81 FR 54888 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 12504 of the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Customer Disputes and Rule 13504 of the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Industry Disputes Relating to Motions To Dismiss in Arbitration
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 159 (August 17, 2016)
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 159 (August 17, 2016)
| Page Range | 54888-54891 | |
| FR Document | 2016-19583 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 159 (Wednesday, August 17, 2016)] [Notices] [Pages 54888-54891] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-19583] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-78553; File No. SR-FINRA-2016-030] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 12504 of the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Customer Disputes and Rule 13504 of the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Industry Disputes Relating to Motions To Dismiss in Arbitration August 11, 2016. 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 August 3, 2016, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission [[Page 54889]] (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA. 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 FINRA is proposing to amend FINRA Rule 12504 of the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Customer Disputes (``Customer Code'') and FINRA Rule 13504 of the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Industry Disputes (``Industry Code,'' and together with the Customer Code, the ``Codes''), to provide that arbitrators may act upon a motion to dismiss a party or claim prior to the conclusion of a party's case in chief if the arbitrators determine that the non-moving party previously brought a claim regarding the same dispute against the same party, and the dispute was fully and finally adjudicated on the merits and memorialized in an order, judgment, award, or decision. The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA 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, FINRA 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. FINRA 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 Background In 2009, FINRA amended the Codes to adopt new FINRA Rules 12504 and 13504 (Motions to Dismiss), and to amend FINRA Rules 12206 and 13206 (Time Limits), to establish procedures limiting motions to dismiss in arbitration.\3\ A motion to dismiss is a request made to the arbitrators to remove a party or some or all claims raised by a party filing a claim. If the arbitrators grant a motion to dismiss before a hearing is held (a prehearing motion), the party bringing the claim loses the opportunity to have his or her arbitration case heard in whole or in part by the arbitrators. FINRA limited motions to dismiss because FINRA believed that respondents were filing prehearing motions routinely and repetitively in an effort to delay scheduled hearing sessions on the merits, increase investors' costs, and intimidate less sophisticated investors. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ See Regulatory Notice 09-07 announcing Commission approval of new FINRA Rules 12504 and 13504 (Motions to Dismiss) and amendments to FINRA Rules 12206 and 13206 (Time Limits). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The procedures set forth in the Codes significantly limit the use of motions to dismiss. Among other requirements, FINRA requires parties to file prehearing motions to dismiss in writing, separately from the answer, and only after they file the answer. The full panel of arbitrators must decide a motion to dismiss, and the panel must hold a hearing on the motion unless the parties waive the hearing. If a panel grants a motion to dismiss, the decision must be unanimous, and must be accompanied by a written explanation. Under the Codes, arbitrators cannot act upon a motion prior to the conclusion of the non-moving party's case in chief unless the arbitrators determine that: (1) The non-moving party previously released the claim in dispute by a signed settlement or written release, (2) the moving party was not associated with the account, security, or conduct at issue,\4\ or (3) a claim is not eligible for arbitration because it does not meet the six-year time limit for submitting a claim.\5\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ See FINRA Rules 12504 and 13504 (Motions to Dismiss). \5\ See FINRA Rules 12206 and 13206 (Time Limits), which provide that no claim shall be eligible for submission to arbitration where six years have elapsed from the occurrence or event giving rise to the claim. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Furthermore, the procedures set forth in the Codes impose stringent sanctions against parties for engaging in abusive practices. For instance, under the motions to dismiss rules, if the arbitrators deny a motion to dismiss prior to the conclusion of the non-moving party's case in chief, the arbitrators must assess forum fees associated with hearing the motion against the moving party, and if they find the motion to be frivolous, they must award reasonable costs and attorneys' fees to a party that opposed the motion. Moreover, the arbitrators may issue other sanctions under the Codes if they determine that a party filed a motion under the rule in bad faith.\6\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ See FINRA Rules 12212 and 13212 (Sanctions) relating to available sanctions. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- FINRA Dispute Resolution Task Force In 2014, FINRA formed the FINRA Dispute Resolution Task Force (``Task Force'') to suggest strategies to enhance the transparency, impartiality, and efficiency of FINRA's securities dispute resolution forum for all participants. The Task Force reviewed the topic of motions to dismiss and determined that the rule appears to be working as intended to prevent frivolous motions to dismiss. However, the Task Force reached a consensus that in instances where arbitrations involve claims previously adjudicated by a court or arbitrated by an arbitration panel, respondents should be able to seek early dismissal. The Task Force recommended that FINRA amend the motions to dismiss rule in customer cases to include one additional category for which motions to dismiss may be made before the conclusion of the case in chief: situations where the dispute was previously concluded through adjudication or arbitration and memorialized in an order, judgment, award, or decision. Proposed Rule Change FINRA agrees with the Task Force recommendation, and believes that it would be appropriate to add the additional ground for arbitrators to act on motions to dismiss prior to the conclusion of the claimant's case in chief in both customer and industry cases. Currently under the Codes, the Director of Arbitration can deny use of the forum for customer and industry claims if it is clear that a party is bringing exactly the same claims against the same parties that were already heard at the forum.\7\ However, if there are questions about whether the matter concerns a different claim, the Director is likely to deny the motion and allow the arbitration to proceed so that the arbitrators can decide the merits of the parties' assertions. FINRA believes that adding the additional ground for arbitrators to act on motions to dismiss is appropriate because parties should not be subject to the legal fees associated with arbitrating claims that have been fully adjudicated in a prior proceeding. The proposed rule change [[Page 54890]] would also act as a deterrent to using repeated filings as a means of leverage during settlement negotiations. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\ See FINRA Rules 12203 and 13303 (Denial of the Forum), which provide that the Director may decline to permit the use of the FINRA arbitration forum if the Director determines that, given the purposes of FINRA and the intent of the Code, the subject matter of the dispute is inappropriate. The Director rarely invokes this authority. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- FINRA is proposing to amend FINRA Rules 12504(a)(6) and 13504(a)(6) to add new paragraph (c) which would specify that arbitrators can also act upon a motion to dismiss a party or claim if they determine that the non-moving party previously brought a claim regarding the same dispute \8\ against the same party that was fully and finally adjudicated on the merits and memorialized in an order, judgment, award, or decision. The proposed rule change would allow the arbitrators to grant a motion to dismiss relating to a particular controversy if they believe the matter was adjudicated fully even in instances where a claimant adds a new cause of action, or adds additional facts. For example, consider a case where a claimant initiated a claim against a firm for $150,000 for suitability based on a broker's investment in XYZ stock. The arbitrators dismiss the claim after a full hearing. The proposed rule change would allow the arbitrators to hear a motion to dismiss if the claimant subsequently files an arbitration against the same firm relating to the investment in XYZ but in the new case the claimant alleges fraud in inducing the claimant to make the purchase. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\ FINRA Rules 12100 and 13100 provide that ``dispute'' means a dispute, claim or controversy, and that it may consist of one or more claims. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Statutory Basis FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\9\ which requires, among other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. FINRA believes that the proposed rule change would enhance efficiency for forum participants because arbitrators would be permitted to dismiss previously adjudicated cases at an earlier point in an arbitration proceeding. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Currently, the Codes impose significant restrictions on motions to dismiss an arbitration. With limited exceptions, in cases where the dispute has been permitted to go forward by the Director of Arbitration and a party puts forward a motion to dismiss, arbitrators cannot act upon the motion prior to the conclusion of the non-moving party's case in chief. Both sides incur additional costs related to making and defending the motion. However, a successful motion to dismiss could end part or all of the case resulting in reduced costs for parties. The Task Force reviewed arbitration case data from 2013 and 2014. During that time period, the Office of Dispute Resolution (ODR) had an average pending caseload of approximately 5,000 cases. ODR recorded 725 cases (both customer and industry disputes) in which a prehearing motion to dismiss was filed by respondents. Of the 725 cases, 249 were still pending at the time of the Task Force review, 310 settled or closed for other reasons prior to any decision on the motion (i.e., bankruptcy, etc.), and 166 closed by award. FINRA reviewed the 166 cases closed by award to determine the arbitrators' decisions regarding a motion to dismiss. The arbitrators granted a prehearing motion to dismiss (in whole or part) in 64 of the 166 cases closed by award. In addition, arbitrators granted a respondent's motion to dismiss after the conclusion of claimant's case in chief in 12 of the 166 cases closed by award. These figures suggest that motions to dismiss occur in a small but significant number of cases. Where arbitrators have sufficient information to determine the finding with respect to the motion to dismiss prior to hearing the non- moving party's case, the proposed rule change will reduce both parties' costs where the motion is granted. Where the motion is denied, the proposed rule change may impose some costs on the non-moving party due to the potential delay and the need to argue the dispute associated with the motion prehearing. FINRA expects the costs to be limited because hearings on narrow issues such as a single motion are generally completed quickly. The rule would continue to permit the non-moving party to present evidence and testimony to the arbitrators concerning the merits of the motion prior to the decision on the motion, and thus would limit the risk that the arbitrators might act on incomplete or insufficient information. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others Written comments were neither solicited nor received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will: (A) by order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic CommentsUse the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or Send an email to [email protected]. Please include File Number SR-FINRA-2016-030 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-FINRA-2016-030. 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 20549-1090, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing [[Page 54891]] also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR- FINRA-2016-030 and should be submitted on or before September 7, 2016. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.\10\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Robert W. Errett, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. 2016-19583 Filed 8-16-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
![54888 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17, 2016 / Notices
discriminate between customers, C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the
issuers, brokers or dealers. Statement on Comments on the submission, all subsequent
The Exchange notes that the U.S. Proposed Rule Change Received From amendments, all written statements
options markets are highly competitive, Members, Participants, or Others with respect to the proposed rule
and the Marketing Charge is intended to No written comments were solicited change that are filed with the
provide an incentive for order flow or received with respect to the proposed Commission, and all written
providers (‘‘OFPs’’) to route Customer rule change. communications relating to the
orders to the Exchange. To the extent proposed rule change between the
the proposed fees permit the Exchange III. Date of Effectiveness of the Commission and any person, other than
to continue to attract greater volume and Proposed Rule Change and Timing for those that may be withheld from the
liquidity, the proposed change would Commission Action public in accordance with the
also strengthen the Exchange’s market The foregoing rule change is effective provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
quality for all market participants. upon filing pursuant to section available for Web site viewing and
The Exchange also believes that its 19(b)(3)(A) 13 of the Act and printing in the Commission’s Public
proposed increase to the Marketing subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b–4 14 Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Charge for Non-Penny Pilot Issues is thereunder, because it establishes a due, Washington, DC 20549 on official
reasonable and not unfairly fee, or other charge imposed by the business days between the hours of
discriminatory since it is the same as Exchange. 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the
the amount charged by competing At any time within 60 days of the filing also will be available for
options exchanges for Non-Penny Pilot filing of such proposed rule change, the inspection and copying at the principal
Issues.10 Commission summarily may office of the Exchange. All comments
The Exchange believes the correction temporarily suspend such rule change if received will be posted without change;
of certain typographical errors in Note 3 it appears to the Commission that such the Commission does not edit personal
to section I.A. of the Fee Schedule are action is necessary or appropriate in the identifying information from
public interest, for the protection of submissions. You should submit only
reasonable because the corrections
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of information that you wish to make
would add clarity and transparency to
the purposes of the Act. If the available publicly. All submissions
the Fee Schedule.
Commission takes such action, the should refer to File Number SR–
For these reasons, the Exchange NYSEMKT–2016–74 and should be
believes that the proposal is consistent Commission shall institute proceedings
under section 19(b)(2)(B) 15 of the Act to submitted on or before September 7,
with the Act. 2016.
determine whether the proposed rule
B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s change should be approved or For the Commission, by the Division of
Statement on Burden on Competition disapproved. Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated
authority.16
In accordance with section 6(b)(8) of IV. Solicitation of Comments
the Act,11 the Exchange does not believe
Interested persons are invited to Robert W. Errett,
that the proposed rule change would
impose any burden on competition that submit written data, views, and Deputy Secretary.
is not necessary or appropriate in arguments concerning the foregoing, [FR Doc. 2016–19579 Filed 8–16–16; 8:45 am]
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. including whether the proposed rule BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
The Exchange believes the proposed change is consistent with the Act.
increase in certain Marketing Charges Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods: SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
are pro-competitive as the proposed
COMMISSION
increased allows the Exchange to fund Electronic Comments
a program that competes on an equal • Use the Commission’s Internet [Release No. 34–78553; File No. SR–FINRA–
basis with programs on other 2016–030]
comment form (http://www.sec.gov/
exchanges,12 and may encourage OFPs rules/sro.shtml); or
to direct Customer order flow to the Self-Regulatory Organizations;
• Send an email to rule-comments@ Financial Industry Regulatory
Exchange and any resulting increase in sec.gov. Please include File Number SR–
volume and liquidity to the Exchange Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a
NYSEMKT–2016–74 on the subject line. Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule
would benefit all Exchange participants
through increased opportunities to trade Paper Comments 12504 of the Code of Arbitration
Procedure for Customer Disputes and
as well as enhancing price discovery. • Send paper comments in triplicate
Rule 13504 of the Code of Arbitration
The Exchange notes that it operates in to Secretary, Securities and Exchange
Procedure for Industry Disputes
a highly competitive market in which Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Relating to Motions To Dismiss in
market participants can readily favor Washington, DC 20549–1090.
Arbitration
competing venues. In such an All submissions should refer to File
environment, the Exchange must Number SR–NYSEMKT–2016–74. This August 11, 2016.
continually review, and consider file number should be included on the Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the
adjusting, its fees and credits to remain subject line if email is used. To help the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
competitive with other exchanges. For Commission process and review your (‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
the reasons described above, the comments more efficiently, please use notice is hereby given that on August 3,
Exchange believes that the proposed only one method. The Commission will 2016, Financial Industry Regulatory
rule change reflects this competitive post all comments on the Commission’s Authority, Inc. (‘‘FINRA’’) filed with the
environment. Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ Securities and Exchange Commission
10 See supra note 7. 13 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 16 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).
11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8). 14 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(2). 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
12 See supra note 7. 15 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:39 Aug 16, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17AUN1.SGM 17AUN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_55047/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17, 2016 / Notices 54891
also will be available for inspection and eliminate the Routable Retail Order Makers would receive a credit of
copying at the principal office of Tier. The proposed rule change is $0.0032 per share for orders that
FINRA. All comments received will be available on the Exchange’s Web site at provide liquidity to the Book in Tape C
posted without change; the Commission www.nyse.com, at the principal office of Securities and would pay a fee of
does not edit personal identifying the Exchange, and at the Commission’s $0.0030 per share for orders that take
information from submissions. You Public Reference Room. liquidity from the Book in Tape C
should submit only information that Securities. The Exchange is not
II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
you wish to make available publicly. All proposing any other pricing change in
Statement of the Purpose of, and
submissions should refer to File Tier 1.
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule
Number SR–FINRA–2016–030 and
Change Cross Asset Tier 2
should be submitted on or before
September 7, 2016. In its filing with the Commission, the Additionally, Cross Asset Tier 2 fees
self-regulatory organization included and credits currently apply to ETP
For the Commission, by the Division of
Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated statements concerning the purpose of, Holders and Market Makers that either
authority.10 and basis for, the proposed rule change (1) provide liquidity an average daily
Robert W. Errett, and discussed any comments it received volume share per month of 0.30% or
Deputy Secretary.
on the proposed rule change. The text more of the US CADV and are affiliated
of those statements may be examined at with an OTP Holder or OTP Firm that
[FR Doc. 2016–19583 Filed 8–16–16; 8:45 am]
the places specified in Item IV below. provides an ADV of electronic posted
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
The Exchange has prepared summaries, executions for the account of a market
set forth in sections A, B, and C below, maker in Penny Pilot issues on NYSE
of the most significant parts of such Arca Options (excluding mini options)
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
statements. of at least 0.75% of total Customer
COMMISSION
equity and ETF option ADV as reported
[Release No. 34–78545; File No. SR– A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s by The Options Clearing Corporation
NYSEArca–2016–111] Statement of the Purpose of, and (‘‘OCC’’), or (2) provide liquidity an
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule average daily volume share per month
Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Change of 0.40% or more of the US CADV and
Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and are affiliated with an OTP Holder or
1. Purpose
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed OTP Firm that provides an ADV of
Rule Change To Amend the NYSE Arca The Exchange proposes to amend the
Fee Schedule related to Tier 1 and Cross electronic posted executions for the
Equities Schedule of Fees and account of a market maker in Penny
Charges for Exchange Services Asset Tier 2 fees and credits for orders
executed on the Exchange.4 The Pilot issues on NYSE Arca Options
Related to Tier 1 and Cross Asset Tier (excluding mini options) of at least
2 Fees and Credits for Orders Exchange also proposes to eliminate the
0.65% of total Customer equity and ETF
Executed on the Exchange, and Routable Retail Order Tier. The
option ADV as reported by OCC. Such
Eliminate the Routable Retail Order Exchange proposes to implement the fee
ETP Holders and Market Makers receive
Tier change effective August 1, 2016.
a credit of $0.0033 per share for orders
August 11, 2016. Tier 1 that provide liquidity to the Book in
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) 1 of the Currently, ETP Holders and Market Tape C Securities and pay a fee of
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Makers qualify for Tier 1 fees and $0.0029 per share for orders that take
(‘‘Act’’) 2 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,3 credits by providing liquidity an average liquidity from the Book in Tape C
notice is hereby given that, on July 29, daily share volume per month of 0.70% Securities. The Exchange proposes to
2016, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ‘‘Exchange’’ or more of the United States amend the fees and credits applicable to
or ‘‘NYSE Arca’’) filed with the consolidated average daily volume (‘‘US ETP Holders and Market Makers for
Securities and Exchange Commission CADV’’).5 In Tape C Securities, ETP orders executed in Tape C Securities. As
(‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule Holders and Market Makers currently proposed, ETP Holders and Market
change as described in Items I, II, and receive a credit of $0.0033 per share for Makers would receive a credit of
III below, which Items have been orders that provide liquidity to the Book $0.0032 per share for orders that
prepared by the self-regulatory and pay a fee of $0.0029 per share for provide liquidity to the Book in Tape C
organization. The Commission is orders that take liquidity from the Book. Securities and pay a fee of $0.0030 per
publishing this notice to solicit The Exchange proposes to amend the share for orders that take liquidity from
comments on the proposed rule change fees and credits applicable to ETP the Book in Tape C Securities.
from interested persons. Holders and Market Makers for orders Elimination of Obsolete Pricing
executed in Tape C Securities. As
I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s The Fee Schedule currently includes
proposed, ETP Holders and Market
Statement of the Terms of Substance of a pricing tier, Routable Retail Order
the Proposed Rule Change 4 The Tier 2 [sic] fees and credits are available for
Tier, that has not encouraged ETP
The Exchange proposes to amend the round lots and odd lots with a per share price $1.00 Holders and Market Makers to increase
NYSE Arca Equities Schedule of Fees or above. their activity to qualify for this pricing
and Charges for Exchange Services (the
5 US CADV would mean the United States
tier as significantly as the Exchange had
Consolidated Average Daily Volume for anticipated it would. As a result, the
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
‘‘Fee Schedule’’) related to Tier 1 and transactions reported to the Consolidated Tape,
Cross Asset Tier 2 fees and credits for excluding odd lots through January 31, 2014 (except Exchange proposes to remove this
orders executed on the Exchange, and for purposes of Lead Market Maker pricing), and pricing tier from the Fee Schedule.
excludes volume on days when the market closes The proposed changes are not
10 17
early and on the date of the annual reconstitution otherwise intended to address any other
CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). of the Russell Investments Indexes. Transactions
1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). that are not reported to the Consolidated Tape are
problem, and the Exchange is not aware
2 15 U.S.C. 78a.
not included in US CADV. See Fee Schedule, of any significant problem that the
3 17 CFR 240.19b–4. footnote 3. affected market participants would have
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:39 Aug 16, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17AUN1.SGM 17AUN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_55047/page/4.svg)
Document Created: 2018-02-09 11:34:59
Document Modified: 2018-02-09 11:34:59
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 54888 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR