Federal Register Vol. 81, No.134,

The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

Agency: Bureau of Industry and Security.

Title: Special Priorities Assistance.

OMB Control Number: 0694-0057.

Form Number(s): BIS-999.

Type of Request: Regular.

Burden Hours: 600 hours.

Number of Respondents: 1,200 respondents.

Average Hours per Response: 30 minutes per response.

Needs and Uses: The information collected from defense contractors and suppliers on Form BIS-999, Request for Special Priorities Assistance, is required for the enforcement and administration of special priorities assistance under the Defense Production Act, the Selective Service Act and the Defense Priorities and Allocation System regulation.

Affected Public: Businesses and other for-profit institutions.

Frequency: On occasion.

Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain benefits.

This information collection request may be viewed at www.reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view the Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to OIRA [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

Pursuant to Section 251 of the Trade Act 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2341 et seq.), the Economic Development Administration (EDA) has received petitions for certification of eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance from the firms listed below. Accordingly, EDA has initiated investigations to determine whether increased imports into the United States of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by each of these firms contributed importantly to the total or partial separation of the firm's workers, or threat thereof, and to a decrease in sales or production of each petitioning firm.

Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice.

Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.9 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms.

Pursuant to Section 766.24 of the Export Administration Regulations, 15 CFR parts 730-774 (2016) (“EAR” or the “Regulations”),1 I hereby grant the request of the Office of Export Enforcement (“OEE”) to renew the January 7, 2016 Temporary Denial Order (the “TDO”). The January 7, 2016 Order denied the export privileges of Mahan Airways, Pejman Mahmood Kosarayanifard, Mahmoud Amini, Kerman Aviation, Sirjanco Trading LLC, Ali Eslamian, Mahan Air General Trading LLC, Skyco (UK) Ltd., Equipco (UK) Ltd., Mehdi Bahrami, Al Naser Airlines, Ali Abdullah Alhay, Bahar Safwa General Trading, Sky Blue Bird Group, and Issam Shammout.2 I find that renewal of the TDO is necessary in the public interest to prevent an imminent violation of the EAR.

On March 17, 2008, Darryl W. Jackson, the then-Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement (“Assistant Secretary”), signed a TDO denying Mahan Airways' export privileges for a period of 180 days on the grounds that its issuance was necessary in the public interest to prevent an imminent violation of the Regulations. The TDO also named as denied persons Blue Airways, of Yerevan, Armenia (“Blue Airways of Armenia”), as well as the “Balli Group Respondents,” namely, Balli Group PLC, Balli Aviation, Balli Holdings, Vahid Alaghband, Hassan Alaghband, Blue Sky One Ltd., Blue Sky Two Ltd., Blue Sky Three Ltd., Blue Sky Four Ltd., Blue Sky Five Ltd., and Blue Sky Six Ltd., all of the United Kingdom. The TDO was issued ex parte pursuant to Section 766.24(a), and went into effect on March 21, 2008, the date it was published in the Federal Register.

The TDO subsequently has been renewed in accordance with Section 766.24(d), including most recently on January 7, 2016.3 As of March 9, 2010, the Balli Group Respondents and Blue Airways were no longer subject to the TDO. As part of the February 25, 2011 TDO renewal, Gatewick LLC (a/k/a Gatewick Freight and Cargo Services, a/k/a Gatewick Aviation Services), Mahmoud Amini, and Pejman Mahmood Kosarayanifard (“Kosarian Fard”) were added as related persons in accordance with Section 766.23 of the Regulations.4 On July 1, 2011, the TDO was modified by adding Zarand Aviation as a respondent in order to prevent an imminent violation.5 As part of the August 24, 2011 renewal, Kerman Aviation, Sirjanco Trading LLC, and Ali Eslamian were added to the TDO as related persons. Mahan Air General Trading LLC, Skyco (UK) Ltd., and Equipco (UK) Ltd. were added as related persons on April 9, 2012. Mehdi Bahrami was added to the TDO as a related person as part of the February 4, 2013 renewal order.

On May 21, 2015, the TDO was modified to add Al Naser Airlines, Ali Abdullah Alhay, and Bahar Safwa General Trading as respondents. Sky Blue Bird Group and its chief executive officer Issam Shammout were added to the TDO as related persons as part of the July 13, 2015 renewal order.6

On June 15, 2016, BIS, through its Office of Export Enforcement (“OEE”), submitted a written request for renewal of the TDO. The written request was made more than 20 days before the scheduled expiration of the current TDO, which issued on January 7, 2016. Notice of the renewal request also was provided to Mahan Airways, Al Naser Airlines, Ali Abdullah Alhay, and Bahar Safwa General Trading in accordance with Sections 766.5 and 766.24(d) of the Regulations. No opposition to the renewal of the TDO has been received. Furthermore, no appeal of the related person determinations I made as part of the September 3, 2010, February 25, 2011, August 24, 2011, April 9, 2012, February 4, 2013, and July 13, 2015 renewal or modification orders has been made by Kosarian Fard, Mahmoud Amini, Kerman Aviation, Sirjanco Trading LLC, Ali Eslamian, Mahan Air General Trading LLC, Skyco (UK) Ltd., Equipco (UK) Ltd., Mehdi Bahrami, Sky Blue Bird Group, or Issam Shammout.7

Pursuant to Section 766.24, BIS may issue or renew an order temporarily denying a respondent's export privileges upon a showing that the order is necessary in the public interest to prevent an “imminent violation” of the Regulations. 15 CFR 766.24(b)(1) and 776.24(d). “A violation may be `imminent' either in time or degree of likelihood.” 15 CFR 766.24(b)(3). BIS may show “either that a violation is about to occur, or that the general circumstances of the matter under investigation or case under criminal or administrative charges demonstrate a likelihood of future violations.” Id. As to the likelihood of future violations, BIS may show that the violation under investigation or charge “is significant, deliberate, covert and/or likely to occur again, rather than technical or negligent [.]” Id. A “lack of information establishing the precise time a violation may occur does not preclude a finding that a violation is imminent, so long as there is sufficient reason to believe the likelihood of a violation.” Id.

OEE's request for renewal is based upon the facts underlying the issuance of the initial TDO and the TDO renewals in this matter and the evidence developed over the course of this investigation indicating a blatant disregard of U.S. export controls and the TDO. The initial TDO was issued as a result of evidence that showed that Mahan Airways and other parties engaged in conduct prohibited by the EAR by knowingly re-exporting to Iran three U.S.-origin aircraft, specifically Boeing 747s (“Aircraft 1-3”), items subject to the EAR and classified under Export Control Classification Number (“ECCN”) 9A991.b, without the required U.S. Government authorization. Further evidence submitted by BIS indicated that Mahan Airways was involved in the attempted re-export of three additional U.S.-origin Boeing 747s (“Aircraft 4-6”) to Iran.

As discussed in the September 17, 2008 renewal order, evidence presented by BIS indicated that Aircraft 1-3 continued to be flown on Mahan Airways' routes after issuance of the TDO, in violation of the Regulations and the TDO itself.8 It also showed that Aircraft 1-3 had been flown in further violation of the Regulations and the TDO on the routes of Iran Air, an Iranian Government airline. Moreover, as discussed in the March 16, 2009, September 11, 2009 and March 9, 2010 Renewal Orders, Mahan Airways registered Aircraft 1-3 in Iran, obtained Iranian tail numbers for them (EP-MNA, EP-MNB, and EP-MNE, respectively), and continued to operate at least two of them in violation of the Regulations and the TDO,9 while also committing an additional knowing and willful violation when it negotiated for and acquired an additional U.S.-origin aircraft. The additional acquired aircraft was an MD-82 aircraft, which subsequently was painted in Mahan Airways' livery and flown on multiple Mahan Airways' routes under tail number TC-TUA.

The March 9, 2010 Renewal Order also noted that a court in the United Kingdom (“U.K.”) had found Mahan Airways in contempt of court on February 1, 2010, for failing to comply with that court's December 21, 2009 and January 12, 2010 orders compelling Mahan Airways to remove the Boeing 747s from Iran and ground them in the Netherlands. Mahan Airways and the Balli Group Respondents had been litigating before the U.K. court concerning ownership and control of Aircraft 1-3. In a letter to the U.K. court dated January 12, 2010, Mahan Airways' Chairman indicated, inter alia, that Mahan Airways opposes U.S. Government actions against Iran, that it continued to operate the aircraft on its routes in and out of Tehran (and had 158,000 “forward bookings” for these aircraft), and that it wished to continue to do so and would pay damages if required by that court, rather than ground the aircraft.

The September 3, 2010 renewal order discussed the fact that Mahan Airways' violations of the TDO extended beyond operating U.S.-origin aircraft and attempting to acquire additional U.S.-origin aircraft. In February 2009, while subject to the TDO, Mahan Airways participated in the export of computer motherboards, items subject to the Regulations and designated as EAR99, from the United States to Iran, via the United Arab Emirates (“UAE”), in violation of both the TDO and the Regulations, by transporting and/or forwarding the computer motherboards from the UAE to Iran. Mahan Airways' violations were facilitated by Gatewick LLC, which not only participated in the transaction, but also has stated to BIS that it acted as Mahan Airways' sole booking agent for cargo and freight forwarding services in the UAE.

Moreover, in a January 24, 2011 filing in the U.K. court, Mahan Airways asserted that Aircraft 1-3 were not being used, but stated in pertinent part that the aircraft were being maintained in Iran especially “in an airworthy condition” and that, depending on the outcome of its U.K. court appeal, the aircraft “could immediately go back into service . . . on international routes into and out of Iran.” Mahan Airways' January 24, 2011 submission to U.K. Court of Appeal, at p. 25, ¶¶ 108, 110. This clearly stated intent, both on its own and in conjunction with Mahan Airways' prior misconduct and statements, demonstrated the need to renew the TDO in order to prevent imminent future violations. Two of these three 747s subsequently were removed from Iran and are no longer in Mahan Airway's possession. The third of these 747s, with Manufacturer's Serial Number (“MSN”) 23480 and Iranian tail number EP-MNE, remained in Iran under Mahan's control. Pursuant to Executive Order 13324, it was designated a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (“SDGT”) by the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) on September 19, 2012.10 Furthermore, as discussed in the February 4, 2013 Order, open source information indicated that this 747, painted in the livery and logo of Mahan Airways, had been flown between Iran and Syria, and was suspected of ferrying weapons and/or other equipment to the Syrian Government from Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Open source information showed that this aircraft had flown from Iran to Syria as recently as June 30, 2013, and continues to show that it remains in active operation in Mahan Airways' fleet.

In addition, as first detailed in the July 1, 2011 and August 24, 2011 orders, and discussed in subsequent renewal orders in this matter, Mahan Airways also continued to evade U.S. export control laws by operating two Airbus A310 aircraft, bearing Mahan Airways' livery and logo, on flights into and out of Iran.11 At the time of the July 1, 2011 and August 24, 2011 Orders, these Airbus A310s were registered in France, with tail numbers F-OJHH and F-OJHI, respectively.12

The August 2012 renewal order also found that Mahan Airways had acquired another Airbus A310 aircraft subject to the Regulations, with MSN 499 and Iranian tail number EP-VIP, in violation of the TDO and the Regulations.13 On September 19, 2012, all three Airbus A310 aircraft (tail numbers F-OJHH, F-OJHI, and EP-VIP) were designated as SDGTs.14

The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the Federal Register. Copies of the agreements are available through the Commission's Web site (www.fmc.gov) or by contacting the Office of Agreements at (202)-523-5793 or [email protected].

Agreement No.: 012367-002.

Title: MSC/Maersk Line Trans-Atlantic Space Charter Agreement.

Parties: Maersk Line A/S and MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A.

Filing Party: Wayne R. Rohde, Esq.; Cozen O'Conner; 1200 19th Street NW.; Washington, DC 20036.

Synopsis: The amendment revises the amount of space to be chartered under the agreement.

Agreement No.: 012424.

Title: CMA CGM/APL Slot Exchange Agreement.

Parties: CMA CGM, S.A.; APL Co. Pte Ltd; and American President Lines, Ltd.

Filing Party: Draughn B. Arbona, Esq; CMA CGM (America) LLC; 5701 Lake Wright Drive; Norfolk, VA 23502.

Synopsis: The agreement authorizes the parties to exchange slots in the trade between the U.S. East Coast on the one hand, and Italy, Egypt, United Arab Emirates, Sri Lanka, Singapore, Thailand, China, Hong Kong, Vietnam, Malaysia and Canada on the other hand.

Section 622 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, implemented by the Board's Regulation XX, prohibits a merger or acquisition that would result in a financial company that controls more than 10 percent of the aggregate consolidated liabilities of all financial companies (“aggregate financial sector liabilities”). Specifically, an insured depository institution, a bank holding company, a savings and loan holding company, a foreign banking organization, any other company that controls an insured depository institution, and a nonbank financial company designated by the Financial Stability Oversight Council (each, a “financial company”) is prohibited from merging or consolidating with, acquiring all or substantially all of the assets of, or acquiring control of, another company if the resulting company's consolidated liabilities would exceed 10 percent of the aggregate financial sector liabilities.1

Pursuant to Regulation XX, the Federal Reserve will publish the aggregate financial sector liabilities by July 1 of each year. Aggregate financial sector liabilities equals the average of the year-end financial sector liabilities figure (as of December 31) of each of the preceding two calendar years.

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than July 28, 2016.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (David L. Hubbard, Senior Manager) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034. Comments can also be sent electronically to [email protected]:

1. Janive Blanchard, Russellville, Arkansas, as trustee of the Blanchard Living Trust; Charles Bowen Blanchard, Russellville, Arkansas; Charles H. Blanchard, Russellville, Arkansas; Cynthia Blanchard, Russellville, Arkansas, individually and as co-trustee of the William H. Bowen Share No. 2 Trust, the William H. Bowen Exempt Share No. 1 QTIP Trust, and the William H. Bowen Nonexempt Share No. 1 QTIP Trust; Mary P. Hardman, Fayetteville, Arkansas, individually and as co-trustee of the William H. Bowen Share No. 2 Trust, the William H. Bowen Exempt Share No. 1 QTIP Trust, and the William H. Bowen Nonexempt Share No. 1 QTIP Trust; and W. Scott Bowen, as co-trustee of the William H. Bowen Share No. 2 Trust, the William H. Bowen Exempt Share No. 1 QTIP Trust, and the William H. Bowen Nonexempt Share No. 1 QTIP Trust, to acquire voting shares of First State Banking Corporation, Russellville, Arkansas, and thereby acquire First State Bank, Russellville, Arkansas.

2. James Troy “J.T.” Compton, Mountain View, Arkansas; Charles Kevin Compton, Little Rock, Arkansas; Kris David Compton, Hendersonville, North Carolina; James Kent “Ken” Compton, Conway, Arkansas, each as a general partner and limited partner of the Compton Stone Quarry Family Limited Partnership, LLLP, and as members of the Compton family control group that also includes Lauren Ashley Compton, Niva Compton Lancaster, Springfield, Missouri, as trustee of the Niva Compton Lancaster GST Exempt Trust, Niva Compton Lancaster as trustee of the Niva Lancaster Revocable Living Trust, Charles Daniels and Sonya Daniels, both of Navarre, Florida, as co-trustees of the Daniels Family Trust Dated 7/12/2006, Sonya Daniels as trustee of the Douglas Lancaster Trust and Charles Kevin Compton as trustee of the Kevin Compton Revocable Trust, to acquire voting shares of Stone Bancshares, Inc., of Mountain View, Arkansas, and thereby acquire Stone Bank, Mountain View, Arkansas.

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences Special Emphasis Panel, July 15, 2016, 8:00 a.m. to July 15, 2016, 5:00 p.m., Embassy Suites at the Chevy Chase Pavilion, 4300 Military Road NW., Washington, DC 20015 which was published in the Federal Register on May 06, 2016, 81 FR 27455.

The meeting notice is amended to change the meeting date and time to July 29, 2016, 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

The meeting is closed to the public.

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

On the basis of the record 1 developed in the subject investigations, the United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”) determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of cold-rolled steel flat products from China and Japan, provided for in subheadings 7209.15, 7209.16, 7209.17, 7209.18, 7209.25, 7209.26, 7209.27, 7209.28, 7209.90, 7210.70, 7211.23, 7211.29, 7211.90, 7212.40, 7225.50, 7225.99, and 7226.92 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”),2 that have been found by the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) to be sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”), and that have been found by Commerce to be subsidized by the government of China.3

The Commission, pursuant to sections 705(b) and 735(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b) and 19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)), instituted these investigations effective July 28, 2015, following receipt of a petition filed with the Commission and Commerce by AK Steel Corporation (West Chester, Ohio), ArcelorMittal USA LLC (Chicago, Illinois), Nucor Corporation (Charlotte, North Carolina), Steel Dynamics, Inc. (Fort Wayne, Indiana), and United States Steel Corporation (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania). The final phase of the investigations was scheduled by the Commission following notification of preliminary determinations by Commerce that imports of cold-rolled steel flat products from China were subsidized within the meaning of section 703(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(b)) and imports of cold-rolled steel flat products from China and Japan were dumped within the meaning of 733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b(b)). Notice of the scheduling of the final phase of the Commission's investigations and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register on March 23, 2016 (81 FR 15559). The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on May 24, 2016, and all persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel.

The Commission made these determinations pursuant to sections 705(b) and 735(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b) and 19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)). It completed and filed its determinations in these investigations on July 7, 2016. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4619 (July 2016), entitled Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from China and Japan (Investigation Nos. 701-TA-541 and 731-TA-1284 and 1286 (Final).

Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 110.70 (b) “Public Notice of Receipt of an Application,” please take notice that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received the following request for an export license. Copies of the request are available electronically through the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System and can be accessed through the Public Electronic Reading Room link http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html at the NRC Homepage.

A request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene may be filed within thirty 30 days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register (FR). Any request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene shall be served by the requestor or petitioner upon the applicant, the office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; and the Executive Secretary, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20520.

A request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene may be filed with the NRC electronically in accordance with NRC's E-Filing rule promulgated in August 2007, 72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007. Information about filing electronically is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. To ensure timely electronic filing, at least 5 days prior to the filing deadline, the petitioner/requestor should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by calling (301) 415-1677, to request a digital ID certificate and allow for the creation of an electronic docket.

In addition to a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene, written comments, in accordance with 10 CFR 110.81, should be submitted within thirty days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register to Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications.

The information concerning this application for an export license follows.

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 24, 2016, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

The Exchange proposes to adopt rules under Rule 4770 to implement the quoting and trading provisions of the Plan to Implement a Tick Size Pilot Program submitted to the Commission pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS 3 under the Act (the “Plan”).4 The proposed rule change is substantially similar to proposed rule changes recently approved or published by the Commission by New York Stock Exchange LLC to adopt NYSE Rules 67(a) and 67(c)-(e), which also implemented the quoting and trading provisions of the Plan.5

The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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.

The Exchange proposes to establish rules to require its members to comply with the requirements of the Plan, which is designed to study and assess the impact of increment conventions on the liquidity and trading of the common stocks of small capitalization companies. The Exchange proposes changes to its rules for a two-year pilot period that coincides with the pilot period for the Plan, which is currently scheduled as a two year pilot to begin on October 3, 2016.

On August 25, 2014, NYSE Group, Inc., on behalf of Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. (f/k/a BATS Exchange, Inc.), Bats BYX Exchange, Inc. (f/k/a BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.), Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., EDGA Exchange, Inc., EDGX Exchange, Inc., the Exchange[sic], Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”), NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, New York Stock Exchange LLC, the Exchange and NYSE Arca, Inc., and the NYSE MKT LLC, (collectively “Participants”), filed with the Commission, pursuant to Section 11A of the Act 6 and Rule 608 of Regulation NMS thereunder, the Plan to Implement a Tick Size Pilot Program.7 The Participants filed the Plan to comply with an order issued by the Commission on June 24, 2014 (the “June 2014 Order”).8 The Plan 9 was published for comment in the Federal Register on November 7, 2014,10 and approved by the Commission, as modified, on May 6, 2015.11

The Plan is designed to allow the Commission, market participants, and the public to study and assess the impact of increment conventions on the liquidity and trading of the common stocks of small capitalization companies. The Commission plans to use the Tick Size Pilot Program to assess whether wider tick sizes enhance the market quality of Pilot Securities for the benefit of issuers and investors. Each Participant is required to comply with, and to enforce compliance by its members, as applicable, with the provisions of the Plan.

On October 9, 2015, the Operating Committee approved the Exchange's proposed rules as model Participant rules that would require compliance by a Participant's members with the provisions of the Plan, as applicable, and would establish written policies and procedures reasonably designed to comply with applicable quoting and trading requirements specified in the Plan.12 As described more fully below, the proposed rules would require members to comply with the Plan and provide for the widening of quoting and trading increments for Pilot Securities, consistent with the Plan.

The Plan will include stocks of companies with $3 billion or less in market capitalization, an average daily trading volume of one million shares or less, and a volume weighted average price of at least $2.00 for every trading day. The Plan will consist of a control group of approximately 1,400 Pilot Securities and three test groups with 400 Pilot Securities in each selected by a stratified sampling.13 During the pilot, Pilot Securities in the control group will be quoted at the current tick size increment of $0.01 per share and will trade at the currently permitted increments. Pilot Securities in the first test group (“Test Group One”) will be quoted in $0.05 minimum increments but will continue to trade at any price increment that is currently permitted.14 Pilot Securities in the second test group (“Test Group Two”) will be quoted in $0.05 minimum increments and will trade at $0.05 minimum increments subject to a midpoint exception, a retail investor exception, and a negotiated trade exception.15 Pilot Securities in the third test group (“Test Group Three”) will be subject to the same terms as Test Group Two and also will be subject to the “Trade-at” requirement to prevent price matching by a person not displaying at a price of a Trading Center's “Best Protected Bid” or “Best Protected Offer,” unless an enumerated exception applies.16 In addition to the exceptions provided under Test Group Two, an exception for Block Size orders and exceptions that closely resemble those under Rule 611 of Regulation NMS 17 will apply to the Trade-at requirement.

The Plan also contains requirements for the collection and transmission of data to the Commission and the public. A variety of data generated during the Plan will be released publicly on an aggregated basis to assist in analyzing the impact of wider tick sizes on smaller capitalization stocks.18

The Plan requires the Exchange to establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to comply with applicable quoting and trading requirements specified in the Plan.19 Accordingly, the Exchange is proposing new Rule 4770(a) to require its members to comply with the quoting and trading provisions of the Plan. The proposed Rules are also designed to ensure the Exchange's compliance with the Plan.

Proposed paragraph (a)(1) of new Rule 4770 would establish the following defined terms:

• “Plan” means the Tick Size Pilot Plan submitted to the Commission pursuant to Rule 608(a)(3) of Regulation NMS under the Act.

• “Pilot Test Groups” means the three test groups established under the Plan, consisting of 400 Pilot Securities each, which satisfy the respective criteria established by the Plan for each such test group.

• Trade-at Intermarket Sweep Order” 20 would mean a limit order for a Pilot Security that meets the following requirements:

(i) When routed to a Trading Center, the limit order is identified as a Trade-at Intermarket Sweep Order; and

(ii) Simultaneously with the routing of the limit order identified as a Trade-at Intermarket Sweep Order, one or more additional limit orders, as necessary, are routed to execute against the full size of any protected bid, in the case of a limit order to sell, or the full displayed size of any protected offer, in the case of a limit order to buy, for the Pilot Security with a price that is better than or equal to the limit price of the limit order identified as a Trade-at Intermarket Sweep Order. These additional routed orders also must be marked as Trade-at Intermarket Sweep Orders.

• Paragraph (a)(1)(E) would provide that all capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this rule shall have the meanings set forth in the Plan, Regulation NMS under the Act, or Exchange rules, as applicable.

Proposed Paragraph (a)(2) would state that the Exchange is a Participant in, and subject to the applicable requirements of, the Plan; proposed Paragraph (a)(3) would require members to establish, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to comply with the applicable requirements of the Plan, which would allow the Exchange to enforce compliance by its members with the provisions of the Plan, as required pursuant to Section II(B) of the Plan.

In addition, Paragraph (a)(4) would provide that Exchange systems would not display, quote or trade in violation of the applicable quoting and trading requirements for a Pilot Security specified in the Plan and this proposed rule, unless such quotation or transaction is specifically exempted under the Plan.21

The Exchange also proposes to add Rule 4770(a)(5) to provide for the treatment of Pilot Securities that drop below a $1.00 value during the Pilot Period.22 The Exchange proposes that if the price of a Pilot Security drops below $1.00 during regular trading on any given business day, such Pilot Security would continue to be subject to the Plan and the requirements described below that necessitate members to comply with the specific quoting and trading obligations for each respective Pilot Test Group under the Plan, and would continue to trade in accordance with the proposed rules below as if the price of the Pilot Security had not dropped below $1.00. However, if the Closing Price of a Pilot Security on any given business day is below $1.00, such Pilot Security would be moved out of its respective Pilot Test Group into the control group (which consists of Pilot Securities not placed into a Pilot Test Group), and may then be quoted and traded at any price increment that is currently permitted by Exchange rules for the remainder of the Pilot Period. Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, the Exchange proposes that, at all times during the Pilot Period, Pilot Securities (whether in the control group or any Pilot Test Group) would continue to be subject to the data collection rules, which are enumerated in Rule 4770(b).

The Exchange proposes Rules 4770(c)(1)-(3), which would require members to comply with the specific quoting and trading obligations for each Pilot Test Group under the Plan. With regard to Pilot Securities in Test Group One, proposed Rule 4770(c)(1) would provide that no member may display, rank, or accept from any person any displayable or non-displayable bids or offers, orders, or indications of interest in increments other than $0.05. However, orders priced to trade at the midpoint of the National Best Bid and National Best Offer (“NBBO”) or Best Protected Bid and Best Protected Offer (“PBBO”) and orders entered in a Participant-operated retail liquidity program 23 may be ranked and accepted in increments of less than $0.05. Pilot Securities in Test Group One may continue to trade at any price increment that is currently permitted by Rule 4701(k).24

With regard to Pilot Securities in Test Group Two, proposed Rule 4770(c)(2)(A) would provide that such Pilot Securities would be subject to all of the same quoting requirements as described above for Pilot Securities in Test Group One, along with the applicable quoting exceptions. In addition, proposed Rule 4770(c)(2)(B) would provide that, absent one of the listed exceptions in proposed 4770(c)(2)(C) enumerated below, no member may execute orders in any Pilot Security in Test Group Two in price increments other than $0.05. The $0.05 trading increment would apply to all trades, including Brokered Cross Trades.

Paragraph (2)(C) would set forth further requirements for Pilot Securities in Test Group Two. Specifically, members trading Pilot Securities in Test Group Two would be allowed to trade in increments less than $0.05 under the following circumstances:

(i) Trading may occur at the midpoint between the NBBO or PBBO;

(ii) Retail Investor Orders may be provided with price improvement that is at least $0.005 better than the PBBO;

(iii) Negotiated Trades may trade in increments less than $0.05; and

(iv) Execution of a customer order to comply with Rule 5320A 25 following the execution of a proprietary trade by the member at an increment other than $0.05, where such proprietary trade was permissible pursuant to an exception under the Plan.26

Paragraph (3)(A)-(3)(C) would set forth the requirements for Pilot Securities in Test Group Three. Members quoting or trading such Pilot Securities would be subject to all of the same quoting and trading requirements as described above for Pilot Securities in Test Group Two, including the quoting and trading exceptions applicable to Pilot Securities in Test Group Two. In addition, proposed Paragraph (3)(D) would provide for an additional prohibition on Pilot Securities in Test Group Three referred to as the “Trade-at Prohibition.” 27 Paragraph (3)(D)(ii) would provide that, absent one of the listed exceptions in proposed Rule 4770(c)(3)(D)(iii) enumerated below, no member may execute a sell order for a Pilot Security in Test Group Three at the price of a Protected Bid or execute a buy order for a Pilot Security in Test Group Three at the price of a Protected Offer.

Proposed Rule 4770(c)(3)(D)(iii) would allow members to execute a sell order for a Pilot Security in Test Group Three at the price of a Protected Bid or execute a buy order for a Pilot Security in Test Group Three at the price of a Protected Offer if any of the following circumstances exist:

a. The order is executed as agent or riskless principal by an independent trading unit, as defined under Rule 200(f) of Regulation SHO,28 of a Trading Center within a member that has a displayed quotation as agent or riskless principal, via either a processor or an SRO Quotation Feed, at a price equal to the traded-at Protected Quotation, that was displayed before the order was received,29 but only up to the full displayed size of that independent trading unit's previously displayed quote; 30

b. The order is executed by an independent trading unit, as defined under Rule 200(f) of Regulation SHO, of a Trading Center within a member that has a displayed quotation for the account of that Trading Center on a principal (excluding riskless principal 31 ) basis, via either a processor or an SRO Quotation Feed, at a price equal to the traded-at Protected Quotation, that was displayed before the order was received, but only up to the full displayed size of that independent unit's previously displayed quote; 32

c. The order is of Block Size 33 at the time of origin and may not be:

A. An aggregation of non-block orders;

B. broken into orders smaller than Block Size prior to submitting the order to a Trading Center for execution; or

C. executed on multiple Trading Centers; 34

d. The order is a Retail Investor Order executed with at least $0.005 price improvement;

e. The order is executed when the Trading Center displaying the Protected Quotation that was traded at was experiencing a failure, material delay, or malfunction of its systems or equipment;

f. The order is executed as part of a transaction that was not a “regular way” contract;

g. The order is executed as part of a single-priced opening, reopening, or closing transaction on the Exchange;

h. The order is executed when a Protected Bid was priced higher than a Protected Offer in the Pilot Security in Test Group Three;

i. The order is identified as a Trade-at Intermarket Sweep Order; 35

j. The order is executed by a Trading Center that simultaneously routed Trade-at Intermarket Sweep Orders to execute against the full displayed size of the Protected Quotation that was traded at; 36

k. The order is executed as part of a Negotiated Trade;

l. The order is executed when the Trading Center displaying the Protected Quotation that was traded at had displayed, within one second prior to execution of the transaction that constituted the Trade-at, a Best Protected Bid or Best Protected Offer, as applicable, for the Pilot Security in Test Group Three with a price that was inferior to the price of the Trade-at transaction;

m. The order is executed by a Trading Center which, at the time of order receipt, the Trading Center had guaranteed an execution at no worse than a specified price (a “stopped order”), where:

A. The stopped order was for the account of a customer;

B. The customer agreed to the specified price on an order-by-order basis; and

C. The price of the Trade-at transaction was, for a stopped buy order, equal to or less than the National Best Bid in the Pilot Security in Test Group Three at the time of execution or, for a stopped sell order, equal to or greater than the National Best Offer in the Pilot Security in Test Group Three at the time of execution, as long as such order is priced at an acceptable increment; 37

n. The order is for a fractional share of a Pilot Security in Test Group Three, provided that such fractional share order was not the result of breaking an order for one or more whole shares of a Pilot Security in Test Group Three into orders for fractional shares or was not otherwise effected to evade the requirements of the Trade-at Prohibition or any other provisions of the Plan; or

o. The order is to correct a bona fide error, which is recorded by the Trading Center in its error account.38 A bona fide error is defined as:

A. The inaccurate conveyance or execution of any term of an order including, but not limited to, price, number of shares or other unit of trading; identification of the security; identification of the account for which securities are purchased or sold; lost or otherwise misplaced order tickets; short sales that were instead sold long or vice versa; or the execution of an order on the wrong side of a market;

B. The unauthorized or unintended purchase, sale, or allocation of securities, or the failure to follow specific client instructions;

C. The incorrect entry of data into relevant systems, including reliance on incorrect cash positions, withdrawals, or securities positions reflected in an account; or

D. A delay, outage, or failure of a communication system used to transmit market data prices or to facilitate the delivery or execution of an order.

Finally, Proposed Rule 4770(c)(3)(D)(iv) would prevent members from breaking an order into smaller orders or otherwise effecting or executing an order to evade the requirements of the Trade-at Prohibition or any other provisions of the Plan.

The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,39 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,40 in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, 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. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act because it ensures that the Exchange and its members would be in compliance with a Plan approved by the Commission pursuant to an order issued by the Commission in reliance on Section 11A of the Act.41 Such approved Plan gives the Exchange authority to establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to comply with applicable quoting and trading requirements specified in the Plan. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the authority granted to it by the Plan to establish specifications and procedures for the implementation and operation of the Plan that are consistent with the provisions of the Plan. Likewise, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change provides interpretations of the Plan that are consistent with the Act, in general, and furthers the objectives of the Act, in particular.

Furthermore, the Exchange is a Participant under the Plan and subject, itself, to the provisions of the Plan. The proposed rule change ensures that the Exchange's systems would not display or execute trading interests outside the requirements specified in such Plan. The proposal would also help allow market participants to continue to trade NMS Stocks within quoting and trading requirements that are in compliance with the Plan, with certainty on how certain orders and trading interests would be treated. This, in turn, will help encourage market participants to continue to provide liquidity in the marketplace.

Because the Plan supports further examination and analysis on the impact of tick sizes on the trading and liquidity of the securities of small capitalization companies, and the Commission believes that altering tick sizes could result in significant market-wide benefits and improvements to liquidity and capital formation, adopting rules that enforce compliance by its members with the provisions of the Plan would help promote liquidity in the marketplace and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and national market system.

The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed changes are being made to establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to comply with the trading and quoting requirements specified in the Plan, of which other equities exchanges are also Participants. Other competing national securities exchanges are subject to the same trading and quoting requirements specified in the Plan. Therefore, the proposed changes would not impose any burden on competition, while providing certainty of treatment and execution of trading interests on the Exchange to market participants in NMS Stocks that are acting in compliance with the requirements specified in the Plan.

No written comments were either solicited or received.

Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 42 and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.43

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: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) 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.

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:

• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

• Send an email to [email protected]. Please include File Number SR-NASDAQ-2016-093 on the subject line.

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

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 24, 2016, NASDAQ BX, Inc. (“BX” 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.

The Exchange proposes to amend BX Rule 4757, entitled “Book Processing” to adopt a Limit Order Protection or “LOP” for members accessing the BX.

The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at http://nasdaqbx.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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.

The Exchange proposes to adopt a new mechanism to protect against erroneous Limit Orders which are entered into BX. Specifically, this new feature addresses risks to market participants of human error in entering Limit Orders at unintended prices. LOP would prevent certain Limit Orders from executing or being placed on the Order Book at prices outside pre-set standard limits. The System would reject those Limit Orders, rather than executing them automatically. The proposed LOP feature is similar to a risk feature which exists today on BX 3 and is available for Options Participants.

The Exchange proposes to adopt a new feature, LOP for Limit Orders, which would reject Limit Orders back to the member when the order exceeds certain defined logic. The Exchange intends to apply LOP system wide. The Exchange reserves the ability to temporarily disable LOP for certain securities in the event of extraordinary market conditions in a certain symbol.4 Specifically, the LOP feature would prevent certain Limit Orders at prices outside of pre-set standard limits (“LOP Limit”) from being accepted by the System. LOP shall apply to all Quotes and Orders, including any modified Orders.5 LOP would not apply to Market Orders, Market Maker Peg Orders 6 or Intermarket Sweep Orders (ISO).7 A Market Maker Peg Order is a passive order type which will not otherwise remove liquidity from the Order Book. This order type was designed to assist Market Makers with meeting their quoting obligations. Market Makers have a diverse business model as compared with other market participants. Excluding the Market Maker Peg Order from the LOP will assist Market Makers in meeting their quoting obligations. The Exchange believes that because Market Makers have other risk protections in place to prevent them from quoting outside of their financial means, the risk level for erroneous trades is not the same as with other market participants. Market Makers have more sophisticated infrastructures than other market participants and are able to manage their risk, particularly with quoting, utilizing other tools which may not be available to other market participants. An ISO is immediately executable within BX against orders against which they are marketable. The ISO designation on an order presumes that the market participant has satisfied their obligation to all protected quotes up to the limit of the ISO.

LOP would be operational each trading day. LOP would not be operational during trading halts and pauses. Also, LOP would not apply in the event that there is no established LOP Reference Price.8 The LOP Reference Price shall be the current National Best Bid or Best Offer (NBBO), the bid for sell orders and the offer for buy orders.

The Exchange proposes to not accept incoming Limit Orders that exceed the LOP Reference Threshold. Limit Orders will not be accepted if the price of the Limit Order is greater than the LOP Reference Threshold for a buy Limit Order. Limit Orders will not be accepted if the price of the Limit Order is less than the LOP Reference Threshold for a sell Limit Order. The LOP Reference Threshold for buy orders will be the LOP Reference Price (offer) plus the applicable percentage specified [sic] in the LOP Limit. The LOP Reference Threshold for sell orders will be the LOP Reference Price (bid) minus the applicable percentage specified [sic] in the LOP Limit. The LOP Limit shall be the greater of 10% of the LOP Reference Price or $0.50 for all securities across all trading sessions. The LOP Reference Price shall be the current National Best Bid or Best Offer (NBBO), the bid for sell orders and the offer for buy orders.

The Exchange also notes that LOP will be applicable on all protocols.9 The LOP feature will be mandatory for all BX members. The Exchange proposes to implement this rule within ninety (90) days of the approval of this proposed rule change. The Exchange will issue an Equities Trader Alert in advance to inform market participants of such implementation date.

The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 10 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 11 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 mitigating risks to market participants of human error in entering Limit Orders at clearly unintended prices. The proposals are appropriate and reasonable, because they offer protections for Limit Orders which should encourage price continuity and, in turn, protect investors and the public interest by reducing executions occurring at dislocated prices.

The proposed LOP feature would assist with the maintenance of fair and orderly markets by mitigating the risks associated with errors resulting in executions at prices that are away from the Best Bid or Offer and potentially erroneous. Further the proposal protects investors from potentially receiving executions away from the prevailing prices at any given time. The Exchange proposes LOP to avoid a series of improperly priced aggressive orders transacting in the Order Book. The LOP Limit is appropriate because it seeks to capture improperly priced Limit Orders and reject them to reduce the risk of, and to potentially prevent, the automatic execution of Orders at prices that may be considered clearly erroneous. The System will only execute Limit Orders priced within the LOP Limit. The proposed limit of greater than 10% or $0.50 is a reasonable measure to ensure prices remain within the reasonable limits. This protection will bolster the normal resilience and market behavior that persistently produces robust reference prices. This feature should create a level of protection that prevents the Limit Orders from entering the Order Book outside of an acceptable range for the Limit Order to execute.

The LOP will reduce the negative impacts of sudden, unanticipated volatility, and serve to preserve an orderly market in a transparent and uniform manner, increase overall market confidence, and promote fair and orderly markets and the protection of investors. This feature is not optional and is applicable to all members submitting Limit Orders.

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. The LOP feature will provide market participants with additional price protection from anomalous executions. This feature is not optional and is applicable to all members submitting Limit Orders. Thus, the Exchange does not believe the proposal creates any significant impact on competition. This type of risk protection is in place today for BX Options Participants.12 Offering this protection to the BX Market Center will not impose any undue burden on intra-market competition, rather, it would permit equities and options members to be protected in a similar manner from erroneous executions. [sic]

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. The LOP feature will provide market participants with additional price protection from anomalous executions. This feature is not optional and is applicable to all members submitting Limit Orders. Thus, the Exchange does not believe the proposal creates any significant impact on competition. This type of risk protection is in place today for BX Options Participants.13 Offering this protection to the BX Market Center will not impose any undue burden on intra-market competition, rather, it would permit equities and options members to be protected in a similar manner from erroneous executions.

No written comments were either solicited or received.

Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the Commission may designate 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.

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:

• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

• Send an email to [email protected]. Please include File Number SR-BX-2016-037 on the subject line.

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

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),2 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,3 notice is hereby given that on June 29, 2016, NYSE MKT LLC (the “Exchange” or “NYSE MKT”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

The Exchange proposes to amend Commentary .07 to Rule 904 to extend the pilot program that eliminated the position limits for options on SPDR S&P 500 ETF (“SPY”) (“SPY Pilot Program”). The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

The Exchange proposes to amend Commentary .07 to Rule 904 to extend the time period of the SPY Pilot Program,4 which is currently scheduled to expire on July 12, 2016, through July 12, 2017.

This filing does not propose any substantive changes to the SPY Pilot Program. In proposing to extend the SPY Pilot Program, the Exchange reaffirms its consideration of several factors that supported the original proposal of the SPY Pilot Program, including (1) the availability of economically equivalent products and their respective position limits, (2) the liquidity of the option and the underlying security, (3) the market capitalization of the underlying security and the related index, (4) the reporting of large positions and requirements surrounding margin, and (5) the potential for market on close volatility.

In the July 2015 Extension, the Exchange stated that if it were to propose an extension, permanent approval or termination of the program, the Exchange would submit, along with any filing proposing such amendments to the program, a report providing an analysis of the SPY Pilot Program covering the period since the previous extension (the “Pilot Report”). Accordingly, the Exchange is submitting a Pilot Report detailing the Exchange's experience with the SPY Pilot Program for the period covering thirteen (13) months from May 2015 to May 2016. The Pilot Report is attached as Exhibit 3 to this filing. The Exchange notes that it is unaware of any problems created by the SPY Pilot Program and does not foresee any as a result of the proposed extension. In extending the SPY Pilot Program, the Exchange states that if it were to propose another extension, permanent approval or termination of the program, the Exchange would submit another Pilot Report covering the period since the previous extension, which would be submitted at least 30 days before the end of the proposed extension. If the SPY Pilot Program is not extended or adopted on a permanent basis by July 12, 2017, the position limits for SPY would revert to limits in effect at the commencement of the pilot program. The proposed extension will allow the Exchange and the Commission additional time to further evaluate the SPY Pilot Program and its effect on the market.

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 prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, 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. The Exchange believes that extending the SPY Pilot Program promotes just and equitable principles of trade by permitting market participants, including market makers, institutional investors and retail investors, to establish greater positions when pursuing their investment goals and needs.

The Exchange 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. The proposed rule change is not designed to address any aspect of competition, whether between the Exchange and its competitors, or among market participants. Instead, the proposed rule change is designed to allow the SPY Pilot Program to continue uninterrupted. Additionally, the Exchange expects all other SROs that currently have rules regarding the SPY Pilot Program to also extend the pilot program for an additional year.

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

Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.7

A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act 8 normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) 9 permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange believes that waiver of the operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because it will allow the SPY Pilot Program to continue without interruption. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the operative delay and designates the proposed rule change operative upon filing.10

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

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:

• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

• Send an email to [email protected]. Please include File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2016-65 on the subject line.

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

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(7) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),1 notice is hereby given that on June 10, 2016 CBOE Futures Exchange, LLC (“CFE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) the proposed rule change described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by CFE. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. CFE also has filed this proposed rule change with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”). CFE filed a written certification with the CFTC under Section 5c(c) of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”) 2 on June 23, 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 June 24, 2016, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) 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 FINRA. FINRA has designated the proposed rule change as constituting a “non-controversial” rule change under paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 under the Act,3 which renders the proposal effective upon receipt of this filing by the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

FINRA is proposing to clarify the application of FINRA Rule 2210 (“Communications with the Public”) to debt research reports as the result of approval of a new FINRA debt research conflict of interest rule.

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.

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.

FINRA is proposing to make several conforming changes to FINRA Rule 2210 to expressly address its application to debt research reports in light of the Commission's approval of a dedicated debt research conflict of interest rule. On July 16, 2015, the SEC approved a proposed rule change to adopt FINRA Rule 2242 to address conflicts of interest relating to the publication and distribution of debt research reports.4 Rule 2242 will be implemented on July 16, 2016.5 Until that rule becomes effective, FINRA's research conflict of interest rules apply only to equity research as set forth in FINRA Rule 2241 (“Research Analysts and Research Reports”).

First, Rule 2210(b)(1)(A) requires an appropriately qualified registered principal to approve each “retail communication” before the earlier of its use or filing with FINRA's Advertising Regulation Department. Both a debt and equity research report constitutes a “retail communication,” unless it is distributed or made available only to “institutional investors” as defined in Rule 2210(a)(4), in which case it would be considered an “institutional communication” not subject to the pre-use approval requirement.

Rule 2210(b)(1)(B) states that the pre-use approval requirement may be satisfied by a Supervisory Analyst approved pursuant to NYSE Rule 344 with respect to: (i) Research reports on debt and equity securities; (ii) retail communications as described in Rule 2241(a)(11)(A); and (iii) other research that does not meet the definition of “research report” under Rule 2241(a)(11), provided that the Supervisory Analyst has technical expertise in the particular product areas. For dual FINRA and New York Stock Exchange members, this provision therefore broadly allows a Series 16 qualified Supervisory Analyst to satisfy the pre-use approval requirement with respect to any research-related communication, including those expressly excepted by the definition of “research report” under Rule 2241(a)(11)(A) or not otherwise captured by that definition of “research report” under the equity research rule.

The proposed rule change would clarify and streamline the scope of approval permitted by Supervisory Analysts to specifically reference the definitions of “research report” and “debt research report” in Rules 2241(a)(11) and 2242(a)(3), respectively. It also would add a specific reference to the exceptions under Rule 2242(a)(3)(A), thereby making express the references to debt research-related retail communications consistent with the references to equity research-related retail communications. The proposal maintains the ability for a Supervisory Analyst to approve other research communications—e.g., research on options—provided that the Supervisory Analyst has technical expertise in the product area and any other required registrations for such product.

Second, Rule 2210(b)(1)(D)(i) excepts from the pre-use approval requirement any retail communication that is excepted from the definition of “research report” under Rule 2241(a)(11)(A), unless the communication makes any financial or investment recommendation. Those communications still must be supervised and reviewed in the same manner as correspondence pursuant to FINRA's supervision rules.6 FINRA adopted this exception due to concerns that the pre-use approval requirements for these types of research communications in some circumstances may have inhibited the flow of information to traders and other investors who base their investment decisions on timely market analysis.7 The proposed change would make this exception from the pre-use approval requirements consistent for debt and equity research communications.

Third, Rule 2210(d)(7) requires specific applicable disclosures in retail communications that include a recommendation of securities; however, the requirements do not apply to communications that meet the definition of an equity research report under Rule 2241(a), as long as the research report includes all the required disclosures under that rule. Similarly, Rule 2210(f)(2) requires specific applicable disclosures where an associated person recommends a security in a public appearance, but Rule 2210(f)(5) excepts from those disclosure requirements public appearances by an equity “research analyst” as defined in Rule 2241(a)(8), provided the research analyst makes all of the disclosures required under that rule. The basis for these exceptions is that the equity research rule has more extensive required disclosures in both research reports and public appearances than Rule 2210(d)(7) and (f)(2), respectively. New Rule 2242 requires similarly extensive corresponding disclosures in debt research reports and public appearances by debt research analysts. As such, FINRA believes it appropriate to similarly except debt research reports from the disclosure requirements of Rule 2210(d)(7) and except public appearances by debt research analysts from the disclosure requirements of Rule 2210(f)(2) for consistency purposes.

Finally, the proposed rule change would also make technical changes to FINRA Rules 2210(d)(7) and (f)(5) to make the rule language more readable.8

FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness and has requested that the SEC waive the requirement that the proposed rule change not become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing. The implementation date for the proposed rule change will be July 16, 2016, to coincide with the effective date of FINRA Rule 2242.9

FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,10 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 the proposed rule change will promote consistent application of the communications with the public rules and provide greater clarity to members and the public regarding FINRA's rules.

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. The proposed rule change brings clarity and consistency to FINRA rules without adding any burden on firms.

Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 11 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.12

A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act 13 normally does not become operative before 30 days from the date of the filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),14 the Commission may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. FINRA has asked the Commission to waiver the 30-day operative delay. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The proposed rule change is designed to clarify the application of FINRA Rule 2210 to debt research reports as the result of the Commission's approval of a new FINRA debt research conflict of interest rule (Rule 2242).15 A waiver of the 30-day operative delay will allow the proposed rule change to become operative on July 16, 2016, the same date on which Rule 2242 will be implemented.16 Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the proposed rule change to be operative on July 16, 2016.17

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

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:

• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

• Send an email to [email protected]. Please include File Number SR-FINRA-2016-021 on the subject line.

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

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),2 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,3 notice is hereby given that on June 29, 2016, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “NYSE Arca”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

The Exchange proposes to amend Commentary .06 to Rule 6.8 to extend the pilot program that eliminated the position limits for options on SPDR S&P 500 ETF (“SPY”) (“SPY Pilot Program”). The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

The Exchange proposes to amend Commentary .06 to Rule 6.8 to extend the time period of the SPY Pilot Program,4 which is currently scheduled to expire on July 12, 2016, through July 12, 2017.

This filing does not propose any substantive changes to the SPY Pilot Program. In proposing to extend the SPY Pilot Program, the Exchange reaffirms its consideration of several factors that supported the original proposal of the SPY Pilot Program, including (1) the availability of economically equivalent products and their respective position limits, (2) the liquidity of the option and the underlying security, (3) the market capitalization of the underlying security and the related index, (4) the reporting of large positions and requirements surrounding margin, and (5) the potential for market on close volatility.

In the July 2015 Extension, the Exchange stated that if it were to propose an extension, permanent approval or termination of the program, the Exchange would submit, along with any filing proposing such amendments to the program, a report providing an analysis of the SPY Pilot Program covering the period since the previous extension (the “Pilot Report”). Accordingly, the Exchange is submitting a Pilot Report detailing the Exchange's experience with the SPY Pilot Program for the period covering thirteen (13) months from May 2015 to May 2016. The Pilot Report is attached as Exhibit 3 to this filing. The Exchange notes that it is unaware of any problems created by the SPY Pilot Program and does not foresee any as a result of the proposed extension. In extending the SPY Pilot Program, the Exchange states that if it were to propose another extension, permanent approval or termination of the program, the Exchange will submit another Pilot Report covering the period since the previous extension, which will be submitted at least 30 days before the end of the proposed extension. If the SPY Pilot Program is not extended or adopted on a permanent basis by July 12, 2017, the position limits for SPY would revert to limits in effect at the commencement of the pilot program. The proposed extension will allow the Exchange and the Commission additional time to further evaluate the SPY Pilot Program and its effect on the market.

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 prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, 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. The Exchange believes that extending the SPY Pilot Program promotes just and equitable principles of trade by permitting market participants, including market makers, institutional investors and retail investors, to establish greater positions when pursuing their investment goals and needs.

The Exchange 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. The proposed rule change is not designed to address any aspect of competition, whether between the Exchange and its competitors, or among market participants. Instead, the proposed rule change is designed to allow the SPY Pilot Program to continue uninterrupted. Additionally, the Exchange expects all other SROs that currently have rules regarding the SPY Pilot Program to also extend the pilot program for an additional year.

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

Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.7

A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act 8 normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) 9 permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange believes that waiver of the operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because it will allow the SPY Pilot Program to continue without interruption. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the operative delay and designates the proposed rule change operative upon filing.10

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

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:

• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

• Send an email to [email protected]. Please include File Number SR-NYSEArca-2016-92 on the subject line.

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

On May 2, 2016, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“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 list and trade shares (“Shares”) of the AdvisorShares KIM Korea Equity ETF (“Fund”) under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600. On May 13, 2016, the Exchange submitted Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. The Commission published notice of the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, in the Federal Register on May 23, 2016.3 On May 23, 2016, the Exchange submitted Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change.4 The Commission received no comments on the proposed rule change.

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 Commission is extending this 45-day time period. The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change.

Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act,6 designates August 21, 2016 as the date by which the Commission shall either approve or disapprove or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change (File Number SR-NYSEArca-2016-64).

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 24, 2016, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq” 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.

The Exchange proposes to amend Nasdaq's Rule 4757, entitled “Book Processing” to adopt a Limit Order Protection or “LOP” for members accessing the Nasdaq Market Center.

The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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.

The Exchange proposes to adopt a new mechanism to protect against erroneous Limit Orders which are entered into the Nasdaq Market Center. Specifically, this new feature addresses risks to market participants of human error in entering Limit Orders at unintended prices. LOP would prevent certain Limit Orders from executing or being placed on the Order Book at prices outside pre-set standard limits. The System would reject those Limit Orders, rather than executing them automatically. The proposed LOP feature is similar to a risk feature which exists today on the NASDAQ Options Market LLC (“NOM”) 3 and is available for Options Participants.

The Exchange proposes to adopt a new feature, LOP for Limit Orders, which would reject Limit Orders back to the member when the order exceeds certain defined logic. Specifically, the LOP feature would prevent certain Limit Orders at prices outside of pre-set standard limits (“LOP Limit”) from being accepted by the System. LOP shall apply to all Quotes and Orders, including any modified Orders.4 LOP would not apply to Market Orders, Market Maker Peg Orders 5 or Intermarket Sweep Orders (ISO).6 A Market Maker Peg Order is a passive order type which will not otherwise remove liquidity from the Order Book. This order type was designed to assist Market Makers with meeting their quoting obligations. Market Makers have a diverse business model as compared with other market participants. Excluding the Market Maker Peg Order from the LOP will assist Market Makers in meeting their quoting obligations. The Exchange believes that because Market Makers have other risk protections in place to prevent them from quoting outside of their financial means, the risk level for erroneous trades is not the same as with other market participants. Market Makers have more sophisticated infrastructures than other market participants and are able to manage their risk, particularly with quoting, utilizing other tools which may not be available to other market participants. An ISO is immediately executable within the Nasdaq Market Center against orders against which they are marketable. The ISO designation on an order presumes that the market participant has satisfied their obligation to all protected quotes up to the limit of the ISO.

LOP would be operational each trading day, except for orders designated for opening and closing crosses and initial public offerings. LOP would not be operational during trading halts and pauses. Since Nasdaq Rules provided controls for the opening, closing and initial public offering processes within the Rulebook, the proposed protections are rendered ineffective for those processes.7 Members will be subject to certain parameters when submitting Limit Orders into the Order Book. Also, LOP would not apply in the event that there is no established LOP Reference Price.8 The LOP Reference Price shall be the current National Best Bid or Best Offer (NBBO), the bid for sell orders and the offer for buy orders.

The Exchange proposes to not accept incoming Limit Orders that exceed the LOP Reference Threshold. Limit Orders will not be accepted if the price of the Limit Order is greater than the LOP Reference Threshold for a buy Limit Order. Limit Orders will not be accepted if the price of the Limit Order is less than the LOP Reference Threshold for a sell Limit Order. The LOP Reference Threshold for buy orders will be the LOP Reference Price (offer) plus the applicable percentage specified [sic] in the LOP Limit. The LOP Reference Threshold for sell orders will be the LOP Reference Price (bid) minus the applicable percentage specified [sic] in the LOP Limit. The LOP Limit shall be the greater of 10% of the LOP Reference Price or $0.50 for all securities across all trading sessions. The LOP Reference Price shall be the current National Best Bid or Best Offer (NBBO), the bid for sell orders and the offer for buy orders.

The Exchange also notes that LOP will be applicable on all protocols.9 The LOP feature will be mandatory for all Nasdaq members. The Exchange proposes to implement this rule within ninety (90) days of the approval of this proposed rule change. The Exchange will issue an Equities Trader Alert in advance to inform market participants of such implementation date.

The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 10 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 11 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 mitigating risks to market participants of human error in entering Limit Orders at clearly unintended prices. The proposals are appropriate and reasonable, because they offer protections for Limit Orders which should encourage price continuity and, in turn, protect investors and the public interest by reducing executions occurring at dislocated prices.

The proposed LOP feature would assist with the maintenance of fair and orderly markets by mitigating the risks associated with errors resulting in executions at prices that are away from the Best Bid or Offer and potentially erroneous. Further the proposal protects investors from potentially receiving executions away from the prevailing prices at any given time. The Exchange proposes LOP to avoid a series of improperly priced aggressive orders transacting in the Order Book. The LOP Limit is appropriate because it seeks to capture improperly priced Limit Orders and reject them to reduce the risk of, and to potentially prevent, the automatic execution of Orders at prices that may be considered clearly erroneous. The System will only execute Limit Orders priced within the LOP Limit. The Exchange's proposed LOP Limit is a reasonable measure to ensure prices remain within the reasonable limits. This protection will bolster the normal resilience and market behavior that persistently produces robust reference prices. This feature should create a level of protection that prevents the Limit Orders from entering the Order Book outside of an acceptable range for the Limit Order to execute.

The LOP will reduce the negative impacts of sudden, unanticipated volatility, and serve to preserve an orderly market in a transparent and uniform manner, increase overall market confidence, and promote fair and orderly markets and the protection of investors. This feature is not optional and is applicable to all members submitting Limit Orders.

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. The LOP feature will provide market participants with additional price protection from anomalous executions. This feature is not optional and is applicable to all members submitting Limit Orders. Thus, the Exchange does not believe the proposal creates any significant impact on competition. This type of risk protection is in place today for NOM Options Participants.12 Offering this protection to the Nasdaq Market Center will not impose any undue burden on intra-market competition, rather, it would permit equities and options members to be protected in a similar manner from erroneous executions.

No written comments were either solicited or received.

Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the Commission may designate 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.

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:

• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

• Send an email to [email protected]. Please include File Number SR-NASDAQ-2016-067 on the subject line.

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

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 29, 2016, NASDAQ BX, Inc. (“BX” 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.

The Exchange proposes to amend BX rules at Chapter VI, Section 9, concerning a price-improvement mechanism, “PRISM” to extend, through January 18, 2017, a pilot program (the “pilot”) concerning (i) the early conclusion of the PRISM Auction (as described below); (ii) an unrelated market or marketable limit order (against the BX BBO) on the opposite side of the market from the PRISM Order received during the Auction will not cause the Auction to end early and will execute against interest outside of the Auction; and (iii) no minimum size requirement of orders. The current pilot is scheduled to expire July 18, 2016.3

The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at http://nasdaqbx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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.

The purpose of this proposed rule change is to extend certain pilots within Chapter VI, Section 9, entitled “Price Improvement Auction (“PRISM”), through January 18, 2017.

The Exchange adopted PRISM in November 2015 as a price-improvement mechanism on the Exchange.4 This mechanism permits a Participant (an “Initiating Participant”) to electronically submit for execution an order it represents as agent on behalf of a Public Customer,5 Professional customer, broker dealer, or any other entity (“PRISM Order”) against principal interest or against any other order it represents as agent (an “Initiating Order”), provided it submits the PRISM Order for electronic execution into the PRISM Auction (“Auction”) pursuant to the Chapter VI, Section 9.6 All options traded on the Exchange are eligible for PRISM.

Three components of PRISM were approved by the Commission on a pilot basis: (1) The early conclusion of the PRISM Auction; 7 (2) an unrelated market or marketable limit order (against the BX BBO) on the opposite side of the market from the PRISM Order received during the Auction will not cause the Auction to end early and will execute against interest outside of the Auction; 8 and (3) no minimum size requirement of orders. The Exchange has provided the following additional information on a monthly basis.9 The pilots were approved for a pilot period expiring on July 18, 2016.10

The Exchange notes that during the pilot period it has been required to submit, and has been submitting, certain data periodically as required by the Commission, to provide supporting evidence that, among other things, there is meaningful competition for all size orders and that there is an active and liquid market functioning on the Exchange outside of the Auction mechanism. Specifically, the Exchange has submitted the following data as specified in its approval order: 11

(1) The number of contracts (of orders of 50 contracts or greater) entered into the PRISM;

(2) The number of contracts (of orders of fewer than 50 contracts) entered into the PRISM;

(3) The number of orders of 50 contracts or greater entered into the PRISM; and

(4) The number of orders of fewer than 50 contracts entered into the PRISM.

The Exchange will continue to provide such data. The Exchange believes that, because the pilot has been operating for a relatively short amount of time, the proposed extension should afford the Commission additional time to evaluate the pilot. The Exchange proposes to extend the pilot through January 18, 2017.

The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,12 in general and with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,13 in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, 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; and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers, or to regulate by virtue of any authority conferred by the Act matters not related to the purposes of the Act or the administration of the Exchange.

The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is also consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act 14 in that it does not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

Specifically, the Exchange believes that PRISM, including the rules to which the pilot applies, results in increased liquidity available at improved prices, with competitive final pricing out of the Initiating Participant's complete control. The Exchange believes that PRISM promotes and fosters competition and affords the opportunity for price improvement to more options contracts. The extension proposal allows additional time for the Commission to evaluate the pilot.

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. The proposal extends existing pilots that apply to all Exchange members, and enables the Exchange to be competitive in respect of other option exchanges that have similar programs.

No written comments were either solicited or received.

Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 15 and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.16

A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) 17 normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),18 the Commission may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Exchange stated that the proposed rule change does not involve any substantive changes to the Exchange's Rules and only seeks to extend the previously approved PRISM pilot. The Exchange also stated that the extension will ensure fair competition among exchanges by allowing the Exchange to continue with this pilot similar to other options exchanges that operate auctions. Finally, the Exchange stated that the waiver is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because it will permit the PRISM pilot to continue without interruption and will allow the Exchange to gather more information in connection with the pilot.

The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, as it will allow the PRISM pilot to continue uninterrupted, thereby avoiding any potential investor confusion that could result from a temporary interruption in the pilot. Therefore, the Commission designates the proposed rule change to be operative on July 18, 2016.19

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.

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:

• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

• Send an email to [email protected]. Please include File Number SR-BX-2016-038 on the subject line.

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