGX-2015-44 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-EDGX-2015-44. 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 will also be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-EDGX-2015-44 and should be
submitted on or before November 10, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-26580 Filed 10-19-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P