[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 26 (Thursday, February 7, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2630-2632]
[FR Doc No: 2019-01386]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85031; File No. SR-CboeBZX-2018-096]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Its Fee Schedule

February 1, 2019.
    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 December 26, 2018, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BZX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule for its equity
options platform (``BZX Options'') to (i) reduce the standard rebates
for Market Maker orders that add liquidity in Penny Pilot (``Penny'')
and Non-Penny Pilot (``Non-Penny'') Securities; (ii) exclude Firm,
Broker Dealer (``BD'') and Joint Back Office (``JBO'') orders that add
liquidity from the NBBO Setter Tiers, (iii) amend the criteria for NBBO
Setter Tier 3, (iv) reduce the rebates for Tier 1 of both the Market
Maker Penny Pilot and Non-Penny Pilot Add Volume Tiers; and (v) add a
new Away Market Maker Penny Pilot Add Volume Tier, effective January 2,
2019.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule for its equity
options platform (``BZX Options'') to (i) reduce the standard rebates
for Market Maker orders that add liquidity in Penny Pilot (``Penny'')
and Non-Penny Pilot (``Non-Penny'') Securities; (ii) exclude Firm,
Broker Dealer (``BD'') and Joint Back Office (``JBO'') orders that add
liquidity from the NBBO Setter Tiers, (iii) amend the criteria for NBBO
Setter Tier 3, (iv) reduce the rebates for Tier 1 of both the Market
Maker Penny Pilot and Non-Penny Pilot Add Volume Tiers; and (v) add a
new Away Market Maker Penny Pilot Add Volume Tier, effective January 2,
2019.
Market Maker Add Rebates, Penny and Non-Penny
    Currently, the Exchange applies fee code PM to Market Maker orders
that add liquidity in Penny Securities and provides such orders a
standard rebate of $0.31 per contract. The Exchange also currently
applies fee code NM to Market Maker orders that add liquidity in Non-
Penny Securities and provides such orders a rebate of $0.42 per
contract. The Exchange proposes to reduce the standard rebates for
these orders. Particularly, the Exchange proposes to reduce the rebate
for Market Maker orders that add liquidity in Penny Securities from
$0.31 per contract to $0.29 per contract. The Exchange proposes to
reduce the rebate for Market Maker orders that add liquidity in Non-
Penny Securities from $0.42 per contract to $0.40 per contract. The
Exchange notes the reduced rebates are in line with the rebates offered
at other Exchanges for similar transactions.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See e.g., Nasdaq Gemini Pricing Schedule, Section 3, Regular
Order Fees and Rebates, which provides a standard Maker rebate for
Market Makers of $0.28 per contract for Penny Symbols and $0.40 per
contract for Non-Penny Symbols.

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

NBBO Setter Tiers
Firm, BD and JBO Orders
    The Exchange currently offers five NBBO Setter Tiers under footnote
4, which provide an additional rebate per contract ranging from $0.01
to $0.05 for qualifying Non-Customer \4\ orders that add liquidity and
establish a new National Best Bid or Offer (``NBBO'') and yield fee
code PF, PM or PN. The Exchange proposes to limit the applicability of
the NBBO Setter Tiers to fee codes PM and PN and exclude orders that
yield fee code PF (i.e., Firm/BD/JBO orders that add liquidity in Penny
Securities). The Exchange no longer wishes to extend this additional
incentive to such orders. The Exchange notes that orders that yield fee
code PF already have the opportunity to receive enhanced rebates under
the Firm, Broker Dealer and Joint Back Office Penny Pilot Add Volume
Tiers.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``Non-Customer'' applies to any transaction identified by a
Member for clearing which is not in the Customer range at the OCC,
excluding any transaction for Broker Dealer or a ``Professional'' as
defined in Exchange Rule 16.1.
    \5\ See Cboe BZX Options Fee Schedule, Footnote 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NBBO Setter Tier 3
    The Exchange next proposes to modify the required criteria under
NBBO Setter Tier 3. Currently under Tier 3, a Member may receive an
additional rebate of $0.03 per share where they have an: (i) ADAV \6\
in Non-Customer orders greater than or equal to 0.50% of average OCV;
\7\ and (ii) an ADAV in Firm, Market Maker and Away Market Maker orders
that establish a new NBBO greater than or equal to 0.05% of average
OCV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ``ADAV'' means average daily added volume calculated as the
number of contracts added per day. See Cboe BZX Options Fee
Schedule.
    \7\ OCC Customer Volume'' or ``OCV'' means the total equity and
ETF options volume that clears in the Customer range at the Options
Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') for the month for which the fees
apply, excluding volume on any day that the Exchange experiences an
Exchange System Disruption and on any day with a scheduled early
market close. See Cboe BZX Options Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend the ADAV threshold in the first
prong. Specifically, the first prong of Tier 3 would be amended to
require an increased ADAV in Non-Customer orders greater than or equal
to 0.80% of average OCV (instead of 0.50%).
Market Maker Volume Tiers
    The Exchange currently offers three Market Maker Penny Pilot Add
Volume Tiers under Footnote 6, and two Market Maker Non-Penny Pilot Add
Volume Tiers under footnote 7, of the Fee Schedule which provide
enhanced rebates per contract to a Member's order that yields fee code
PM and NM, respectively, upon satisfying monthly volume criteria. The
Exchange wishes to reduce the rebates under Tier 1 of both the Market
Maker Penny and Non-Penny Add Volume Tier programs. Currently, a member
may receive an enhanced rebate of $0.35 per contract under Tier 1 of
the Market Maker Penny Add Volume Tier program where the Member has an
ADAV in Market Maker orders greater than or equal to 0.05% of average
OCV. The Exchange proposes to reduce the rebate under Tier 1 from $0.35
per contract to $0.33 per contract. Under Tier 1 of the Market Maker
Non-Penny Add Volume Tier Program, a Member may receive an enhanced
rebate of $0.45 per contract where the Member has an ADAV in Market
Maker orders greater than or equal to 0.10% of average OCV. The
Exchange proposes to reduce this rebate from $0.45 per contract to
$0.43 per contract.
Away Market Maker Volume Tier
    Currently, Away Market Maker orders that add liquidity in Penny
Securities (i.e., yield fee code PN), receive a standard rebate of
$0.26 per contract. The Exchange currently offers an enhanced rebate of
$0.45 per contract for orders yielding fee code PN under the Away
Market Maker Penny Pilot Add Volume Tier program under Footnote 10 of
the Fee Schedule, where a Member satisfies specific monthly volume
criteria. The Exchange proposes to add a new volume tier under Footnote
10. Particularly, the Exchange proposes to provide that orders yielding
fee code PN may qualify for an enhanced rebate of $0.38 per contract
where a Member has an ADAV in Non-Customer, Non-Market Maker orders
greater than or equal to 0.50% of average OCV. In connection with the
proposed new tier, the Exchange proposes to renumber current Tier 1
under this program to Tier 2.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the Section 6 of the Act,\8\ in general, and Section 6(b)(4),\9\
in particular, as it is designed to provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its Members
and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the Exchange believes reducing the standard rebates for
Market Maker orders that add liquidity in Penny and Non-Penny
Securities is reasonable because Market Maker orders that add liquidity
still receive a rebate for doing so (albeit a lesser rebate than
before) and because the Exchange believes the proposed changes will
still continue to encourage such transactions. Additionally, the
Exchange notes that the proposed standard rebates are still in line
with, and similar to, rebates offered by other exchanges for similar
transactions.\10\ The Exchange believes the proposed changes are
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they apply uniformly
to all Market Makers that add liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See e.g., Nasdaq Gemini Pricing Schedule, Section 3,
Regular Order Fees and Rebates, which provides a standard Maker
rebate for Market Makers of $0.28 per contract for Penny Symbols and
$0.40 per contract for Non-Penny Symbols.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next, the Exchange believes that its proposal to remove fee coded
PF from footnote 4, NBBO Setter Tiers, is reasonable, equitable and
non-discriminatory because orders that yield fee code PF will merely no
longer receive an additional incentive rebate. Additionally, although
these orders will no longer be able to qualify for NBBO Setter Tiers,
there are additional ways for orders yielding fee code PF to receive
enhanced rebates, such as via the Firm, Broker Dealer and Joint Back
Office Penny Pilot Add Volume Tiers.\11\ The Exchange believes the
proposed change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it
applies uniformly to all orders that yield fee code PF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Cboe BZX Options Fee Schedule, Footnote 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange next notes that volume-based discounts such as those
currently maintained on the Exchange have been widely adopted by
options exchanges and are equitable because they are open to all
Members on an equal basis and provide additional benefits or discounts
that are reasonably related to (i) the value of an exchange's market
quality; (ii) associated with higher levels of market activity, such as
higher levels of liquidity provision and/or growth patterns; and (iii)
introduction of higher volumes of orders into the price and volume
discovery processes. While the proposed modification to the existing
NBBO Setter Tier 3 makes such tier more difficult to attain, the
Exchange believes it continues to incentivize Members to send Non-
Customer orders to the Exchange in an effort to qualify or continue to
qualify for the additional rebate made available by the tier. The
Exchange also believes the proposed change is reasonable as the rebate
corresponding to NBBO Setter Tier 3 is not changing. The Exchange
further

notes that the Exchange believes the tier criteria, as amended, is more
commensurate with the corresponding rebate offered. The Exchange
believes the proposed change is equitable and nondiscriminatory because
the proposed change applies uniformly to all Market Makers and Away
Market Makers.
    The Exchange believes reducing the rebates under Tier 1 of both the
Market Maker Penny and Non-Penny Add Volume Tiers is reasonable because
Market Maker orders that add liquidity and meet the corresponding
required volume criteria still receive an enhanced rebate for doing so
(albeit a lesser rebate than before) and because the Exchange believes
the proposed changes will continue to encourage such transactions. The
Exchange also believes the enhanced rebates, even as amended, will
continue to provide an incremental incentive for Members to strive for
higher tier level, which provides increasingly higher rebates.
Additionally, the Exchange notes that the proposed standard rebates are
still in line with, and similar to, rebates offered by other exchanges
for similar transactions.\12\ The Exchange believes the proposed
changes are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they
apply uniformly to all Market Makers that add liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See e.g., Nasdaq Gemini Pricing Schedule, Section 3,
Regular Order Fees and Rebates, which provides enhanced Maker
rebates for Market Makers between $0.30-$0.45 per contract for Penny
Symbols and between $0.42-$0.75 per contract for Non-Penny Symbols.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposal to add a new Away Market Maker
Add Volume Tier under footnote 10 is reasonable because it provides
Members an additional opportunity to receive an enhanced rate for
orders that add liquidity and is a reasonable means to encourage
Members to increase their liquidity on the Exchange. Increased
liquidity would benefit all investors. The Exchange further believes
the proposed threshold is commensurate with the proposed enhanced
rebate. The proposed fee change is equitable and non-discriminatory
because it applies uniformly to all Members.

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

    The Exchange believes the proposed amendments to its Fee Schedule
would not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange
does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden
on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed changes for
each separate type of market participant will be assessed equally to
all such market participants. While different fees are assessed to
different market participants in some circumstances, these different
market participants have different obligations and different
circumstances as discussed above. For example, Market Makers have
quoting obligations that other market participants do not have.
Further, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes
represent a significant departure from previous pricing offered by the
Exchange or pricing offered by the Exchange's competitors. Members may
opt to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe that
alternatives offer them better value. Accordingly, the Exchange does
not believe that the proposed change will impair the ability of Members
or competing venues to maintain their competitive standing in the
financial markets.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \13\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \14\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CboeBZX-2018-096 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CboeBZX-2018-096. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CboeBZX-2018-096 and should be submitted
on or before February 22, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-01386 Filed 2-6-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Chapter VI, Page 1 of 7 Chapter VI. Bibliography Ahuja, L. R., A. N. Sharpley, M. Yamamoto, R. G. Menzel. 1981. The depth of rainfall runoff soil interactions as determined by 32P. Water Resources Research. 17( 4): 969 974.

Ahuja, L. R. 1986. Characterization and modeling of chemical transfer to runoff. Advances in Soil Science 4: 149 188.

Ahuja, L. R. 1982. Release of a soluble chemical from a soil to runoff. Transactions of the ASCE 25: 948 953.

Ahuja, L. R. and O. R. Lehman. 1983. The extent and nature of rainfall soil interaction in the release of soluble chemicals to runoff. J Environ Qual 12: 34 40.

Banks, R. B. 1975. Some features of wind action on shallow lakes. J Environ Engineering Division, ASCE 101( EE5): 813 827.

Best, L., R. Whitmore, G. Booth. 1990. Use of cornfields by birds during the breeding season: The importance of edge habitat. Am Midl Nat 123: 84 99.

Burns, L. A. 1985. Models for predicting the fate of synthetic chemicals in aquatic ecosystems, in: Validation and predictability of laboratory methods for assessing the fate and effects of contaminants in aquatic ecosystems, ASTM STP 865, T. P. Boyle, ed., American Society of Testing Materials, Philadelphia, pp. 176 190.

Burns, L. A. 1997. Exposure Analysis Modeling System ( EXAMS II) Users Guide to Version 2.97.5. EPA/ 600R 97/ 047, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Burns, L. A. 2000. Exposure Analysis Modeling System ( EXAMS) Users Manual and System Documentation. EPA/ 600/ R 00/ 081, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Burns, L. A., D. M. Cline, R. P. Lassiter. 1982. Exposure Analysis Modeling System ( EXAMS): User Manual and System Documentation. EPA/ 600/ 3 82 023, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Carsel, R. F., J. C. Imhoff, P. R. Hummel, J. M. Cheplick, A. S. Donigan Jr. 1997. PRZM 3, A Model for Predicting Pesticide Fate in the Crop Root and Unsaturated Soil Zones: User Manual for Release 3.0. National Exposure Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, GA.

Carsel, R. F., C. N. Smith, L. A. Mulkey, J. D. Dean, P. Jowise. 1984. Users Manual Pesticide Root Zone Model ( PRZM). Rep. EPA/ 600/ 3 84 109. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, GA. Chapter VI, Page 2 of 7 Cronshey, R. G. 1983. Discussion of " Antecedent Moisture Condition Probabilities." J Irrigation Drainage Engineering 109( 2): 296 299.

Cusler, E. L. 1984. Diffusion: Mass transfer in fluid systems. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Donigan, A. S., H. H. Beyerlein, H. H. Davis, N. H. Crawford. 1977. Agricultural Runoff Management ( ARM) Model, Version II, Refinement and Testing. Rep. EPA/ 600/ 3 77 08. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Athens GA.

Driver, C. J., M. W. Ligotke, P. Van Voris, B. D. McVeety, D. B. Brown. 1991. Routes of uptake and their relative contribution to the toxicologic response of northern bobwhite ( Colinus virginianus) to an organophosphate pesticide. Environ Toxicol Chem 10: 21 33.

ECOFRAM, Terrestrial Workgroup. 1999. ECOFRAM Terrestrial Draft Report. May 10, 1999. www. epa. gov/ oppefed1/ ecorisk/ index. htm ECOFRAM, Aquatic Workgroup. 1999. ECOFRAM Aquatic Report. May 4, 1999. www. epa. gov/ oppefed1/ ecorisk/ index. htm Edwards, W. M., M. J. Shipitalo, R. Lai, L. B. Owens. 1997. Rapid changes in concentration of herbicides in corn field surface depressions. J Soil Water Conservation 52( 4): 277 281.

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel. 1996a. A set of scientific issues being considered by the Agency in connection with EPA's ecological risk assessment of carbofuran flowable products. http:// www. epa. gov/ oppefed1/ ecorisk/ carbofur. htm FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel. 1996b. A set of scientific issues being considered by the Agency in connection with EPA's corn cluster ecological risk assessment. http:// www. epa. gov/ oppefed1/ ecorisk/ sapreprt. htm FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel. 2000. A set of scientific issues being considered by the Environmental Protection Agency regarding: Session I. Implementation plan for probabilistic ecological assessment: a consultation.

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel. 2001. A set of scientific issues being considered by the Environmental Protection Agency regarding: Probabilistic models and methodologies: advancing the ecological risk assessment process in the EPA Office of Pesticide Programs. http:// www. epa. gov/ scipoly/ sap/ 2001/ march/ march132001. pdf Chapter VI, Page 3 of 7 Frere, M. H., J. D. Ross, L. J. Lane. 1980. The nutrient submodel. In CREAMS: A field scale model for chemicals, runoff, and erosion from agricultural management systems. 65 87. W. G Kniesel, ed. USDA Conservation Research Report 26. Washington, DC.

Gray, D. D., Katz, P. G., deMonsabert, S. M., and Congo, N. P. 1982. Antecedent moisture probabilities. J Irrigation Drainage Division, ASCE 108( IR2): 107 114.

Haith, D. A. 1980. A mathematical model for estimating pesticide losses in runoff. J Environ Qual 9( 3): 428 433.

Haith, D. A. 1986. Simulated regional variations in pesticide runoff. J Environ Qual 15( 1): 5 8.

Haith, D. A. and R. C. Loehr. 1979. Effectiveness of Soil and Water Conservation Practices for Pollution Control, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 600/ 3 79 106.

Havis, R. N., R. E. Smith, D. D. Adrian. 1992. Partitioning solute between infiltration and overland flow. Wat Resources Res 28( 10): 2569 2580.

Hawkins, R. H. 1978. Runoff curve numbers with varying site moisture. J Irrigation Drainage Division, ASCE 104( IR4): 389 398.

Hawkins, R. H., A. T. Hjelmfelt, A. W. Zevenberger. 1985. Runoff probability, storm depth, and curve number. J Irrigation Drainage Engineering 111( 4): 330 340.

Hjelmfelt, A. T. Jr., K. A. Kramer, and R. E. Burwell. 1982. Curve numbers as random variables. Proc. Int. Symp. on Rainfall Runoff Modeling. Water Resourc. Publ., Littleton CO. 365 373.

Hjelmfelt, A. T. 1983. Discussion of ` Antecedent Moisture Probabilities'. J Irrigation Drainage Engineering 109( 2): 300.

Hjelmfelt, A. T. 1991. Investigation of curve number techniques. J Hydraulic Engineering 117( 6): 725 737.

Hjelmfelt, A. T., D. A. Woodward, G. Conaway, et al. 2001. Curve Numbers, Recent Developments. Proc. 29th Congress of the Intr. Assoc. for Hydraulic Research. Beijing, China, ( CD ROM), Sept. 2001.

Hyer, K. E., G. M. Hornberger, J. S. Herman. 2001. Processes controlling episodic streamwater transport of atrazine and other agrichemicals in an agricultural watershed. J Hydrology 254: 47 66. Chapter VI, Page 4 of 7 Knisel, W. G., F. M. Davis, and R. A. Leornard. 1994. GLEAMS VERSION 2.0 Part III: User Manual. USDA ARS, Coastal Plain Experiment Station. Southeast Watershed Research Laboratory. Tifton, Georgia, 31793.

Kottegoda, N. T. and N. E. Raiteri. 2000. Statistical modeling of daily streamflows using rainfall input and curve number technique. J Hydrology 234: 170 186.

Liss, P. S. 1973. Processes of gas exchange across an air water interface. Deep Sea Research 20( 3): 221 238.

Mackay, D. and A. T. K. Yuen. 1983. Mass transfer coefficient correlations for volatilization of organic solutes from water. Environ Sci Technol 17( 4): 211 217.

McCuen, R. H. 2002. Approach to confidence interval estimation for curve numbers. J Hydrologic Engineering 7( 1): 43 48.

Mineau, P. 2002. Estimating the probability of bird mortality from pesticide sprays on the basis of the field study record. Environ Toxicol Chem 21: 1497 1506.

Mironenko, E. V. and Y. A. Pachepsky. 1998. Estimating transport of chemicals from soil to ponding water. J Hydrology 208: 53 61.

Neitsch, S. L., J. R. Arnold, J. R. Kiniry, J. R. Williams, and K. W. King. 2002. Soil and Water Assessment Tool, Theoretical Documentation, Version 2000. Grassland, Soil, and Water Research Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, USDA Temple Texas. Published by Texas Water Resources Institute, College Station, TX. TWRI Report TR 191.

NRCS. 2003. National engineering handbook. Section 4: Hydrology. National Soil Conservation Service ( formerly Soil Conservation Service), USDA, Washington, DC. Available online at http:// www. nrcs. usda. gov/ technical/ ENG/ neh. html Ponce, V. M. and R. H. Hawkins. 1996. Runoff curve number: Has it reached maturity? J Hydrologic Engineering 1( 1): 11 19.

Ralliston, R. E. and R. C. Cronshey. 1979. Discussion of " Runoff Curve Number with Site Varying Moisture" by R. E. Hawkins. J Irrigation Drainage Division, ASCE 105( IR4): 439 441.

Ruddy, B. C. and K. J. Hitt. 1990. Summary of selected characteristics of large reservoirs in the United States and Puerto Rico, 1988. U. S. Geological Survey Open File Report 90 163, Denver, CO.

Schwarzenbach, R. P., P. M. Gschwend, D. M. Dieter. 1993. Environmental organic chemistry. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Chapter VI, Page 5 of 7 Snyder, I. K. and D. A. Woolhiser. 1985. Effect of infiltration on chemical transport into overland flow. Transactions of the ASAE 28: 1450 1457.

Steenhuis, T. S. and M. F. Walter. 1980. Closed form solution for pesticide loss in runoff water. Transactions of the ASAE 23: 615 628.

U. S. Department of Agriculture ( USDA). 1982. SCS Agriculture Handbook Number 590: Ponds  Planning, Design, Construction.

U. S. Department of Agriculture ( USDA). 1997. SCS Agriculture Handbook Number 590: Ponds  Planning, Design, Construction ( Revised). 51 pp.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( USEPA). 1993. Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook. EPA/ 600/ R 13/ 187a, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( USEPA). 1997. Exposure Factors Handbook: Update EPA/ 600/ P 96/ 002FA, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( USEPA). 1998. Chapter 3: Watershed drainage area to volume overview. In Proposed methods for basin scale estimation of pesticide concentrations in flowing water and reservoirs for tolerance reassessment. FIFRA SAP July 29 30, 1998. www. epa. gov/ oscpmont/ sap/ 1998/ index. htm U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( USEPA). 1999. Farm Food Chain Module: Background and Implementation for the Multimedia, Multipathway, and Multiple Receptor Risk Assessment ( 3MRA) Model for HWIR 99. Office of Solid Waste, Washington, DC.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( USEPA). 2000a. A progress report for advancing ecological assessment methods in OPP: A consultation with the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel. Overview Document. http:// www. epa. gov/ oscpmont/ sap/ 2000/ probover. pdf U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( USEPA). 2000b. Technical progress report of the implementation plan for probabilistic ecological assessments: Aquatic systems. http:// www. epa. gov/ oscpmont/ sap/ 2000/ april/ probaq. pdf U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( USEPA). 2000c. Policy for Estimating Environmental Concentrations for Pesticides Used on Rice. Water Quality Technical Team Memorandum. Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( USEPA). 2002. Pesticide Root Zone Model ( PRZM) Field and Orchard Crop Scenarios: Standard Procedures for Conducting Quality Control and Chapter VI, Page 6 of 7 Quality Assurance. Internal Environmental Fate and Effects Division document. November 15, 2001. 27 pp.

Vanderborght, J. P. and R. Wollast. 1977. Mass transfer properties in sediments near the benthic boundary layer. In : J. C. J. Nihoul, ed. Bottom Turbulence. Proceedings of the 8th International Liege Colloquium on Ocean Hydrodynamics. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co., Amsterdam, p. 209 219.

Van Mullem J. A., D. E. Woodward, R. H. Hawkins, A. T. Hjelmfelt, Q. D. Quan. 2002. Runoff curve number method: Beyond the handbook, 2002, Second Federal Interagency Hydrologic Modeling Conference, Las Vegas, NV.

Vose, D. 1996. Quantitative risk analysis: A guide to Monte Carlo simulation modeling. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons Publishers.

Wallach, R., W. A. Jury, W. F. Spencer. 1980. Modeling the losses of soil applied chemicals in runoff: Lateral irrigation versus precipitation. Soil Science Society of America J 52: 605 612.

Wallach, R., G. Grigorin, J. Rivlin. 2001. A comprehensive mathematical model for transport of soil dissolved chemicals by overland flow. J Hydrology 247: 85 89.

Wallach, R. and van Genuchten. 1990. A physically based model for predicting solute transfer from soil solution to rainfall induced runoff water. Wat Resources Res 26( 9): 2119 2126.

Wauchope, R. D., H. R. Summer, C. C Truman, et al. 1999. Runoff from a Cornfield as affected by tillage and corn canopy: A Large scale simulated rainfall hydrologic data set for model testing. Wat Resources Res. 35( 9): 2881 2885.

Wilcox, B. P., W. J. Rawls, D. L. Brakensiek, and R. Wright. 1990. Predicting Runoff from rangeland catchements. Wat. Resources Res. 26( 10): 2401 2410.

Young, D. F., I. Kennedy, R. D. Wauchope, and J. F. Sheridan. 2002. The PRZM EXAMS Pesticide Aquatic Exposure Model: Potential Improvements. 10th IUPAC International Congress on the Chemistry of Crop Protection, Basel, Switzerland, August 2002.

Yulianti, J. S. and B. J. Lence. 1999. Parameter uncertainty in rainfall runoff modeling for use in hydraulic design. J Am Wat Resources Assoc 35( 2): 245 251.

Zhang, X. C., D. Norton, M. A. Nearing. 1997. Chemical transfer from soil to surface runoff. Wat Resources Res 33( 4): 809 815. Chapter VI, Page 7 of 7 Zhang, X. C., D. Norton, T. Lei, M. A. Nearing. 1999. Coupling mixing zone concept with convective diffusion equation to predict chemical transfer to surface runoff. Transactions of the ASAE 42( 4): 987 994.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 69 (Thursday, April 10, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19934-19935]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08005]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-485, OMB Control No. 3235-0547]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549.

Extension:
    Investor Form.

    Notice is hereby given pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) that the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    In both 2012 and 2013, the Commission received over a million
contacts from investors who have complaints or questions on a wide
range of investment-related issues. These contacts generally fall into
the following three categories:
    (a) complaints against Commission-regulated individuals or
entities;
    (b) questions concerning the federal securities laws, companies or
firms that the Commission regulates, or other investment-related
questions; and
    (c) tips concerning potential violations of the federal securities
laws.
    Investors who submit complaints, ask questions, or provide tips do
so voluntarily. To make it easier for the public to contact the agency
electronically, the Commission created a series of investor complaint
and question electronic forms. Investors can access forms through the
SEC Center for Complaints and Enforcement Tips portal. The Commission
consolidated four paper complaint forms into one electronic form (the
Investor Form) that provides drop down options to choose from in order
to categorize the investor's complaint or question, and may also
provide the investor with automated information about their issue. The
investor may describe their complaint and submit it without their name
or contact information.
    Although the Investor Form provides a structured format for
incoming investor correspondence, the Commission does not require that
investors use any particular form or format when contacting the agency.
To the contrary, investors may submit complaints, questions, and tips
through a variety of other means, including telephone, letter,
facsimile, or email.
    Approximately 20,000 investors each year voluntarily choose to use
the complaint and question forms. Investors who choose not to use the
Investor Form receive the same level of service as those who do. The
dual purpose of the form is to make it easier for the public to contact
the agency with complaints, questions, tips, or other feedback and to
streamline the workflow of the Commission staff who handle those
contacts.
    The Commission has used--and will continue to use--the information
that investors supply on the Investor Form to review and process the
contact (which may, in turn, involve responding to questions,
processing complaints, or, as appropriate, initiating enforcement
investigations), to maintain a record of contacts, to track the volume
of investor complaints, and to analyze trends. Use

of the Investor Form is strictly voluntary. The Investor Form will ask
investors to provide information concerning, among other things, their
names, how they can be reached, the names of the individuals or
entities involved, the nature of their complaint or tip, what documents
they can provide, and what, if any, actions they have taken.
    The staff of the Commission estimates that the total reporting
burden for using the complaint and question forms is 5,000 hours. The
calculation of this estimate depends on the number of investors who use
the forms each year and the estimated time it takes to complete the
forms: 20,000 respondents x 15 minutes = 5,000 burden hours.
    The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No
person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a
collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a
valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Thomas Bayer, Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F St. NE., Washington DC, 20549; or send an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: April 4, 2014.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-08005 Filed 4-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 102 (Thursday, May 28, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30470-30471]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12853]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0480]

Integrated Food Safety System Online Collaboration Development

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of grant funds for the support of the National Center for
Food Protection and Defense (NCFPD). The goal of the NCFPD is to
provide well-established and high-level access to Food/Agriculture
Sector Organizations and coordination of electronic collaborative
tools; collaborative support from the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA). NCFPD also has past experience
directly supporting the President's Food Safety Working Group
Objectives to integrate the food safety system at all levels.

DATES: Important dates are as follows:
    1. The application due date is July 15, 2015.
    2. The anticipated start date is September 2015.
    3. The opening date is May 15, 2015.
    4. The expiration date is July 16, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic applications to: http://www.grants.gov.
For more information, see section III of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicola Areshenko, Food and Drug
Administration, Office of Regulatory Affairs,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Dan Lukash, Grants Management
Specialist, Food and Drug Administration, Office of Acquisitions &
Grant Services,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For more information on this funding opportunity announcement (FOA)
and to obtain detailed requirements, please refer to the full FOA
located at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide (select the ``Request for
Applications'' link), http://www.grants.gov (see ``For Applicants''
section), and http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/search-grants.html?keywords=rfa-fd-15-024.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Funding Opportunity Description

    RFA-FD-15-021
    93.103

A. Background

    Food can become contaminated at many different points--on the farm,
in processing or distribution facilities, during transit, at retail and
food service establishments, and in the home. In recent years, FDA, in
cooperation with other food regulatory and public health agencies, has
done a great deal to prevent both intentional and unintentional
contamination of food at each of these points. FDA has worked with
other Federal, State, local, tribal, territorial, and foreign
counterpart food safety regulatory and public health agencies, as well
as with law enforcement and intelligence-gathering agencies, and with
industry, consumer groups, and academia, to strengthen the nation's
food safety and food defense system across the entire distribution
chain.
    This cooperation has resulted in greater awareness of potential
vulnerabilities, the creation of more effective prevention programs,
new surveillance systems, and the ability to respond more quickly to
outbreaks of foodborne illness. However, changes in consumer dietary
patterns, changes in industry practices, changes in the U.S.
population, an increasingly globalized food supply chain, and new
pathogens and other contaminants pose challenges that are requiring us
to adapt our current food protection strategies.
    At the Federal level, a number of agencies are working together to
coordinate their efforts and develop short- and long-term agendas to
make food safer. As the Federal regulatory Agency responsible for most
of the nation's food supply,\1\ FDA is committed to ensuring that the
food \2\ supply is among the safest in the world. This requires a
systematic, integrated approach to effective risk control and
enforcement strategies. Together with our Federal, State, local,
tribal, and territorial public health partners, FDA is working to plan
and implement an inspection and enforcement program to ensure high
rates of compliance with the Agency's food safety standards. FDA
intends to establish a fully integrated national food safety system
built on collaboration among all of these partners. This system will
encompass inspections, laboratory testing, and outbreak response and
will place priority on preventing foodborne illness, in both food for
humans and animals. This collaboration will result in: (1) Better
ability to assess potential risk at domestic food facilities and
greater and more consistent inspectional coverage of these facilities
across the entire food supply chain, (2) greater food surveillance
through integration of food facility inspection and testing
information, and (3) improved rapid response capacity and efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ FDA is the Federal Agency that is responsible for regulating
most of the country's food supply, with the exception of most meat,
poultry, and processed egg products, which are overseen by the USDA.
    \2\ For purposes of this document, the term ``food'' includes
human food, animal feed, components (i.e. ingredients) of both food
and feed, and dietary supplements for humans, except as otherwise
noted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Current leveraging efforts have not been sufficient to ensure
adequate oversight of the entire food supply chain. Food facilities are
not uniformly inspected, data are not uniformly captured on a national
basis, and the data that are collected are not systematically mined for
intelligence. Neither FDA nor our regulatory or public health partners
alone collect and analyze a sufficient number of surveillance samples
per year to have confidence in to the ability to effectively identify
potential areas of concern; combining the data from all public health
partners would greatly enhance FDA's ability to detect potential
problems. In addition, national response efforts are uneven. Throughout
the years, numerous reports have concluded that FDA does not take full
advantage of the inspectional and surveillance capabilities of our
state, territorial, tribal and local regulatory and public health
partners. This is due in large part to the varied standards and laws in
each state as compared with the Federal system, as well as to the lack
of interoperable data systems and legal impediments to sharing data
among partners.
    These combined factors present a challenge in managing and
responding to signals of public health concern in the food supply. The
currently decentralized U.S. public health and agriculture system
results in a situation in which responsibility for surveillance,
detection, investigation, response, and recovery to foodborne disease
outbreaks is shared across Federal, State, territorial, tribal, and
local government agencies.
    Various levels of government are working to improve the nation's
food safety and defense system. At all levels, there is a call for
greater integration and coordination between the Federal agencies and
the regulatory and public health partners involved in food safety. An
integrated food safety system will allow FDA to meet the President's
Food Safety Working Group recommendation that the Federal government
``. . . prioritize crucial inspection and enforcement activity across
the world,

support safety efforts by States, localities, and businesses at home;
and utilize data to guide these efforts and evaluate their outcomes.''
\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ President's Food Safety Working Group Key Findings Report
submitted to President Obama on July 7, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To be fully successful, the national food safety system must be
built with continuous input from FDA's regulatory and public health
partners. Efforts shall facilitate information sharing and
communication among all partners, and include infrastructure for a
national electronic information-sharing mechanism. These actions will
result in a national food safety system that identifies sources of risk
throughout the system and reduces time to detect and respond to
foodborne outbreaks. A public health-driven, collaborative, and
leveraged approach to food safety activities and responsibilities will
be reflected in improved public sector resource utilization at a
national level, which provides additional capacity for ensuring a safe
and secure food supply.

B. Research Objectives

    The Office of Regulatory Affairs, in coordination with FDA's Office
of Foods, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, and Center for
Veterinary Medicine, is soliciting a cooperative grant proposal to
expedite program development to support critical federal-state
collaboration necessary to plan and implement an integrated food safety
system. The intent is to fund proposals for the continued development
and operations of collaborative online tools involving a range of
stakeholders for the purposes of: (1) Information sharing in the
development of an integrated food safety system and (2) developing and
implementing a sustainable model for continued collaborative
communication and information sharing. This grant opportunity is
limited to organizations receiving funding under the current Integrated
Food Safety System Online Collaboration Development cooperative
agreement. The NCFPD, a DHS Center of Excellence, has unique expertise
and capacity found nowhere else. It is the host/creator of FoodSHIELD,
an inter-governmental collaborative project supporting information
sharing at the Federal, State, and local levels. NCFPD is uniquely
qualified to provide: Well-established and high-level access to Food/
Agriculture Sector Organizations and coordination of electronic
collaborative tools; collaborative support from HHS, DHS, and the USDA.
NCFPD also has past experience directly supporting the President's Food
Safety Working Group Objectives to integrate the food safety system at
all levels.

C. Eligibility Information

    The following organizations/institutions are eligible to apply:
    This cooperative agreement is only available to organizations
receiving funding under the current Integrated Food Safety System
Online Collaboration Development cooperative agreement. Competition is
limited to NCFPD because it is uniquely qualified and has expertise and
capacity found nowhere else. It is the host/creator of FoodSHIELD, an
intergovernmental collaborative project supporting information sharing
at the federal, state and local levels. NCFPD is uniquely qualified to
provide: Well-established and high-level access to Food/Agriculture
Sector Organizations and coordination of electronic collaborative
tools; collaborative support from HHS, DHS, and the USDA. NCFPD also
has past experience directly supporting the President's Food Safety
Working Group Objectives to integrate the food safety system at all
levels.

II. Award Information/Funds Available

A. Award Amount

    One award up to $680,000 for fiscal year 2015 with up to an
additional 4 years funding up to $680,000 per year.

B. Length of Support

    Up to 5 years.

III. Electronic Application, Registration, and Submission

    Only electronic applications will be accepted. To submit an
electronic application in response to this FOA, applicants should first
review the full announcement located at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide. (FDA has verified the Web site addresses throughout this
document but FDA is not responsible for any subsequent changes to the
Web sites after this document publishes in the Federal Register.) For
all electronically submitted applications, the following steps are
required.
     Step 1: Obtain a Dun and Bradstreet (DUNS) Number
     Step 2: Register With System for Award Management (SAM)
     Step 3: Obtain Username & Password
     Step 4: Authorized Organization Representative (AOR)
Authorization
     Step 5: Track AOR Status
     Step 6: Register With Electronic Research Administration
(eRA) Commons
    Steps 1 through 5, in detail, can be found at http://www07.grants.gov/applicants/organization_registration.jsp. Step 6, in
detail, can be found at https://commons.era.nih.gov/commons/registration/registrationInstructions.jsp. After you have followed
these steps, submit electronic applications to: http://www.grants.gov.

    Dated: May 21, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-12853 Filed 5-27-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 187 (Tuesday, September 27, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59763-59764]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24726]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65369; File No. SR-NYSEAmex-2011-55]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Amex LLC; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule
Change Amending Section 101 of the NYSE Amex Company Guide To Adopt
Additional Listing Requirements for Companies Applying To List After
Consummation of a ``Reverse Merger'' With a Shell Company

September 21, 2011.
    On July 22, 2011, NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE Amex'' or the ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to
adopt additional listing requirements for companies applying to list
after consummation of a ``reverse merger'' with a shell company. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on August 10, 2011.\3\ The Commission received two comment letters on
the proposal.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65033 (August 4,
2011), 76 FR 49522.
    \4\ See Letter from David Feldman, Partner, Richardson Patel LLP
dated August 29, 2011 and letter from Richard Rappaport, Chief
Executive Officer, WestPark Capital, Inc. to John Carey, Chief
Counsel, NYSE Regulation Inc. and NYSE Amex LLC dated August 31,
2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \5\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be

disapproved. The 45th day for this filing is September 24, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is extending the 45-day time period for Commission
action on the proposed rule change. The Commission finds that it is
appropriate to designate a longer period to take action on the proposed
rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the Exchange's
proposal, which would establish additional listing requirements for
companies applying to list after consummation of a ``reverse merger''
with a shell company, and to consider the comment letters that have
been submitted in connection with the proposed rule change.
    Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\6\ the
Commission designates November 8, 2011 as the date by which the
Commission should either approve or disapprove, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the proposed rule
change (File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2011-55).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

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

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-24726 Filed 9-26-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P