[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 77 (Monday, April 22, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23806-23810]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09340]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69381; File No. SR-MIAX-2013-16 ]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Modify the MIAX Fee Schedule

April 16, 2013.
    Pursuant to the provisions of 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 April 5, 2013, Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC (``MIAX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared
by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to modify the MIAX Fee Schedule
(``Fee Schedule'') to establish fees for option contracts overlying 10
shares of a security (``Mini Options''). The Exchange proposes to
implement these fee changes to coincide with the Exchange's listing and
trading of Mini Options on April 17, 2013.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.miaxoptions.com/filter/wotitle/rule_filing, at
MIAX's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to modify the Fee Schedule to establish fees
for Mini Options. The Exchange represented in its filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or the ``Commission'') to
establish Mini Options that, ``the current schedule of Fees will not
apply to the trading of mini-options contracts. The Exchange will not
commence trading of mini-option contracts until specific fees for mini-
options contracts trading have been filed with the Commission.'' \3\ As
the Exchange intends to begin trading Mini Options on April 17, 2013 it
is submitting this filing to describe the transaction fees that will be
applicable to the trading of Mini Options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69136 (March 14,
2013), 78 FR 17259 (March 20, 2013) (SR-MIAX-2013-06). The
Commission notes that the actual language from the Exchange's filing
is: ``the current MIAX Fee Schedule will not apply to the trading of
mini-option contracts. The Exchange will not commence trading of
mini-option contracts until specific fees for mini-option contracts
trading have been filed with the Commission.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mini Options have a smaller exercise and assignment value due to
the reduced number of shares they deliver as compared to standard
option contracts. As such, the Exchange is proposing generally lower
per contract fees as compared to standard option contracts, with some
exceptions to be fully described below. Despite the smaller exercise
and assignment value of a Mini Option, the cost to the Exchange to
process quotes and orders in Mini Options, perform regulatory
surveillance and retain quotes and orders for archival purposes is the
same as for a standard contract. This leaves the Exchange in a position
of trying to strike the right balance of fees applicable to Mini
Options--too low and the costs of processing Mini Options quotes and
orders will necessarily cause the Exchange to either raise fees for
everyone or only for participants trading Mini Options; too high and
participants may be deterred from trading Mini Options, leaving the
Exchange less able to recoup costs associated with development of the
product, which is designed to offer investors a way to take less risk
in high dollar securities. The Exchange, therefore, believes that
adopting fees for Mini Options that are in some cases lower than fees
for standard contracts, and in other cases the same as for standard
contracts, is appropriate, not unreasonable, not unfairly
discriminatory and not burdensome on competition between participants,
or between the Exchange and other exchanges in the listed options
market place.
Exchange Transaction Fees
    The Exchange proposes establishing Mini Options transaction fees
for all Market Makers and other market participants that would be 10%
of the fee associated with standard options. The Mini Options
transaction fee, as its standard option counterpart, would apply per
executed contract to Registered Market Makers, Lead Market Makers,
Directed Order-Lead Market Makers, Primary Lead Market Makers, Directed
Order-Primary Lead Market Makers, Public Customers that are not
Priority Customers, Non-MIAX Market Makers, Non-Member Broker-Dealers,
and Firms. Below is a chart providing a comparison of the transaction
fees for standard options and to the proposed fees for Mini Options:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Standard options      Mini options
                                    transaction fee     transaction fee
    Type of MIAX Market Maker        (per executed       (per executed
                                       contract)           contract)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Registered Market Maker.........               $0.23              $0.023
Lead Market Maker...............                0.20               0.020
Directed Order--Lead Market                     0.18               0.018
 Maker..........................
Primary Lead Market Maker.......                0.18               0.018
Directed Order--Primary Lead                    0.16               0.016
 Market Maker...................
Priority Customer...............                0.00               0.000
Public Customer that is Not a                   0.25               0.025
 Priority Customer..............
Non-MIAX Market Maker...........                0.45               0.045
Non-Member Broker-Dealer........                0.45               0.045
Firm............................                0.25               0.025
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In proposing Mini Options transaction fees that are 10% of the
related standard option transaction fee, the Exchange acknowledges and
takes into account that Mini Options have a smaller exercise and
assignment value due to the reduced number of shares to be delivered as
compared to standard option contracts. The Mini Options transaction fee
charged to Priority Customers \4\ would remain at $0.00

because the transaction fee for standard options, currently set at
$0.00, cannot be reduced any lower.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The term ``Priority Customer'' means a person or entity that
(i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) does not place
more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a
calendar month for its own beneficial account(s). See Exchange Rule
100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marketing Fee
    Currently, the Exchange assesses a Marketing Fee to all Market
Makers for contracts they execute in their assigned classes when the
contra-party to the execution is a Priority Customer. The Exchange
proposes assessing a Marketing Fee for applicable transactions in Mini
Options and setting the fee to be 10% of the associated fee for
standard options. As noted above, the Exchange bases this proposal on
the smaller exercise and assignment value due to the reduced number of
shares to be delivered with Mini Options as compared to standard option
contracts. Below is a chart providing a comparison of the Marketing
Fees for standard options and to the proposed fees for Mini Options:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Amount of marketing fee assessed              Option classes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$0.70 (per contract)..............  Transactions in Standard Option
                                     Classes that are not in the Penny
                                     Pilot Program.
$0.25 (per contract)..............  Transactions in Standard Option
                                     Classes that are in the Penny Pilot
                                     Program.
$0.070 (per contract).............  Transactions in Mini Options where
                                     the corresponding Standard Option
                                     is not in the Penny Pilot Program.
$0.025 (per contract).............  Transactions in Mini Options where
                                     the corresponding Standard Option
                                     is in the Penny Pilot Program
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fixed Fee Surcharge
    In order to comply with the requirements of the Distributive
Linkage Plan,\5\ the Exchange uses various means of accessing better
priced interest located on other exchanges. Presently, the Exchange
charges a Fixed Fee Surcharge of $0.10 per contract plus a pass through
of the fees associated with the execution of the routed order on the
other exchanges. The $0.10 is designed to recover the Exchange's costs
in routing orders to the other exchanges. Those costs include clearance
charges imposed by The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') and per
contract routing fees charged by the broker dealers who charge the
Exchange for the use of their systems to route orders to other
exchanges. It is the Exchange's understanding that both the OCC and the
broker dealers have kept their charges applicable to Mini Options the
same as for standard option contracts, as their cost to process a
contract (i.e., routing or clearing) is the same irrespective of the
exercise and assignment value of the contract. As such, the Exchange
intends to charge the same Fixed Fee Surcharge for Mini Options as it
presently does for standard options, as described in Section (1)(c) of
the current Fee Schedule. The Exchange notes that participants can
avoid the Fixed Fee Surcharge in several ways. First, they can simply
route to the exchange with the best priced interest. The Exchange, in
recognition of the fact that markets can move while orders are in
flight, also offers participants the ability to utilize an order type
that does not route to other exchanges. Specifically, the Do Not Route
(``DNR'') order modifier is one such order that would never route to
another exchange. Given this ability to avoid the Fixed Fee Surcharge,
coupled with the fixed third-party costs associated with routing, the
Exchange believes it is reasonable to charge the same Routing Surcharge
for Mini Options that is charged for standard option contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Exchange Rule 529.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Options Regulatory Fee
    Presently the Exchange charges an Options Regulatory Fee (``ORF'')
of $0.004 per contract. The ORF is assessed on each MIAX Member for all
options transactions executed or cleared by the MIAX Member that are
cleared by the OCC in the customer range, regardless of the exchange on
which the transaction occurs. The Exchange is proposing to charge the
same rate for transactions in Mini Options, $0.004 per contract, since,
as noted, the costs to the Exchange to process quotes, orders, trades
and the necessary regulatory surveillance programs and procedures in
Mini Options are the same as for standard option contracts. As such,
the Exchange feels that it is appropriate to charge the ORF at the same
rate as the standard option contract.
2. Statutory Basis
    MIAX believes that its proposal to amend fee schedule is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \6\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \7\ in particular, in that it
is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees and other charges among
its members, issuers and other persons using its facilities and does
not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers or
dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange noted earlier that, while Mini Options have a smaller
exercise and assignment value due to the reduced number of shares to be
delivered as compared to standard option contracts, and despite the
smaller exercise and assignment value of a Mini Option, the cost to the
Exchange to process quotes and orders in Mini Options, perform
regulatory surveillance and retain quotes and orders for archival
purposes is the same as for a standard contract. This leaves the
Exchange in a position of trying to strike the right balance of fees
applicable to Mini Options--too low and the costs of processing Mini
Options quotes and orders will necessarily cause the Exchange to either
raise fees for everyone or only for participants trading Mini Options;
too high and participants may be deterred from trading Mini Options,
leaving the Exchange less able to recoup costs associated with
development of the product, which is designed to offer investors a way
to take less risk in high dollar securities. Given these realities, the
Exchange believes that adopting fees for Mini Options that are in some
cases lower than standard contracts, and in other cases the same as for
standard contracts, is appropriate, not unreasonable, not unfairly
discriminatory and not burdensome on competition between participants,
or between the Exchange and other exchanges in the listed options
market place.
    In the case of most trade related charges, the Exchange has decided
to offer lower per contract fees to participants as part of trying to
strike the right balance between recovering costs associated with
trading Mini Options and encouraging use of the new Mini Option
contracts, which are designed to allow investors to reduce risk in high
dollar underlying securities.
    The Exchange proposal to establish transaction fees applicable to
Market Makers and all other participants to be 10% of the fee charged
for standard options is reasonable in light of the fact that the Mini
Options do have a smaller exercise and assignment value, specifically
1/10th that of a standard

option contract. The Exchange's proposal is based on the already
established classification of Market Makers and other market
participants for standard option contracts, which is an effective fee
on the Exchange and has not been determined to be inequitable or
unfairly discriminatory. Therefore, the Exchange believes the proposed
pricing for Mini Options to be equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory as it would apply to all members of a given class (i.e.,
the Mini Options transaction fee for Register Market Makers would apply
to all Register Market Makers).
    The Exchange believes the proposal to charge Priority Customers
$.00 per contract to be reasonable, as Priority Customers have traded
for free all options on the Exchange since the inception of the
Exchange. The ability to trade for free attracts Priority Customer
order flow to the Exchange, which is beneficial to all other
participants on the Exchange who generally seek to trade with Priority
Customer order flow. The proposed fee of $.00 per contract is the same
fee charged to Priority Customer orders in standard option contracts,
which is an effective fee on the Exchange and has not been determined
to be inequitable or unfairly discriminatory. Therefore, the proposed
Priority Customer pricing for Mini Options would be equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory.
    The Exchange believes its proposal to assess a Marketing Fee to all
Market Makers for Mini Options contracts they execute in their assigned
classes when the contra-party to the execution is a Priority Customer
with such Marketing Fee set at 10% of the related fee charged for
standard options to be reasonable in light of the fact that the Minis
do have a smaller exercise and assignment value, specifically 1/10th
that of a standard contract. The Exchange does not believe its proposal
to be unfairly discriminatory because it applies to all applicable
Market Makers evenly.
    The Exchange proposal to treat Mini Options the same as standard
options for purposes of the Fixed Fee Surcharge is reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for the following reasons.
Presently, the Exchange charges a Routing Surcharge of $0.10 per
contract plus a pass through of the fees associated with the execution
of the routed order on the other exchanges. The $0.10 is designed to
recover the Exchange's costs in routing orders to the other exchanges.
Those costs include clearance charges imposed by the OCC and per
contract routing fees charged by the broker dealers who charge the
Exchange for the use of their systems to route orders to other
exchanges. The Exchange understands that both the OCC and the broker
dealers have kept their charges applicable to Mini Options the same as
for standard option contracts, as their cost to process a contract
(i.e., routing or clearing) is the same irrespective of the exercise
and assignment value of the contract. As such, the Exchange intends to
charge the same Fixed Fee Surcharge for Mini Options as it presently
does for standard options, as described in Section (1)(c) of the
current Fee Schedule. The Exchange notes that participants can avoid
the Fixed Fee Surcharge in several ways. First they can simply route to
the exchange with the best priced interest. The Exchange, in
recognition of the fact that markets can move while orders are in
flight, also offers participants the ability to utilize an order type
that does not route to other exchanges. Specifically, the DNR order
type is an order that would never route to another exchange. Given this
ability to avoid the Fixed Fee Surcharge, coupled with the fixed third
party costs associated with routing, the Exchange feels it is
reasonable and equitable to charge the same Fixed Fee Surcharge for
Mini Options that is charged for standard option contracts. Since the
Fixed Fee Surcharge will apply to all participants in Mini Options as
it is applied for standard options, and because such surcharge has not
previously been found to be unreasonable, inequitable or unfairly
discriminatory, the Exchange believes it is the case for Mini Options
as well.
    The Exchange notes, particularly in the context of the ORF, that
the cost to perform surveillance to ensure compliance with various
Exchange and industry-wide rules is no different for a Mini Option than
it is for a standard option contract. Reducing the ORF for Mini options
could result in a higher ORF for standard options. Such an outcome
would arguably be discriminatory towards investors in standard options
for the benefit of investors in Minis. As such, the appropriate
approach is to treat both Mini Options and standard options the same
with respect to the amount of the ORF that is being charged.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change designed to
provide greater specificity and precision within the Fee Schedule with
respect to the fees that will be applicable to Mini Options when they
begin trading on the Exchange on or about April 17, 2013.
    The Exchange believes that adopting fees for Mini Options that are
in some cases lower than for standard contracts, but in other cases the
same as for standard contracts, strikes the appropriate balance between
fees applicable to standard contracts versus fees applicable to Mini
Options, and will not impose a burden on competition among various
market participants on the Exchange, or between the Exchange and other
exchanges in the listed options market place, not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In this regard,
as Mini Options are a new product being introduced into the listed
options marketplace, the Exchange is unable at this time to absolutely
determine the impact that the fees proposed herein will have on trading
in Mini Options. That said, however, the Exchange believes that the
rates proposed for Mini Options, would not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.
    Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually
review, and consider adjusting, its fees and credits to remain
competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described above, the
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this
competitive environment.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\8\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MIAX-2013-16 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2013-16. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2013-16, and should be
submitted on or before May 13, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-09340 Filed 4-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


 MEMORANDUM

DATE:08/25/2014 FROM: 		Laura Farris/EPA Region 8 TO:CLEAN Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR - 2013-0602 SUBJECT:	Clean Power Plan Letter of Support from Colorado Western Slope Entities

SUMMARY   EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy, and EPA Region 8 Regional Administrator, Shaun McGrath, received a letter of support from various Colorado Western Slope entities, including elected officials, businesses, and health professionals. The letter is dated August 14, 2014. The Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014.

Attachment Letter of Support


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 190 (Monday, October 1, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49269-49272]
[FR Doc No: 2018-20932]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0395; Product Identifier 2017-NM-136-AD; Amendment
39-19430; AD 2018-19-29]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus SAS Model A330-200 Freighter, -200, and -300 series airplanes;
and Airbus SAS Model A340-200, -300, -500, and -600 series airplanes.
This AD was prompted by a report of deficient fatigue performance of
high strength steel used in forgings. Components made from the affected
high strength steel are installed on the main landing gear (MLG), nose
landing gear (NLG), and center landing gear (CLG). This AD requires
identifying the part number and serial number of certain components
installed on the MLG, NLG, and CLG; replacing affected parts;
identifying the airplane's weight variant; and determining the
applicable life limit for certain components installed on the MLG, NLG,
and CLG. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on
these products.

DATES: This AD is effective November 5, 2018.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of November 5,
2018.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAL, Rond-Point Emile
Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36
96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email [email protected];
internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information
at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0395.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA 2018-
0395; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-
5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198-6547; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Model A330-200
Freighter series airplanes, Model A330-200 series airplanes, Model
A330-300 series airplanes, Model A340-200 series airplanes, Model A340-
300 series airplanes, Model A340-500 series airplanes, and Model A340-
600 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May
9, 2018 (83 FR 21196). The NPRM was prompted by a report of deficient
fatigue performance of high strength steel used in forgings. Components
made from the affected high strength steel are installed on the MLG,
NLG, and CLG. The NPRM proposed to require identifying the part number
and serial number of certain components installed on the MLG, NLG, and
CLG; replacing affected parts; identifying the airplane's weight
variant; and determining the applicable life limit for certain
components installed on the MLG, NLG, and CLG.
    We are issuing this AD to address certain parts made from 300M high
strength steel, which if uncorrected, could lead to structural failure
of the landing gear, and possible loss of control of the airplane
during take-off or landing.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD
2017-0185, dated September 22, 2017 (referred to after this as the
Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to
correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A330-200 Freighter
series airplanes, Model A330-200 series airplanes, Model A330-300
series airplanes, Model A340-200 series airplanes, Model A340-300
series airplanes, Model A340-500 series

airplanes, and Model A340-600 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    In 2006, Messier-Dowty identified a deficiency in the fatigue
performance of 300M high strength steel used in forgings. The root
cause for this fatigue deficiency was the processing during
preparation of the material. After investigation, it was determined
that the following material sources (S) were affected by this
fatigue deficiency: Electralloy (S1), RSM (S2A, S2B or S2C), Latrobe
(S3) and Aubert et Duval (S4).
    Consequently, reduced lives were calculated for certain landing
gear main fittings, bogie beams and sliding pistons, determined to
be affected by the 300M material properties quality issue. These
components are installed on Main, Nose and Centre Landing Gears
(MLG, NLG, CLG) of A330 and A340 aeroplanes.
    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to structural
failure of a landing gear, possibly resulting in loss of control of
the aeroplane during take-off or landing.
    To initially address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus
published reduced life limits for the affected parts from material
sources S1, S2 and S3 in the applicable Airworthiness Limitation
Section (ALS) Part 1. Later, it was determined that ALS Part 1 was
an inappropriate place for recording the reduced lives and Airbus
published Service Bulletin (SB) A330-32-3281, SB A340-32-4310, and
SB A340-32-5119, as applicable, to provide identification and
replacement instructions for affected parts made of all material
sources S1, S2, S3 and S4. This action was also accomplished to
simplify Airbus ALS Part 1.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires
[identification of the part numbers and serial numbers of the main
fitting, bogie beam and sliding piston of the MLG, NLG, and CLG, and
the airplane's weight variant], and implementation of the reduced
life limits for the affected parts and replacement of any parts that
are close to, or have exceeded the applicable reduced life limit.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0395.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this final rule. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the
determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed,
except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor
changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus SAS has issued the following service information.
     Service Bulletin A330-32-3281, Revision 02, including
Appendixes 01 through 06, dated June 16, 2017; and Service Bulletin
A340-32-4310, Revision 02, including Appendixes 01 through 06, dated
June 16, 2017. This service information includes procedures for
inspections to identify the part numbers and serial numbers of the main
fittings, bogie beams, and sliding pistons of the MLG; and procedures
for determining the airplane's weight variant. This service information
also describes the reduced life limits for affected parts. These
documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models.
     Service Bulletin A340-32-5119, Revision 01, including
Appendixes 01 through 07, dated January 31, 2017. This service
information includes procedures for inspections to identify the part
numbers and serial numbers of the main fittings and bogie beams of the
MLG, NLG, and CLG; and procedures for determining the airplane's weight
variant. This service information also describes the reduced life
limits for affected parts.
    In addition, Airbus has issued the following service information,
which describes life limits for affected parts. These documents are
distinct since they apply to different airplane models and different
life limited parts.
     A330 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 1,
``Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items (SL-ALI),'' Revision 09,
dated September 18, 2017.
     A330 ALS Part 1, ``Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation
Items (SL-ALI),'' Variation 9.2, dated November 28, 2017.
     A340 ALS Part 1, ``Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation
Items (SL-ALI),'' Revision 09, dated September 18, 2017.
     A340 ALS Part 1, ``Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation
Items (SL-ALI),'' Variation 9.2, dated November 28, 2017.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 103 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection............................  4 work-hours x $85 per                $0            $340         $35,020
                                         hour = $340.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that will enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition part replacements specified in this
AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has

delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category
airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System
Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2018-19-29 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-19430; Docket No. FAA-2018-0395;
Product Identifier 2017-NM-136-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective November 5, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus SAS airplanes identified in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(7) of this AD, certificated in any
category, all manufacturer serial numbers.
    (1) Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, and -243 airplanes.
    (2) Model A330-223F and -243F airplanes.
    (3) Model A330-301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342,
and -343 airplanes.
    (4) Model A340-211, -212, and -213 airplanes.
    (5) Model A340-311, -312, and -313 airplanes.
    (6) Model A340-541 airplanes.
    (7) Model A340-642 airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing
Gear.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of deficient fatigue
performance of 300M high strength steel used in forgings. Components
made of 300M high strength steel are installed on the main landing
gear (MLG), nose landing gear (NLG), and center landing gear (CLG).
We are issuing this AD to detect and correct certain parts made from
300M high strength steel, which if uncorrected, could lead to
structural failure of the landing gear, and possible loss of control
of the airplane during take-off or landing.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Definitions

    (1) For the purpose of this AD, an affected part is any main
fitting, bogie beam, or sliding piston of the MLG, NLG, or CLG
installed on the airplane, having a part number and serial number
combination specified in the applicable service information
identified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD.
    (2) For the purpose of this AD, a serviceable part is any main
fitting, bogie beam, or sliding piston of the MLG, NLG, or CLG that
has not exceeded the applicable life limit specified in paragraph
(g)(2)(i), (g)(2)(ii), or (g)(2)(iii) of this AD, since first
installation on an airplane.
    (i) The life limit specified in the applicable service
information identified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of
this AD.
    (ii) The life limit specified in Airbus A330 Airworthiness
Limitations Section (ALS) Part 1, ``Safe Life Airworthiness
Limitation Items (SL-ALI),'' Revision 09, dated September 18, 2017;
and A330 ALS Part 1, ``Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items (SL-
ALI),'' Variation 9.2, dated November 28, 2017.
    (iii) The life limit specified in Airbus A340 Airworthiness
Limitations Section (ALS) Part 1, ``Safe Life Airworthiness
Limitation Items (SL-ALI),'' Revision 09, dated September 18, 2017;
and A340 ALS Part 1, ``Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items (SL-
ALI),'' Variation 9.2, dated November 28, 2017.

(h) Identification of Part Number, Serial Number, Weight Variant, and
Reduced Life Limit

    Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD: Identify
the part number and serial number of each main fitting, bogie beam,
and sliding piston of the MLG, NLG, and CLG installed on the
airplane; identify the airplane's weight variant; and determine the
applicable reduced life limit; in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of the applicable service information identified in
paragraph (h)(1), (h)(2), or (h)(3) of this AD. A review of airplane
maintenance records is acceptable for identification of the
installed main fittings, bogie beams, and sliding pistons of the
MLG, NLG, and CLG, provided the part number and serial number of
each component can be conclusively identified by that review.
    (1) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3281, Revision 02, including
Appendixes 01 through 06, dated June 16, 2017.
    (2) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4310, Revision 02, including
Appendixes 01 through 06, dated June 16, 2017.
    (3) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-5119, Revision 01, including
Appendixes 01 through 07, dated January 31, 2017.

(i) Replacement of Affected Parts

    Prior to exceeding the applicable life limit, as specified in
the applicable service information identified in paragraph (h)(1),
(h)(2), or (h)(3) of this AD, or within 3 months after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs later: Replace each affected part
(as defined in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD) with a serviceable part
(as defined in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD).

(j) Parts Installation Specification

    As of the effective date of this AD, any affected part (as
defined in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD) may be used as a replacement
part, provided the affected part is also a serviceable part (as
defined in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD), and following installation,
the affected part is replaced prior to exceeding the applicable life
limit as specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD.

(k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (l)(2) of this AD. Information
may be emailed to: [email protected]. Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus SAS's EASA Design Organization
Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include
the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): If any service information
contains procedures or

tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and tests must be
done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests that are not
identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and tests that
are not identified as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods
in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program
without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and
tests identified as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back
in an airworthy condition. Any substitutions or changes to
procedures or tests identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

 (l) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA AD 2017-0185, dated September 22, 2017, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet
at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2018-0395.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Vladimir
Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport
Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198-
6547; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

 (m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Airbus A330 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 1,
``Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items (SL-ALI),'' Revision 09,
dated September 18, 2017.
    (ii) Airbus A330 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 1,
``Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items (SL-ALI),'' Variation
9.2, dated November 28, 2017.
    (iii) Airbus A340 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part
1, ``Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items (SL-ALI),'' Revision
09, dated September 18, 2017.
    (iv) Airbus A340 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 1,
``Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items (SL-ALI),'' Variation
9.2, dated November 28, 2017.
    (v) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3281, Revision 02, including
Appendixes 01 through 06, dated June 16, 2017.
    (vi) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4310, Revision 02,
including Appendixes 01 through 06, dated June 16, 2017.
    (vii) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-5119, Revision 01,
including Appendixes 01 through 07, dated January 31, 2017.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAL, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine
No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax
+33 5 61 93 45 80; email [email protected];
internet http://www.airbus.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on September 14, 2018.
John P. Piccola,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-20932 Filed 9-28-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 31 (Thursday, February 18, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10134-10139]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03212]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-91107; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2021-006]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend the Exchange's Transaction Credits at Equity 7, Sections 114 and
118(a)

February 11, 2021.
    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 February 1, 2021, 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, II, and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's transaction credits
at Equity 7, Sections 114 and 118(a), as described further below.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/nasdaq/rules, at
the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's
schedule of credits, at Equity 7, Sections 114 and 118(a).
Proposed Changes to Qualified Market Maker Rebates
    Presently, in Equity 7, Section 114, the Exchange offers several
special pricing programs that are based, in part, upon members'
activities in securities priced at or more than $1 relative to total
``Consolidated Volume.'' \3\ Among them is a program that provides
rebates to Qualified Market Makers (``QMMs'').\4\ Pursuant to Equity 7,
Section 114(e), a member that qualifies as a QMM is entitled to receive
a rebate per share executed with respect to all displayed orders (other
than Designated Retail Orders, as defined in Equity 7, Section 118) in
securities priced at $1 or more per share that provide liquidity in
each of Tapes A, B, and C. Such a rebate is in addition to any rebate
payable under Equity 7, Section 118(a). Specifically, the Exchange
offers several tiers of rebates to QMMs. Among them, it offers a Tier 1
rebate of $0.0001 per share executed to any QMM that executes shares of
liquidity provided in all securities through one or more of its Nasdaq
Market Center MPIDs that represent above 0.70% up to, and including,
0.90% of Consolidated Volume during the month. Additionally, the
Exchange offers a Tier 2 rebate of $0.0002 per share executed to any
QMM that executes shares of liquidity provided in all securities
through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs that represent
above 0.90% of Consolidated Volume during the month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Pursuant to Equity 7, Section 114(h), the term
``Consolidated Volume'' shares the meaning of that term set forth in
Equity 7, Section 118(a). Equity 7, Section 118(a) defines
``Consolidated Volume'' to mean the total consolidated volume
reported to all consolidated transaction reporting plans by all
exchanges and trade reporting facilities during a month in equity
securities, excluding executed orders with a size of less than one
round lot. For purposes of calculating Consolidated Volume and the
extent of a member's trading activity the date of the annual
reconstitution of the Russell Investments Indexes is excluded from
both total Consolidated Volume and the member's trading activity.
    \4\ Pursuant to Equity 7, Section 114(d), a member may be
designated as a QMM if: (1) The member is not assessed any ``Excess
Order Fee'' under Equity 7, Section 118 during the month; and (2)
the member quotes at the NBBO at least 25% of the time during
regular market hours in an average of at least 1,000 securities per
day during the month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the month of December 2020 only, the Exchange amended the
definition of ``Consolidated Volume'' in Equity 7, Section 114,\5\ to
account for an unexpected rise in sub-dollar trading which stood to
adversely impact

members' qualifications for tiered pricing programs--including the QMM
pricing program--because such qualifications depend upon members
achieving threshold percentages of volumes as a percentage of
Consolidated Volume, and the rise in sub-dollar volume had diluted
these percentage calculations. Specifically, the Exchange amended the
definition of ``Consolidated Volume'' to state that for purposes of
determining which credits were applicable to a member during the month
of December 2020, the Exchange would calculate the member's volume and
total Consolidated Volume twice. First, it would calculate the member's
volume and Consolidated Volume as presently set forth in Equity 7,
Section 118(a). Second, it would calculate the member's volume and
Consolidated Volume by excluding volume and Consolidated Volume that
consists of executed orders in securities priced less than $1.
Thereafter, the Exchange would evaluate which of these two member
volume and Consolidated Volume calculations would qualify members for
the most advantageous credits and charges for the month of December
2020 and then it would apply those credits and charges to its members.
Thus, if but for the rise of sub-dollar volume in December, a member
would have qualified for a higher credit or a lower fee tier that
month, then the Exchange would have applied that higher credit or lower
fee tier to the member's trading activity during the month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-90719 (December
18, 2020), 85 FR 84437 (December 28, 2020) (SR-NASDAQ-2020-87).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In making this change, the Exchange reasoned that it would have
been unfair for its members that execute significant dollar volumes in
securities priced at or above $1 on the Exchange to fail to achieve or
to lose their existing qualifications for special pricing in December
2020 due to anomalous behavior to which they did not contribute. The
Exchange noted that although the change applied only to pricing in
December 2020, it would monitor sub-dollar volumes going forward, and
assess whether additional pricing adjustments are warranted if sub-
dollar volumes remained elevated relative to the norm.
    In fact, the Exchange has observed that the rise in sub-dollar
volume has not abated, and that it continues to threaten the ability of
some Exchange members to qualify for their pricing tiers. In January
2021, sub-dollar volume comprised 13.65 percent of Consolidated Volume.
By comparison, sub-dollar volume comprised only 9.28 percent of
Consolidated Volume, on average, during all of 2020. In particular, the
sub-dollar phenomenon continues to threaten the ability of QMMs to
attain their Tier 1 and Tier 2 credit tiers. In January 2021, several
QMMs experienced these adverse impacts.
    Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend the definition of
``Consolidated Volume'' in Equity 7, Section 114(h) to apply the
December 2020 pricing formulation going forward for purposes of
determining whether a QMM qualifies for Tier 1 or Tier 2 QMM
rebates.\6\ That is, the Exchange will calculate a QMM's volume and
total Consolidated Volume twice. First, it will calculate the QMM's
volume and Consolidated Volume as presently set forth in Equity 7,
Section 118(a). Second, with certain modifications discussed below, it
will calculate the QMM's volume and Consolidated Volume by excluding
volume and Consolidated Volume that consists of executed orders in
securities priced less than $1. Thereafter, the Exchange will evaluate
which of these two QMM volume and Consolidated Volume calculations
would qualify QMMs for the most advantageous credit tier and then it
will apply those credits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchange also proposes to delete rule text in Equity 7,
Section 118 that set forth the same special methodology for
calculating volumes as a percentage of Consolidated Volume during
the month of December 2020. At this time, the Exchange does not
propose to apply this special methodology beyond December 2020 to
its schedule of transaction fees and credits, at Equity 7, Section
118. This, for purposes of calculating the pricing tiers set forth
in Equity 7, Section 118, the Exchange does not exclude sub-dollar
volume. The Exchange proposes to remove the special methodology from
the rule text, as it is no longer operative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its QMM program plays an important role
in improving the quality of, deepening liquidity in, and tightening
spreads in its market. The QMM pricing program, in turn, offers rebates
that are critical to incenting members to meet the quoting requirements
for acting as QMMs. To the extent that a rise in sub-dollar trading by
non-QMMs imperils the ability of QMMs to qualify for the rebates that
motivate members to serve as QMMs, the Exchange believes that it is
appropriate to act to preserve the effectiveness of these rebates,
including by potentially excluding sub-dollar volume from the rebate
eligibility criteria.
    Where the Exchange proposes to exclude sub-dollar volume from the
QMM rebate qualification formulas, the Exchange also proposes to raise
the threshold percentages of Consolidated Volume that a QMM must
achieve to qualify for Tier 1 rebates. The Exchange proposes to raise
the eligibility threshold for the Tier 1 rebate to ensure that it is
calibrated appropriately. That is, while the Exchange proposes to
exclude sub-dollar volume to prevent the rebate qualification criteria
from becoming too difficult to attain, the Exchange also wants to
ensure that, exclusive of sub-dollar volume, these criteria do not
become too easy to attain and that they continue to incentivize QMMs to
add more liquidity to the Exchange in securities priced at $1 or more.
The Exchange believes that a small upward adjustment to the
Consolidated Volume threshold will ensure that the Tier 1 rebate
remains reasonably challenging for QMMs to achieve if sub-dollar volume
is excluded. Specifically, to qualify for the Tier 1 rebate (when
excluding sub-dollar volume), the Exchange proposes that a QMM must
execute shares of liquidity in securities through one or more of its
Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs that represent above 0.80%, up to and
including, 0.90% of Consolidated Volume during a month. Meanwhile, to
qualify for the Tier 2 rebate (again, when excluding sub-dollar
volume), the Exchange proposes that the qualification requirements will
remain unchanged: A QMM must execute shares of liquidity in securities
through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs that represent
above 0.90% of Consolidated Volume during a month.
    The following example illustrates the operation of the proposed
changes to the QMM rebate tiers when taken together. During a month, a
QMM adds 90 million shares to the Exchange, of which 300,000 shares
consists of volume in sub-dollar securities. Meanwhile, total
Consolidated Volume for that month is 13 billion shares, of which 1.8
billion shares consists of executions in sub-dollar securities. To
determine whether the QMM qualifies for a Tier 1 QMM rebate under the
proposal, the Exchange would first determine whether the QMM's volume,
inclusive of its sub-dollar activity, is between 0.70% and 0.90% of
Consolidated Volume (including sub-dollar volume). In this example, the
QMM would not qualify for Tier 1 under this formula because the QMM
added only 0.69% of Consolidated Volume during the month. Nevertheless,
the Exchange would determine next whether the QMM would qualify for the
Tier 1 rebate under the alternative formula in which the QMM's sub-
dollar volume and sub-dollar-attributable Consolidated Volume are
excluded from the calculation, while also raising the QMM's qualifying
threshold percentages of Consolidated Volume to between 0.80% and
0.90%. Under this alternative formula, the QMM would

qualify for Tier 1 rebates as it added 0.80% of Consolidated Volume
(exclusive of sub-dollar volume). Insofar as the proposal would provide
for the Exchange to apply the calculation results that are most
advantageous to the QMM, the Exchange in this example would apply the
Tier 1 rebate to the QMM.
Proposed Amendments to Existing Transaction Credits
    In addition to the above, the Exchange proposes to amend three of
the credits it offers to members in displayed quotes or orders in
securities in all three Tapes (other than Supplemental Orders or
Designated Retail Orders) that add liquidity to the Exchange, as set
forth in Equity 7, Section 118(a).
    First, the Exchange proposes to amend a credit it presently offers
of $0.00295 per share executed to a member with shares of liquidity
provided in all securities through one or more of its Nasdaq Market
Center MPIDs that represent 0.90% or more of Consolidated Volume during
the month, which includes shares of liquidity provided with respect to
securities that are listed on exchanges other than Nasdaq or NYSE that
represent 0.25% or more of Consolidated Volume. The Exchange proposes
to decrease the threshold percentage of Consolidated Volume necessary
to qualify for this credit from 0.90% to 0.85%. The Exchange proposes
to lower this threshold to render it easier for members to qualify for
the $0.00295 per share executed credit. More members may seek to attain
this credit to the extent that it is more accessible to them. If more
members increase their liquidity adding activity on the Exchange to
attain this credit, then the quality of the market will improve, to the
benefit of all participants.
    Second, the Exchange proposes to amend a credit it presently offers
of $0.0029 per share executed to a member with shares of liquidity
provided in all securities through one or more of its Nasdaq Market
Center MPIDs that represent more than 0.70% of Consolidated Volume
during the month. The Exchange proposes to decrease the threshold
percentage of Consolidated Volume necessary to qualify for this credit
from 0.70% to 0.675%. The Exchange also proposes to lower this
threshold to render it easier for members to qualify for the $0.0029
per share executed credit. Again, more members may seek to attain this
credit to the extent that it is more accessible to them. If more
members increase their liquidity adding activity on the Exchange to
attain this credit, then the quality of the market will improve, to the
benefit of all participants.
    Third, the Exchange proposes to amend a credit it presently offers
of $0.0025 per share executed to a member that provides a daily average
of at least 4 million shares of liquidity, of which greater than 1.5
million shares per day must comprise non-displayed liquidity, excluding
midpoint orders. The Exchange proposes to amend the credit to state
that the ``greater than 1.5 million shares per day'' requirement may be
satisfied, not only by adding non-displayed liquidity (excluding
midpoint orders), but also by using Midpoint Extended Life Orders (``M-
ELOs''). The Exchange proposes this change to provide a new incentive
for members to increase significant liquidity each day in M-ELO Orders,
as well as to render the credit easier for members to attain, thereby
enticing more members to try to grow their liquidity adding activity on
the Exchange to do so. To the extent that the proposed amended credit
succeeds in increasing the number of its members that attain the
credit, and in increasing the volume of liquidity provided to the
Exchange, then the quality of the market will improve for all
participants.
New Proposed Growth Tier
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend Equity 7, Section 118(a),
to establish a new $0.0029 per share executed credit to a member, for
displayed quotes or orders in securities in all three Tapes (other than
Supplemental Orders or Designated Retail Orders) that add liquidity to
the Exchange, to the extent that the member, through one or more of its
Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs: (i) Provides shares of liquidity in all
securities that represent equal to or greater than 0.65% of
Consolidated Volume during the month; (ii) increases its average daily
volume of M-ELO Orders executed by 150% or more during the month
relative to the month of January 2021; and (iii) executes an average
daily volume of at least 750,000 shares in M-ELO Orders for the month.
The Exchange intends for this new credit to encourage members to grow
the extent to which they utilize the M-ELO Order Type on the Exchange,
and to reward those members that do so in significant volumes. The
Exchange believes that any ensuing increase in M-ELO liquidity on the
Exchange will improve the quality of the Nasdaq market generally as
well as the experiences of those members that choose to interact with
the market through M-ELO. To the extent that the proposed new credit
succeeds in having its members attain the credit, and in increasing the
volume of liquidity provided to the Exchange, then the quality of the
market will improve for all participants.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposals are consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act,\7\ in general, and further the objectives of
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in particular, in that they
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other
charges among members and issuers and other persons using any facility,
and are not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers. The proposals are also consistent with
Section 11A of the Act relating to the establishment of the national
market system for securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposals Are Reasonable
    The Exchange's proposals are reasonable in several respects. As a
threshold matter, the Exchange is subject to significant competitive
forces in the market for equity securities transaction services that
constrain its pricing determinations in that market. The fact that this
market is competitive has long been recognized by the courts. In
NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit
stated as follows: ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow
is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market
system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that
act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of
where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to
take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange
possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of
order flow from broker dealers '. . . .'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market
model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its

broader forms that are most important to investors and listed
companies.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005),
70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Numerous indicia demonstrate the competitive nature of this market.
For example, clear substitutes to the Exchange exist in the market for
equity security transaction services. The Exchange is only one of
several equity venues to which market participants may direct their
order flow. Competing equity exchanges offer similar tiered pricing
structures to that of the Exchange, including schedules of rebates and
fees that apply based upon members achieving certain volume thresholds.
    Within this environment, market participants can freely and often
do shift their order flow among the Exchange and competing venues in
response to changes in their respective pricing schedules. Within the
foregoing context, the proposals represent reasonable attempts by the
Exchange to increase its liquidity and market share relative to its
competitors.
    As to the Exchange's proposal to potentially exclude sub-dollar
volume for purposes of determining QMMs' qualifications for Tier 1 and
Tier 2 rebates, the Exchange believes that this proposal is reasonable
because in its absence, QMMs may fail to qualify for their existing QMM
pricing tiers or fail to qualify for better pricing tiers. The Exchange
does not wish to penalize QMMs that engage in significant activity on
the Exchange in securities priced at or above $1 due to the sub-dollar
trading activities of other firms. The proposed rule change would seek
to avoid such a penalty by calculating eligibility for Tier 1 and Tier
2 rebates by first including and then excluding sub-dollar volume, and
then by applying the calculation that would result in the pricing
determination that is most advantageous to each QMM.
    At the same time, the Exchange believes that it is reasonable, when
excluding sub-dollar volume from its QMM Tier eligibility formulas, to
increase the threshold percentages of Consolidated Volume that a QMM
must achieve to qualify for the Tier 1 rebate. This proposal will help
to properly calibrate eligibility criteria for the QMM Tier 1 rebate so
that, when excluding sub-dollar volume, the Tier is neither too hard
nor too easy for QMMs to attain. That is, even though excluding sub-
dollar volume from the calculations may help QMMs to remain in their
existing Tiers even as sub-dollar activity by other firms rises, the
Exchange also wants to be sure that the Tiers continue to challenge
QMMs to add additional volume in stocks priced at or above $1. The
Exchange notes that if QMMs are unable to meet the higher Consolidated
Volume percentage requirements for Tier 1, they still may qualify for
the Tier under the existing qualification formula, which includes sub-
dollar volume but applies lower Consolidated Volume percentage
requirements.
    As to the Exchange's proposals to ease the qualification criteria
for three of its transaction credits, at Equity 7, Section 118(a), the
Exchange believes that these proposals are reasonable because they will
ease or broaden the eligibility criteria for the credits and, in doing
so, they will encourage more members to try to attain the credits by
adding additional liquidity to the Exchange. If more members increase
their liquidity adding activity on the Exchange to attain these
credits, then the quality of the market will improve, and the Exchange
will become more attractive to existing and prospective participants.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that its proposal is reasonable to
establish a new add credit with a growth component tied to M-ELO
activity. The proposal will encourage members to increase the extent to
which they utilize M-ELO Orders on the Exchange, and it will reward
members that do so in significant volumes. The Exchange believes that
any ensuing increase in M-ELO liquidity on the Exchange will improve
the quality of the Nasdaq market generally as well as the experiences
of those members that choose to interact with the market through M-ELO.
Additionally, if members increase their liquidity adding activity on
the Exchange to attain this new credit, then the quality of the market
will improve, and the Exchange will become more attractive to existing
and prospective participants. The Exchange notes that it selected
January 2021 as the baseline for the growth requirements because it is
the month immediately preceding the establishment of the new tier.
    The Exchange notes that those market participants that are
dissatisfied with the proposals are free to shift their order flow to
competing venues that offer them lower charges or higher or more
readily attainable credits.
The Proposals Are Equitable Allocations of Credits
    The Exchange believes its proposals will allocate its credits
fairly among its market participants.
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend the qualification
criteria for Tier 1 and Tier 2 QMM rebates is an equitable allocation
because it would bolster the effectiveness of QMM rebates, which are
imperiled by a rise in sub-dollar trading. Maintaining the
attainability of QMM rebates is crucial to ensuring participation in
the QMM program, which in turn is an important contributor to the
quality of the Nasdaq market. Although the recent spike in sub-dollar
pricing also threatens to upend the ability of members to qualify for
Nasdaq's other volume-based tiers of credits and charges, the Exchange
believes that its most pressing need is to address the threat to the
QMM program given that several QMMs are already experiencing adverse
pricing effects from the sub-dollar phenomenon. The Exchange notes that
it continues to assess whether and how to modify its other volume-based
pricing programs going forward to accommodate the rise in sub-dollar
volumes.
    The Exchange also believes that it an equitable allocation, when
excluding sub-dollar volume from the QMM Tier 1 eligibility formula, to
increase the threshold percentage of Consolidated Volume that a QMM
must achieve to qualify for the credit. The Exchange believes that it
is fair to calibrate eligibility criteria for the Tier 1 rebate so that
the Tiers are neither too hard nor too easy for QMMs to attain. That
is, just as the Exchange believes that it is equitable, for the reasons
discussed above, to help QMMs to remain in their existing Tiers by
excluding sub-dollar activity, the Exchange also believes it is
beneficial to market quality to continue to challenge QMMs to add
additional volume in stocks priced at or above $1. The Exchange notes
that if QMMs are unable to meet the higher Consolidated Volume
percentage requirement for the Tier 1 rebate, they still may qualify
for the Tier under the existing qualification formula, which includes
sub-dollar volume but applies lower Consolidated Volume percentage
requirements.
    It is also equitable for the Exchange to amend three of its
transaction credits, by lowering and broadening their eligibility
requirements, respectively, as a means of encouraging more members to
try to attain the credits by adding additional liquidity to the
Exchange, including in M-ELO Orders. To the extent that the Exchange
succeeds in increasing liquidity on the Exchange, including in M-ELO
Orders, then the Exchange will experience improvements in its market
quality, which will benefit all market participants.
    Lastly, the Exchange believes that it is equitable to establish a
new add credit tier that is tied to the growth of M-ELO activity. The
M-ELO Order Type

provides a valuable means by which like-minded participants, with
shared time horizons, can safely interact on the market and mitigate
the risk of adverse selection and information leakage. The addition of
this new proposed credit tier will encourage members to increase the
extent of their use of M-ELO Orders on the Exchange, and it will reward
members that do so in significant volumes. The Exchange believes that
any increase in M-ELO liquidity on the Exchange that follows from the
introduction of this new credit will improve the quality of the Nasdaq
market generally as well as the experiences of those members that
choose to interact with the market through M-ELO Orders. Additionally,
if members increase their liquidity adding activity on the Exchange to
attain this credit, then the quality of the market will improve, and
the Exchange will become more attractive to existing and prospective
participants.
    Any participant that is dissatisfied with the proposals is free to
shift their order flow to competing venues that provide more generous
pricing or less stringent qualifying criteria.
The Proposals Are Not Unfairly Discriminatory
    The Exchange believes that its proposals ae not unfairly
discriminatory. As an initial matter, the Exchange believes that
nothing about its volume-based tiered pricing model is inherently
unfair; instead, it is a rational pricing model that is well-
established and ubiquitous in today's economy among firms in various
industries--from co-branded credit cards to grocery stores to cellular
telephone data plans--that use it to reward the loyalty of their best
customers that provide high levels of business activity and incent
other customers to increase the extent of their business activity. It
is also a pricing model that the Exchange and its competitors have long
employed with the assent of the Commission. It is fair because it
incentivizes customer activity that increases liquidity, enhances price
discovery, and improves the overall quality of the equity markets.
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend the qualification
criteria for Tier 1 and Tier 2 QMM rebates is not unfairly
discriminatory. Although the rise in sub-dollar trading affects the
attainability of many of Nasdaq's volume-based pricing tiers, it is
fair for the Exchange to address the impact on QMM rebates, in
particular, because maintaining the attainability of QMM rebates is
crucial to maintaining participation in the QMM program, which in turn
is an important contributor to the quality of the Nasdaq market. Even
as the Exchange continues to assess whether and how to generally modify
its volume-based pricing programs going forward to accommodate the rise
in sub-dollar volumes, the Exchange believes that a pressing need
exists now to address the particular threat this phenomenon poses to
the QMM program given that several QMMs are already experiencing
adverse pricing effects.
    At the same time, it is not unfairly discriminatory to increase the
threshold percentage of Consolidated Volume that a QMM must achieve to
qualify for the Tier 1 rebate when the Exchange also excludes sub-
dollar volume from the eligibility calculation. The Exchange believes
that it is fair to calibrate eligibility criteria for the QMM Tier 1
rebate so that the Tiers are neither too hard nor too easy for QMMs to
attain. That is, just as the Exchange believes that it is not unfairly
discriminatory, for the reasons discussed above, to help QMMs to remain
in their existing Tiers by excluding sub-dollar activity, the Exchange
also believes it is beneficial to market quality to continue to
challenge QMMs to add additional volume in stocks priced at or above
$1. The Exchange notes that if QMMs are unable to meet the higher
Consolidated Volume percentage requirement for Tier 1, they still may
qualify for the Tier under the existing qualification formula, which
includes sub-dollar volume but applies lower Consolidated Volume
percentage requirements.
    Moreover, the Exchange believes that its three proposed amendments
to its transaction credits are not unfairly discriminatory because they
stand to improve the overall market quality of the Exchange, to the
benefit of all market participants, by incentivizing more members to
provide additional liquidity to the Exchange, including M-ELO
liquidity.
    Likewise, the Exchange believes that its new proposed add credit
with a growth component is not unfairly discriminatory because it is
aimed at encouraging the growth of M-ELO Orders on the Exchange, which
if successful, stands to improve the quality of the Nasdaq market
generally, to the benefit of all market participants, as well as
improve the experiences of those members that choose to interact with
the market through M-ELO. Additionally, if members increase their
liquidity adding activity on the Exchange to attain this credit, then
the quality of the market will improve, and the Exchange will become
more attractive to existing and prospective participants.
    Any participant that is dissatisfied with the proposals is free to
shift their order flow to competing venues that provide more generous
pricing or less stringent qualifying criteria.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Intramarket Competition
    The Exchange does not believe that its proposal will place any
category of Exchange participant at a competitive disadvantage.
    As noted above, the proposal to amend the Exchange's QMM rebate
pricing methodology will help to ensure that no QMM suffers a pricing
disadvantage due to the ongoing spike in sub-dollar volumes, while at
the same time it will provide an appropriately-calibrated incentive for
QMMs to continue to add additional liquidity to the Exchange in
securities priced at or above $1. It is not intended to provide a
competitive advantage to any particular QMM.
    Meanwhile, the proposed changes to the qualifying criteria for
three of the Exchange's transaction credits will make it easier for
members to attain these credits, and will thereby encourage more
members to try to attain these credits by increasing their market-
improving behavior. Any member may elect to provide the levels or types
of liquidity required in order to receive the credits. Furthermore, all
members of the Exchange will benefit from any increase in market
activity that the proposals effectuate.
    Likewise, the proposed addition of a rebate tied to a member's
activity in M-ELO Orders will encourage growth in that activity, to the
benefit of users of those Order Types as well as the quality of the
market in general. Any member may elect to engage in the levels of M-
ELO liquidity required to qualify for this new credit.
    The Exchange notes that its members are free to trade on other
venues to the extent they believe that the proposed amended credits are
too low or the qualification criteria are not attractive. As one can
observe by looking at any market share chart, price competition between
exchanges is fierce, with liquidity and market share moving freely
between exchanges in reaction to fee and credit changes. The Exchange
notes that its pricing tier structure is consistent with broker-dealer
fee

practices as well as the other industries, as described above.
Intermarket Competition
    In terms of inter-market competition, the Exchange notes that it
operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants
can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a
particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at
other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange
must continually adjust its credits and fees to remain competitive with
other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been
exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to
exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own credits and
fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust
their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to
which credit or fee changes in this market may impose any burden on
competition is extremely limited.
    The proposed new and amended credits are reflective of this
competition because, even as one of the largest U.S. equities exchanges
by volume, the Exchange has less than 20% market share, which in most
markets could hardly be categorized as having enough market power to
burden competition. Moreover, as noted above, price competition between
exchanges is fierce, with liquidity and market share moving freely
between exchanges in reaction to fee and credit changes. This is in
addition to free flow of order flow to and among off-exchange venues
which comprises upwards of 50% of industry volume.
    The Exchange's proposals are pro-competitive in that the Exchange
intends for them to preserve and enhance its incentive programs, as
well as to increase liquidity adding activity on the Exchange, thereby
rendering the Exchange a more attractive and vibrant venue to market
participants.
    In sum, if the changes proposed herein are unattractive to market
participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market share as
a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed
changes will impair the ability of members or competing order execution
venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2021-006 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2021-006. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2021-006 and should be submitted
on or before March 11, 2021.

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

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-03212 Filed 2-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 192 (Thursday, October 5, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 69241]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22190]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-155, OMB Control No. 3235-0123]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Extension: Rule 17a-5

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (``OMB'') a request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information discussed below.
    Rule 17a-5 (17 CFR 240.17a-5) under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) is the basic financial reporting rule for
brokers and dealers.\1\ The rule requires the filing of Form X-17A-5,
the Financial and Operational Combined Uniform Single Report (``FOCUS
Report''), which was the result of years of study and comments by
representatives of the securities industry through advisory committees
and through the normal rule proposal methods. The FOCUS Report was
designed to eliminate the overlapping regulatory reports required by
various self-regulatory organizations and the Commission and to reduce
reporting burdens as much as possible. The rule also requires the
filing of annual reports, which include a financial report and a
compliance or exemption report as well as reports of an independent
public accountant covering the financial report and the compliance or
exemption report. In addition, the rule requires a broker-dealer that
computes certain capital charges in accordance with Appendix E to
Exchange Act Rule 15c3-1 (17 CFR 240.15c3-1e) to file additional
monthly or quarterly reports and a supplemental report on management
controls concurrently with its annual reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Rule 17a-5(c) requires a broker or dealer to furnish certain
of its financial information to customers and is subject to a
separate PRA filing (OMB Control Number 3235-0199).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission estimates that the total hour burden under Rule 17a-
5 is approximately 397,467 hours per year, and the total cost burden is
approximately $31,295,048 per year. Since the last approval of this
information collection, the estimated total burden hours per year has
increased due to more respondents filing monthly reports rather than
quarterly reports under Rule 17a-5; the estimated total cost burden per
year has decreased due to more filings being submitted electronically.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following website: www.reginfo.gov. Find this
particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day
Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information
collection should be sent by November 6, 2023 to (i) www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain and (ii) David Bottom, Director/Chief Information
Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o John Pezzullo, 100 F
Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or by sending an email to:
[email protected].

    Dated: October 2, 2023.
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-22190 Filed 10-4-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P