[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 55 (Friday, March 20, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16157-16160]
[FR Doc No: 2020-05843]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88390; File No. SR-Phlx-2020-07]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Amendments to
Complex Orders

March 16, 2020.
    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 March 4, 2020, Nasdaq PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Options 3, Section 7, ``Electronic
Acceptance of Quotes and Orders,'' Options 3, Section 14, ``Complex
Orders,'' Options 8, Section 17, ``Limitations on Members' Trading
Because of Customers' Orders'' and Options 8, Section 32, ``Certain
Types of Floor-Based (Non-System) Orders Defined.''
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://nasdaqphlx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Options 3, Section 7, ``Electronic
Acceptance of Quotes and Orders,'' Options 3, Section 14, ``Complex
Orders,'' Options 8, Section 17, ``Limitations on Members' Trading
Because of Customers' Orders'' and Options 8, Section 32, ``Certain
Types of Floor-Based (Non-System) Orders Defined.'' Each change is
described below.
Options 3, Section 7 and Options 8, Section 32
    The Exchange proposes to amend Options 3, Section 7, titled
``Electronic Acceptance of Quotes and Orders'' and Options 8, Section
32, titled ``Certain Types of Floor-Based (Non-System) Orders Defined''
to complete the list of Order Types available for trading on the
Exchange by referencing currently available Complex Order types.
Options 3, Section 7(b) currently lists all order types that may be
electronically submitted to the System. Options 8, Section 32(a)
currently lists all order types that may be utilized on the trading
floor. The Exchange lists all simple order types in both Options 3,
Section 7(b) and Options 8, Section 32(a), but these lists do not
include Complex Orders which are currently described within Options 3,
Section 14, titled ``Complex Orders.'' The Exchange proposes to amend
Options 3, Section 7(b) and Options 8, Section 32(a) to simply
reference that a Complex Order is as described in Options 3, Section
14(a)(i).\3\ The Exchange also proposes to amend these rules to simply
reference that a Stock-Option Order is as

described in Options 3, Section 14(a)(i).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Options 3, Section 14(a)(i) provides, ``a Complex Order is
an order involving the simultaneous purchase and/or sale of two or
more different options series in the same underlying security,
priced as a net debit or credit based on the relative prices of the
individual components, for the same account, for the purpose of
executing a particular investment strategy. With respect to Mini
Options, a Complex Order is an order involving the simultaneous
purchase and/or sale of two or more different Mini Options series in
the same underlying security, priced as a net debit or credit based
on the relative prices of the individual components, for the same
account, for the purpose of executing a particular investment
strategy. Mini Options may only be part of a Complex Order that
includes other Mini Options.''
    \4\ Options 3, Section 14(a)(i) provides, ``Except respecting
Mini Options, a Complex Order can also be a stock-option order,
which is an order to buy or sell a stated number of units of an
underlying security (stock or Exchange Traded Fund Share (``ETF''))
coupled with the purchase or sale of options contract(s). The
underlying security must be the deliverable for the options
component of that Complex Order and represent exactly 100 shares per
option for regular way delivery. Stock-option orders can only be
executed against other stock-option orders and cannot be executed by
the System against orders for the individual components. Member
organizations may only submit Complex Orders with a stock/ETF
component if such orders comply with the Qualified Contingent Trade
Exemption from Rule 611(a) of Regulation NMS. Member organizations
submitting such Complex Orders with a stock/ETF component represent
that such orders comply with the Qualified Contingent Trade
Exemption. Members of FINRA or The Nasdaq Stock Market (``Nasdaq'')
are required to have a Uniform Service Bureau/Executing Broker
Agreement (``AGU'') with Nasdaq Execution Services, LLC (``NES'') in
order to trade Complex Orders containing a stock/ETF component;
firms that are not members of FINRA or Nasdaq are required to have a
Qualified Special Representative (``QSR'') arrangement with NES in
order to trade Complex Orders containing a stock/ETF component.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that adding reference to Complex Orders and
Stock-Option Orders to Options 3, Section 7(b) and Options 8, Section
32(a) will make clear to market participants the various types of
orders that may be transacted both electronically in the System and on
the Exchange's trading floor.
Options 3, Section 14
    The Exchange recently relocated its Rulebook into a new Rulebook
Shell.\5\ Prior to that relocation, the Exchange filed a rule proposal
\6\ which adopted rule text within Phlx Rule 1080(f), which stated,
``Orders may not be unbundled, nor may a firm solicit a customer to
unbundle an order for this purpose.'' The Phlx Rulebook Relocation Rule
Change inadvertently removed the rule text in the Prior Rule Change at
Rule 1080(f). At this time, the Exchange proposes to restore the Rule
1080(f) rule text within its current rules at Options 3, Section 7(f).
Similarly, the Exchange inadvertently deleted rule text within the
Prior Rule Change at Rule 1098(b)(v), which stated ``Complex Orders may
be submitted as: All-or-None Orders, Cancel-Replacement Orders,
Directed Orders, Limit Orders or Market Orders as those terms are
defined in Rule 1080(b).'' At this time, the Exchange proposes to
restore the Rule 1098(b)(v) rule text within its current rules at
Options 3, Section 14(b)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88213 (February 14,
2020), 85 FR 9859 (February 20, 2020) (SR-Phlx-2020-03) (``Phlx
Rulebook Relocation Rule Change'').
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87691 (December 9,
2019), 84 FR 68197 (December 13, 2019) (SR-Phlx-2019-52) (``Prior
Rule Change'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Options 8, Section 17
    The Exchange proposes to delete the current rule at Options 8,
Section 17, ``Limitations on Members' Trading Because of Customers'
Orders.'' The Exchange notes that this rule describes a prohibition
against trading ahead of Customer Orders. The Exchange currently has
such a prohibition within its rules at General 9, Section 1(a) which
provides, ``Prohibition Against Trading Ahead of Customer Orders. Phlx
members and persons associated with a member shall comply with FINRA
Rule 5320 as if such Rule were part of Phlx's rules.'' The Exchange
notes that General 9, Section 1 applies to all Phlx members including
members transacting options on the trading floor. The Exchange believes
that Options 8, Section 17 is redundant because a trading ahead
prohibition already exists in the Rules and applies to the options
trading floor. The Exchange proposes to reserve Options 8, Section 17.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\7\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade and to protect investors and the
public interest by amending its rules to provide greater transparency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Options 3, Section 7 and Options 8, Section 32
    The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 3, Section 7, titled
``Electronic Acceptance of Quotes and Orders'' and Options 8, Section
32, titled ``Certain Types of Floor-Based (Non-System) Orders Defined''
to complete the list of Order Types by referencing existing Complex
Order types is consistent with the Act. Options 3, Section 7(b)
currently lists all order types that may be electronically submitted to
the System. Options 8, Section 32(a) currently lists all order types
that may be utilized on the trading floor. However, these lists do not
include Complex Orders which are described within Options 3, Section
14, titled ``Complex Orders.'' The Exchange believes amending Options
3, Section 7(b) and Options 8, Section 32(a) to reference Complex
Orders and Stock-Option Orders, which are currently described in
Options 3, Section 14(a)(i), will make clear to market participants the
various types of orders that may be transacted both electronically in
the System and on the Exchange's trading floor.
Options 3, Section 14
    The Exchange's proposal to restore inadvertently deleted rule text
within Options 3, Section 7(f) and Section 14(b)(v) from a Prior Rule
Change will correct Phlx's rules to reflect previously adopted rule
text that was inadvertently omitted when it adopted its shell Rulebook
as explained above.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See notes 5 and 6 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Options 8, Section 17
    The Exchange's proposal to delete the current rule at Options 8,
Section 17, ``Limitations on Members' Trading Because of Customers'
Orders'' is consistent with the Act because this rule is redundant.
General 9, Section 1(a) and Options 8, Section 17 both contain a
prohibition against trading ahead of Customer Orders. The Exchange
proposes to delete the redundant rule text within Options 8, Section
17. The rule text within General 9, Section 1 applies to all Phlx
members, including members transacting options on the trading floor.
The deletion of Options 8, Section 17 is a non-substantive amendment to
eliminate redundancy within the rules.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose an unnecessary burden on intra-market competition as explained
below.
Options 3, Section 7 and Options 8, Section 32
    The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 3, Section 7, titled
``Electronic Acceptance of Quotes and Orders'' and Options 8, Section
32, titled ``Certain Types of Floor-Based (Non-System) Orders Defined''
to complete the list of Order Types by referencing Complex Order types,
which are currently described in Options 3, Section 14(a)(i), does not
impose an undue burden on inter-market or intra-market competition. The
Exchange is referencing Complex Orders and Stock-Options Orders within
Options 3, Section 14(a)(i) within the Options 3, Section 7(b) and
Options 8, Section 32(a) lists of order types for greater transparency
as to the various types of orders that may be transacted both
electronically in the System and on the Exchange's trading floor.

Options 3, Section 14
    The Exchange's proposal to restore inadvertently deleted rule text
within Options 3, Section 7(f) and Section 14(b)(v) does not impose an
undue burden on inter-market or intra-market competition, rather
restoring the rule text will correct the current Phlx Rules to reflect
previously adopted rule text, as explained herein.
Options 8, Section 17
    The Exchange's proposal to delete the current rule at Options 8,
Section 17, ``Limitations on Members' Trading Because of Customers'
Orders'' does not impose an undue burden on inter-market or intra-
market competition. A prohibition against trading ahead of Customer
Orders, is currently contained within General 9, Section 1(a) and
applies to all Phlx members, including members transacting business on
the trading floor. The deletion of Options 8, Section 17 is a non-
substantive amendment to avoid redundancy within the rules.

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 Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\11\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \14\ normally
does not become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing.
However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\15\ the Commission may
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposed
rule change may become operative immediately. The Exchange believes
that the proposal to amend Options 3, Section 7, titled ``Electronic
Acceptance of Quotes and Orders'' and Options 8, Section 32, titled
``Certain Types of Floor-Based (Non-System) Orders Defined'' to include
Complex Orders and Stock-Options Orders, which are described within
Options 3, Section 14, will make clear to market participants the
various types of orders that may be transacted both electronically in
the System and on the Exchange's trading floor. The Exchange also notes
that the proposal to restore inadvertently deleted rule text from a
Prior Rule Change within Options 3, Section 7(f) and Section 14(b)(v)
will correct the current Phlx Rules to include previously adopted rule
text as described above and views this as a non-substantive rule
change. In addition, the Exchange states that deleting Options 8,
Section 17, ``Limitations on Members' Trading Because of Customers'
Orders'' is a non-substantive amendment designed to eliminate a
redundant prohibition in Phlx's Rules, and notes that a prohibition
against trading ahead of Customer Orders on the options floor is
currently contained within General 9, Section 1(a) and applies to all
Phlx members, including members transacting business on the trading
floor. For these reasons, the Commission believes that waiver of the
30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest. Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the
30-day operative delay and designates the proposal operative upon
filing.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \16\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 change 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-Phlx-2020-07 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-Phlx-2020-07. 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-Phlx-2020-07, and should

be submitted on or before April 10, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12), (59).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-05843 Filed 3-19-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 7, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37297-37298]
[FR Doc No: 2023-12193]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 34935; File No. 812-15145]

Arca U.S. Treasury Fund and Arca Capital Management, LLC

June 2, 2023.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'' or ``SEC'').

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Notice of application for an order under sections 6(c) and 23(c)(3)
of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the ``Act'') for an exemption
from rule 23c-3 under the Act.

Summary of Application: Applicants request an order under sections 6(c)
and 23(c)(3) of the Act for an exemption from certain provisions of
rule 23c-3 to permit certain registered closed-end investment companies
to make repurchase offers on a monthly basis.

Applicants: Arca U.S. Treasury Fund (the ``Fund'') and Arca Capital
Management, LLC (the ``Adviser'').

Filing Dates: The application was filed on May 24, 2023.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the requested
relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by emailing
the SEC's Secretary at [email protected] and serving the
relevant applicant with a copy of the request by email, if an email
address is listed for the relevant applicant below, or personally or by
mail, if a physical address is listed for the relevant applicant below.
Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on
June 27, 2023, and should be accompanied by proof of

service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a
certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing
requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts
bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason
for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be
notified of a hearing may request notification by emailing the
Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: The Commission: [email protected]. Applicants: c/o
Kelley A. Howes, by email to [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aaron Ellias, Acting Branch Chief, or
Robert Shapiro, Assistant Director, at<PHONE_NUMBER> (Division of
Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For Applicants' representations, legal
analysis, and conditions, please refer to Applicants' application,
dated May 24, 2023, which may be obtained via the Commission's website
by searching for the file number at the top of this document, or for an
Applicant using the Company name search field on the SEC's EDGAR
system. The SEC's EDGAR system may be searched at https://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/legacy/companysearch.html. You may also call the
SEC's Public Reference Room at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-12193 Filed 6-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 32 (Thursday, February 16, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10110-10111]
[FR Doc No: 2023-03307]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project/Docket No. CP22-486-000]

Texas Eastern Transmission, LP; Notice of Waiver Period for Water
Quality Certification Application

    On October 24, 2022, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP submitted to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) a copy of its
application for a Clean Water Act section 401(a)(1) water quality
certification filed with Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection, in

conjunction with the above captioned project. Pursuant to 40 CFR 121.6
and section 157.22(b) of the Commission's regulations,\1\ we hereby
notify the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection of the
following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 157.22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Date of Receipt of the Certification Request: August 5, 2022.
    Reasonable Period of Time to Act on the Certification Request:
August 5, 2023.
    If the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection fails or
refuses to act on the water quality certification request on or before
the above date, then the agency certifying authority is deemed waived
pursuant to section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.
1341(a)(1).

    Dated: February 10, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-03307 Filed 2-15-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 184 (Tuesday, September 23, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56834-56835]
[FR Doc No: 2014-22547]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

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

Extension:
    Rule 10A-1, SEC File No. 270-425, OMB Control No. 3235-0468.

    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'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Rule 10A-1 (17 CFR 240.10A-1) implements the reporting requirements
in Section 10A of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78j-1) which was enacted
by Congress on December 22, 1995 as part of the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Public Law No. 104-67, 109 Stat 737.
Under section 10A and Rule 10A-1 reporting occurs only if a
registrant's board of directors receives a report from its auditor that
(1) there is an illegal act material to the registrant's financial
statements, (2) senior management and the board have not taken timely
and appropriate remedial action, and (3) the failure to take such
action is reasonably expected to warrant the auditor's modification of
the audit report or resignation from the audit engagement. The board of
directors must notify the Commission within one business day of
receiving such a report. If the board fails to provide that notice,
then the auditor, within the next business day, must provide the
Commission with a copy of the report that it gave to the board.
    Likely respondents are those registrants filing audited financial
statements under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 USC 78a, et
seq.) and the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 USC 80a-1, et seq.).
    It is estimated that Rule 10A-1 results in an aggregate additional
reporting burden of 10 hours per year. The estimated average burden
hours are solely for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act and are
not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or
study of the costs of SEC rules or forms.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Thomas Bayer, Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC

20549, or send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: September 17, 2014.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-22547 Filed 9-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 217 (Monday, November 10, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66765-66766]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26591]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2014-131]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to
improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of
FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the
inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to
affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before December 1, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2014-
0597 using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brenda Robeson, ARM-210, Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 800 Independence Ave.
SW., Washington, DC 20591; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202) 267-
4712.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 4, 2014.
Lirio Liu,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

Docket No.: FAA-2014-0597
Petitioner: Team AeroDynamix
Section of 14 CFR Affected: Sec.  91.319(a)(2)
14 CFR

    Team AeroDynamix is petitioning for an exemption to operate within
a 25 mile radius of an air show venue for the purpose of conducting
media/sponsor flights to promote the air show industry, aviation, and
the air show event specifically without compensation.

[FR Doc. 2014-26591 Filed 11-7-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


http:// www. cmascenter. org/ html/ 2005_ conference/ ppt/ 1_ 1. pdf Ref. New Developments in CMAQ Model Physics, Pleim et. al.

http:// www. cmascenter. org/ html/ 2005_ conference/ ppt/ 1_ 1. pdf Mass Stability Problem Corrected in CMAQ Model Version 4.5


Note to File - November 19, 2004 Telephone Conversation with Dr. William
Miller, General Motors Corporation

On November 19, 2004, I participated in a telephone conversation with
Dr. William Miller, General Motors Corporation.  The purpose of the call
was to confirm the information that Dr. Miller presented at the November
9, 2004 meeting between the Office of Solid Waste and the AutoAlliance
regarding the status of General Motors facilities with respect to those
using aluminum in the automobile assembly process and the current status
of delisting petitions.  This phone call was to confirm that
information.  Below is the a summary of the conference call with Dr.
Miller:

New delisting petitions were recently submitted for the following
General Motor Corporation facilities:

Arlington Assembly, Arlington, Texas (Region 6)

Janesville Assembly, Janesville, Wisconsin (Region 5)

Fort Wayne Assembly, Roanoke, Indiana (State of Indiana)

The following facilities are now using aluminum and are generators of
F019:

Fairfax Assembly, Kansas City, Kansas (Petition will not be submitted)

Saturn Corporation, Spring Hill, Tennessee  (Petition under development)

Shreveport Assembly Plant, Shreveport, Louisiana (Petition under
consideration)

Bowling Green Assembly, Bowling Green, Kentucky (Petition will not be
submitted)

James Michael

Generator and Characteristics Branch

Hazardous Waste Identification Division (MC-5304W)

Office of Solid Waste, USEPA

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington,  D.C.  20460

Dated 11/23/2004


[Federal Register: March 15, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 50)]
[Notices]
[Page 13439-13441]
[DOCID:fr15mr06-181]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53454; File No. SR-BSE-2006-01]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Boston Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
and Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 Thereto To Establish Fees for Options on
Certain Exchange Traded Funds

March 8, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on January 4, 2006, the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (``BSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the BSE. On February
1, 2006, the BSE filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\3\
On February 6, 2006, the BSE filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule
change.\4\ The BSE has designated this proposal as one establishing or
changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the BSE under Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\5\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\6\
which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Amendment No. 1 was withdrawn on February 2, 2006.
    \4\ Amendment No. 2 made changes to the filing to supplement the
names of certain of the underlying exchange traded funds (``ETFs'')
to reflect their full titles as used by their respective sponsors
and clarified that (1) the fees will be charged only to Boston
Options Exchange (``BOX'') Participants, (2) the products in this
filing constitute ``Fund Shares'' as defined in the BOX Rules, and
(3) the surcharge fee for trading in options on the products in this
filing is equal to the cost charged to BOX by the licensor in the
associated licensing agreement. The changes in Amendment No. 2 do
not affect the fees for transactions in options on the ETFs covered
by this filing.
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule of the BOX to
establish fees for transactions in options on certain ETFs effected by
a broker-dealer through its proprietary accounts. The text of the
proposed rule change is below. Proposed new language is in

italics; proposed deletions are in [brackets].

Boston Options Exchange Facility

Fee Schedule

[(as of October 2005)]

(as of January 2006)

    Sec. 1 No Change.
    Sec. 2 Trading Fees Broker Dealer Proprietary Accounts
    Subsections (a) and (b) No Change.
    c. Plus, where applicable, any surcharge for options on ETFs that
are passed through by BOX. The applicable surcharges are as follows:
    (1) $0.10 per contract for options on the ETF Nasdaq 100
(``QQQQs'').
    (2) $0.10 per contract for options on the Standard & Poor's
Depository Receipts (SPY).
    (3) $0.10 per contract for options on the iShares Nasdaq
Biotechnology Index Fund (IBB).
    (4) $0.10 per contract for options on the iShares Russell 2000
Index Fund (IWM).
    (5) $0.10 per contract for options on the iShares Russell 2000
Growth Index Fund (IWO).
    (6) $0.09 per contract for options on the S&P Energy Select Sector
SPDR Fund (XLE).
    (7) $0.09 per contract for options on the S&P Financial Select
Sector SPDR Fund (XLF).
    Sec. 3-6 No Change.
* * * * *

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 BSE 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 BSE 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
    BSE is proposing to amend the BOX's Fee Schedule to establish
surcharge fees for certain ETF option transactions effected through
broker-dealer proprietary accounts. Currently, BOX assesses a surcharge
fee for options on the ETF Nasdaq 100 (``QQQQ'') that are effected
through broker-dealer proprietary accounts.\7\ BOX is proposing to
establish similar surcharge fees for transactions in options on
Standard & Poor's Depository Receipts (``SPY''), the iShares Nasdaq
Biotechnology Index Fund (``IBB''), the iShares Russell 2000 Index Fund
(``IWM''), the iShares Russell 2000 Growth Index Fund (``IWO''), the
S&P Energy Select Sector SPDR Fund (``XLE''), and the S&P Financial
Select Sector SPDR Fund (``XLF'').\8\ The amount of the surcharge fee
will vary, as specified in the Fee Schedule, depending on the ETF, and
will range from nine (9) cents to ten (10) cents per contract. The
Exchange believes the proposed rule change will further the Exchange's
goal of introducing new products to the marketplace that are
competitively priced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ BSE represents that fees will be charged only to BOX
Participants. The Commission notes that, pursuant to Section
19(b)(1) of the Act and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, the BSE filed with
the Commission a proposed rule change to enact various fees for the
BOX facility, including a fee for trades executed via the
InterMarket Linkage, which fee was approved on a pilot basis and
which is ``equivalent to the regular trading fee for Market Maker
and broker-dealer accounts on BOX.'' See Securities Exchange Release
Nos. 48787 (November 14, 2003), 68 FR 65477 (November 20, 2003) (SR-
BSE-2003-17) (Notice of filing of proposed rule change); 49066
(January 13, 2004), 69 FR 2775 (January 20, 2004) (SR-BSE-2003-17)
(Order approving the fee schedule and approving the Linkage fees on
a pilot basis until January 31, 2004). Specifically, the Commission
notes that, under this pilot program, inbound Principal and
Principal as Agent orders sent to BOX via InterMarket Linkage are
subject to a $0.20 per contract fee and, where applicable, BOX
passes-through a surcharge for options on certain ETFs. These pilot
fees are currently set to expire on July 31, 2006. See Securities
Exchange Release Nos. 49300 (February 23, 2004), 69 FR 9655 (March
1, 2004) (SR-BSE-2004-07) (extending the pilot until July 31, 2004);
50124 (July 30, 2004), 69 FR 47963 (August 6, 2004) (SR-BSE-2004-32)
(extending the pilot until July 31, 2005); and 52147 (July 28,
2005), 70 FR 44706 (August 3, 2005) (SR-BSE-2005-28) (extending the
pilot until July 31, 2006).
    \8\ BSE represents that SPY, IBB, IWM, IWO, XLE, and XLF
constitute ``Fund Shares'' as defined in Chapter IV, Section 3(i) of
the BOX Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has entered into a license agreement with each ETF
issuer in connection with the listing and trading of options on SPY,
IBB, IWM, IWO, XLE, and XLF. As with licensed options on the QQQQ, the
Exchange is adopting a surcharge fee for trading in these options to
defray the licensing costs.\9\ The Exchange believes that charging the
Participants that trade these instruments is the most equitable means
of recovering the costs of the license.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The surcharge fee for trading in the options listed in
Section 2(c) of the BOX Fee Schedule is equal to the cost charged to
BOX by the licensor in the associated licensing agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,\10\ in general, and Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\11\ in particular, in that it is designed to
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among BOX Participants and other persons using its
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change, as amended, has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
\13\ thereunder because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange. At any time within 60 days of the
filing of such amended proposed rule change, the Commission may
summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 19b-4(f)(2).
    \14\ The effective date of the original proposed rule is January
4, 2006. The effective date of Amendment No. 2 is February 6, 2006.
For purposes of calculating the 60-day period within which the
Commission may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change under
Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, the Commission considers the period
to commence on February 6, 2006, the date on which the BSE submitted
Amendment No. 2. See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File No. SR-BSE-2006-01 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BSE-2006-01. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of the filing
also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal
office of the BSE. 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-BSE-
2006-01 and should be submitted on or before April 5, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-3697 Filed 3-14-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


Mary Kissell To: Edmond_ Toy@ omb. eop. gov 02/ 20/ 2004 06: 09 cc: Dave Guinnup/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Mike PM Thrift/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, johnsonann@ verizon. net, JohnB Chamberlin/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Stan Durkee/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Robert Fegley/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Thomas Gillis/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Patricia Embrey/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Paul Cort/ R9/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Teresa Clemons/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Sally Shaver/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Keith Mason/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA Subject: PCWP  Appendix B Edmond,

Latest version of PCWP risk appendix B. I don't know how to edit the font for the compare mode quickly, so I'm not sure I complied with your request for easy to read on black/ white printer. Mary Tom ( See attached file: xxxto OMB pcwp App B 2_ 20_ 04. wpd)

***************************************************************************** Edmond_ Toy@ omb. eo p. gov To: JohnB Chamberlin/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA cc: Mary Kissell/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Larry Sorrels/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Mark 02/ 25/ 2004 04: 51 Corrales/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Ann Johnson/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Fred Talcott/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, PM Thomas Gillis/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Ken Munis/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Lesley Schaaff/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA Subject: Re: is this statement re discussion of cancer incidence and the Table issue correct as of NOW?

Thanks, John, we forgot to talk about this.

We think that the potential cancer incidence should remain in the preamble. To be clear, we're all referring to the statement that the Plywood HAP reductions are estimated to reduce cancer cases by less than one case per year, right?

We are okay with removing the tables in the RIA, as EPA has suggested.

 Edmond ( Embedded image moved Chamberlin. Johnb@ epamail. epa. gov to file: 02/ 25/ 2004 04: 30: 49 PM pic03371. pcx)

Record Type: Record To: Edmond Toy/ OMB/ EOP@ EOP cc: See the distribution list at the bottom of this message Subject: is this statement re discussion of cancer incidence and the Table issue correct as of NOW? " OAR and OMB have not resolved : ( 1) whether the Plywood preamble and RIA will include discussion of the potential cancer incidence; ( 2) whether the RIA will include a table summarizing costs and emission reductions of each " scenario"( OMB has already agreed to its deletion from the preamble per Sally Shavers' request).

( I use " scenario" elsewhere to distinguish the " 8 facility" versus " 140+ facility" analyses. )

John Chamberlin USEPA 1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW MC 1804A Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation Regulatory Policy and Analysis Team Washington DC 20460 phone#: 202 566 0061 fax#: 202 564 7303 Room#: 3521 F, Ariel Rios North Message Copied To:_____________________________________________________________

Kissell. Mary@ epamail. epa. gov Sorrels. Larry@ epamail. epa. gov Corrales. Mark@ epamail. epa. gov Johnson. Ann@ epamail. epa. gov Talcott. Fred@ epamail. epa. gov Gillis. Thomas@ epamail. epa. gov Munis. Ken@ epamail. epa. gov Schaaff. Lesley@ epamail. epa. gov ( See attached file: pic03371. pcx) *********************************************************************** Mary Kissell To: Edmond_ Toy@ omb. eop. gov 02/ 23/ 2004 10: 35 cc: JohnB Chamberlin/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Ken AM Hustvedt/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Teresa Clemons/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, kphanks@ rti. org Subject: PCWP  AF& PA's Comments ( See attached file: afpa2_ AF& PA Wood MACT Comments FINAL 3 7 03. DOC) **************************************************************************

Mary Kissell To: Edmond_ Toy@ omb. eop. gov 02/ 23/ 2004 04: 42 cc:

PM Subject: Re: Plywood MACT  OMB/ EPA meeting for Tuesday, 02/ 24( Document link: Mary Tom Kissell)

ok Edmond_ Toy@ omb. eo p. gov To: Mary Kissell/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA cc:

02/ 23/ 2004 02: 35 Subject: Re: Plywood MACT  OMB/ EPA meeting for Tuesday, PM 02/ 24 Hi Mary Tom... A conf call at 1pm won't work anymore. How about starting at 2pm instead?

 Edmond ( Embedded image moved Kissell. Mary@ epamail. epa. gov to file: 02/ 23/ 2004 12: 18: 30 PM pic26545. pcx) Record Type: Record To: Edmond Toy/ OMB/ EOP@ EOP cc: Chamberlin. Johnb@ epamail. epa. gov, Johnson. Ann@ epamail. epa. gov, thrift. mike@ epamail. epa. gov Subject: Plywood MACT  OMB/ EPA meeting for Tuesday, 02/ 24 Edmond,

I have scheduled a conference call from 1 2 tomorrow. The call in number is ( 919) 541 4332. At least a couple of EPA folks in our DC office plan to attend. I don't know if theyplan to call in or if they want to come to your office. I leave it up to them and you to make DC arrangements. Thanks. Mary Tom ( See attached file: pic26545. pcx)

 Forwarded by Mary Kissell/ RTP/ USEPA/ US on 02/ 26/ 2004 01: 10 PM

Mary Kissell To: Edmond_ Toy@ omb. eop. gov 02/ 24/ 2004 07: 45 cc: Dave Guinnup/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Ken AM Hustvedt/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Jim Eddinger/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, RobertJ Wayland/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA Subject: Plywood  OMB/ EPA Meeting today Edmond,

We have a new conference line. Please call us using ( 919) 541 4485. We have this line from 2 4 and can use it for the boiler call as well. Thanks. Mary Tom


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 112 (Wednesday, June 10, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35496-35497]
[FR Doc No: 2020-12567]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2020-0117]

60-Day Notice of Renewal for Information Collection: Request for
Renewal of Commercial Driver's License (CDL) Skills Testing Delays
Annual Survey

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA
announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR)
described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its
renewal and invites public comment. This ICR is to collect data on the
delays, by State, that applicants face when scheduling a CDL skills
test. This information collection and subsequent data analysis is
required by section 5506 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation
Act, 2015 (FAST Act). FMCSA reported the results of the initial ICR
request in a report to congress titled ``The Commercial Driver's
License Skills Test Delays Report to Congress--CY 2016'' available on
FMCSA's web page located here: https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/mission/policy/commercial-drivers-license-skills-test-delays-report-congress-cy-2016.

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before August 10, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket Number FMCSA- 2020-0117 using any of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Operations; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC, 20590-0001 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and
docket number. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the exemption process, see the Public
Participation heading below. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov, and follow the
online instructions for accessing the dockets, or go to the street
address listed above.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Public Participation: The Federal eRulemaking Portal is available
24 hours each day, 365 days each year. You can obtain electronic
submission and retrieval help and guidelines under the ``help'' section
of the Federal eRulemaking Portal website. If you want us to notify you
that we received your comments, please include a self-addressed,
stamped envelope or postcard, or print the acknowledgement page that
appears after submitting comments online. Comments received after the
comment closing date will be included in the docket and will be
considered to the extent practicable.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicole Michel, Office of Analysis,
Research, and Technology/Research Division, Department of
Transportation, FMCSA, West Building 6th Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background: Section 5506 of the FAST Act
requires FMCSA to produce a study on CDL skills test delays on an
annual basis. The requirements of the study are to submit an annual
report describing:
    ``(A) the average wait time from the date an applicant requests to
take a skills test to the date the applicant has the opportunity to
complete such test;
    (B) the average wait time from the date an applicant, upon failure
of a skills test, requests a retest to the date the applicant has the
opportunity to complete such retest;
    (C) the actual number of qualified commercial driver's license
examiners available to test applicants; and
    (D) the number of testing sites available through the State
department of motor vehicles and whether this number has increased or
decreased from the previous year.''
    The annual report is also required to describe ``specific steps the
Administrator is taking to address skills testing delays in States that
have average skills test or retest wait times of more than 7 days.'' If
this information collection does not occur, FMCSA will not be able to
continue to conduct the study on CDL skills test delays. This data
collection aims to continue to create longitudinal data where currently
there is none. If the information collection occurs on a less-than-
annual basis, FMCSA will not be able to make observations on yearly
trends or analyze differences between States.
    For the initial 2017 survey FMCSA met with several stakeholders,
including the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, the
Commercial Vehicle Training Association, and State Driver Licensing
Agencies to ensure the information being collected was not already
collected elsewhere and was not available to FMCSA. FMCSA conducted
extensive background research to ensure the study was not duplicative.
A previous study, done by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in
2015, asked for similar information but did not produce specific enough
data to be used in this study.
    The survey will continue to be sent out via email, with the option
for online completion using SurveyMonkey[supreg] or Qualtrics. Each
State can continue to respond via email or the online survey tool
depending on which method is more convenient for the respondent.

The welcome letter will continue to indicate that FMCSA prefers
responses via the online survey tool.
    The information collected will continue to be published annually in
a report to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of
the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of
the House of Representatives.
    Title: Request for Renewal of Commercial Driver's License (CDL)
Skills Testing Delays Annual Survey.
    OMB Control Number: 2126-0065.
    Type of Request: Renewal.
    Respondents: State CDL Coordinators (one from each of the 50
States, and one from Washington, DC).
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 51.
    Estimated Time per Response: 2.3 hours (137.5 minutes).
    Expiration Date: February 28, 2019.
    Frequency of Response: Annually.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: The annual burden is estimated to be
no more than 2.3 hours (137.5 minutes) per respondent, which equates to
116.9 hours over the universe of 51 respondents. This estimate contains
a maximum of 2 hours to gather information from State information
systems, and an estimated maximum of 17.5 minutes to respond to the
survey. While States that already track and report similar information
may need much less than 2 hours to gather information, discussions with
subject matter experts led to an agreement that 2 hours was a
reasonable maximum time limit to use to estimate the maximum annual
burden expected.
    The estimate time for survey completion was calculated using Versta
Research's methodology for calculating an estimate of survey length,
where each question is given a number of points based on the estimated
burden required to respond to the question (for example, simple
multiple choice questions are 1 point, whereas short answer questions
are 3 points per expected short phrase). The total number of points for
all questions is then divided by eight (the number of simple questions
a user can respond to online in 1 minute) to determine the estimate
required length for finishing the survey.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed
collection is necessary for the performance of FMCSA's functions; (2)
the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways for FMCSA to enhance the
quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The Agency will summarize or include your
comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

    Issued under the authority of 49 CFR 1.87.
Kenneth Riddle,
Acting Associate Administrator, Office of Research and Registration.
[FR Doc. 2020-12567 Filed 6-9-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 74 (Wednesday, April 19, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18524-18525]
[FR Doc No: 2017-07889]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0034]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of denials.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its denial of 61 applications from individuals
who requested an exemption from the Federal diabetes standard
applicable to interstate truck and bus drivers and the reasons for the
denials. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals from the
diabetes requirement if the exemptions granted will not compromise
safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these exemptions does
not provide a level of safety that will be equivalent to, or greater
than, the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these
commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-113,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the Federal diabetes standard for a renewable 2-year period if it
finds ``such an exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that
is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved
absent such an exemption.'' The procedures for requesting an exemption
are set forth in 49 CFR part 381.
    Accordingly, FMCSA evaluated 61 individual exemption requests on
their merits and made a determination that these applicants do not
satisfy the criteria eligibility or meet the terms and conditions of
the Federal exemption program. Each applicant has, prior to this
notice, received a letter of final disposition on the exemption
request. Those decision letters fully outlined the basis for the denial
and constitute final Agency action. The list published in this notice
summarizes the Agency's recent denials as required under 49 U.S.C.
31315(b)(4) by periodically publishing names and reasons for denial.
    The following 8 applicants met the diabetes requirements of 49 CFR
391.41(b)(3) and do not need an exemption:

Dwight R. Atkison (IL)
Malcolm C. Barrentine (GA)
Chavis G. Burton (NC)
Roger R. Howe (IN)
Cesar A. Maldonado (VA)
John E. Parascandolo (TN)
Carl E. Thomas (TN)
Sixto F. Torres (NY)

    The following 30 applicants were not operating CMVs in interstate
commerce:

Harold G. Bergman (WA)
Daniel L. Berwager (MD)
Jorge A. Cuc (FL)
William E. Danz Jr. (NJ)
Craig Elgard (NJ)
Bernardo A. Fernandez (PA)
Bill J. Fowler (TX)
Gilberto Garcia (IL)
Bryan D. Giddings (IN)
Victor A. Gutierrez (CO)
Todd J. Hearn (VA)
Michael E. Holley (OH)
John E. Holmes (CT)
Aaron P. Hughes (UT)
John R. Hutchins (AL)
Bradley L. Jackson (OH)
Anthony B. Johnson (WI)
Joline R. Knauss (IN)
Rickey S. McCane (MD)
Gabriel Mendoza (WA)
Alicia L. Pittman (WI)
Jonathan W. Pluko (PA)
Jared R. Richards (FL)
Bruce A. Riegle (OH)
Camellia T. Sanders (GA)
Gregory V. Stack (ND)
Zachary A. Stovall (TX)
Jerald J. Tarasewicz (WI)
Wayne F. Todd (NE)
Alvin G. Welch (NY)

    The following 4 applicants have had more than one hypoglycemic
episode requiring hospitalization or the assistance of others, or has
had one such episode but has not had one year of stability following
the episode:

James D. Hagins (MO)
David C. Clarke (KS)
Kim E. Davis (MI)
William Rosado (NY)

    The following 2 applicants had other medical conditions making the
applicant otherwise unqualified under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations:

George M. Frederick (FL)
Jeffrey B. Leighow (PA)

    The following 3 applicants did not have endocrinologists willing to
make statements that they are able to operate CMVs from a diabetes
standpoint:

Walter Glover (MI)
Miguel H. Hernandez (OR)
Rodolfo E. Weeks (MN)

    Norman C. Frost (NC) is unable or has not demonstrated with
willingness to properly monitor and manage his diabetes, whether by a
personal decision or medical inability.
    The following 4 applicants did not meet the minimum age criteria
outlined in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(1) which states that an individual must be
at least 21 years old to operate a CMV in interstate commerce:

Rachel N. Anszelowicz (NY)
Brady A. Bronkema (IL)
Connor F. Meinhart (IL)
Jacob Villegas (TX)

    The following 9 applicants were exempt from the diabetes standard:

Jimmy P. Davis (TN)
Joel P. Faustino (CA)
Paul L. Green (OK)
Michael G. Johnson (OK)
William H. Jones (VA)
Timothy D. Kinsey (SC)
Mark A. Long (PA)
James R. Moynihan (CA)
Holly S. Trees-Miller (IN)

     Issued on: April 11, 2017.
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-07889 Filed 4-18-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: December 31, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 251)]
[Notices]
[Page 80485-80488]
[DOCID:fr31de08-110]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59153; File No. SR-Nasdaq-2008-098]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed
Rule Change Regarding Routing to an Affiliated Exchange

December 23, 2008.
    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 December 15, 2008, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared substantially by Nasdaq. The
Commission is publishing this notice and order to solicit comments on
the proposed rule change from interested persons, and is approving the
proposal on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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

    Nasdaq is proposing a rule change to amend: (i) Nasdaq Rule 4751 to
modify the restriction on routing of Directed Orders to a facility of
an exchange that is an affiliate of Nasdaq and (ii) Nasdaq Rule 4758 to
provide for the establishment of procedures designed to manage the flow
of confidential information between Nasdaq and its facilities
(including its routing facility Nasdaq Execution Services, LLC) and
other entities.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available from Nasdaq's Web
site at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at Nasdaq's principal office,
and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.
    Proposed new language is in italics.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Changes are marked to the rule text that appears in the
electronic manual of Nasdaq found at http://
nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

Nasdaq Rules

Equity Rules

4751. Definitions

    (a)-(e) No change.
    (f) The term ``Order Type'' shall mean the unique processing
prescribed for designated orders that are eligible for entry into the
System, and shall include:
    (1)-(8) No change.
    (9) ``Directed Orders'' are orders that are directed to an exchange
other than Nasdaq as directed by the entering party without checking
the Nasdaq book. If unexecuted, the order (or unexecuted portion
thereof) shall be returned to the entering party. This option may only
be used for orders with time-in-force parameters of IOC. Directed
Orders may be designated as inter-market sweep orders by the entering
party to execute against the full displayed size of any protected bid
or offer (as defined in Rule 600(b) of Regulation NMS under the Act). A
broker-dealer that designates an order as an intermarket sweep order
has the responsibility of complying with Rules 610 and 611 of
Regulation NMS.
    Directed Orders may not be directed to a facility of an exchange
that is an affiliate of Nasdaq except for Directed Orders directed to
the NASDAQ OMX BX Equities Market.
    (g)-(i) No change.

4758. Order Routing

    (a) No change.
    (b) Routing Broker
    (1)-(7) No change.
    (8) Nasdaq Execution Services LLC shall establish and maintain
procedures and internal controls reasonably designed to adequately
restrict the flow of confidential and proprietary information between
the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC and its facilities (including Nasdaq
Execution Services LLC as its routing facility) and any other entity.
* * * * *

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

    In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item III below, and is set forth in Sections A, B, and C below.

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

1. Purpose
    a. Affiliation and Order Routing
    The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. (``NASDAQ OMX''), a Delaware
corporation, owns three U.S. registered securities exchanges--Nasdaq,
NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. (``PHLX'') and The Boston Stock Exchange,
Incorporated, to be renamed NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX'').\4\ In
addition, NASDAQ OMX currently indirectly owns Nasdaq Execution
Services, LLC (``NES''), a registered broker-dealer and a member of BX.
Thus, NES is an affiliate of each of Nasdaq, PHLX and BX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58927 (November 10,
2008), 73 FR 69685 (November 19, 2008) (SR-BSE-2008-48). This filing
also proposes a new rule book for cash equities trading (``BX
Rulebook Proposal'') on a facility of BX, to be named the NASDAQ OMX
BX Equities Market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although BX does not currently have any equity trading operations,
BX has proposed a new rulebook for BX to support the resumption of
these operations.\5\ Although BX will not route to other market
centers, BX will receive orders routed to it by other market centers,
including Nasdaq.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id.
    \6\ PHLX does not currently trade cash equities, and therefore
this filing does not apply to it. Nasdaq is not at this time
proposing to modify limits on routing options to affiliated
exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NES is the approved outbound routing facility of Nasdaq for cash
equities, providing outbound routing from Nasdaq to other market
centers. NES does not provide inbound routing to Nasdaq. The
acquisition of NES by NASDAQ OMX was approved by the Commission in 2004
and 2005 \7\ and the rules under which NES currently routes orders from
Nasdaq to other market centers were approved initially by the
Commission in 2006 and have been amended on several occasions.\8\
Nasdaq Rules 4751 and 4758 establish the conditions under which Nasdaq
is permitted to own and operate NES in its capacity as a facility of
Nasdaq that routes orders from Nasdaq to other market centers. The
conditions include requirements that: (1) NES is operated as a facility
of Nasdaq; (2) NES will not engage in any business other than: (i) As
an outbound router for Nasdaq and (ii) any other activities it may
engage in as approved by the Commission; (3) for purposes of Commission
Rule 17d-1 under the Act,\9\ the designated examining authority of NES
is a self-regulatory organization unaffiliated with Nasdaq; (4) use of
NES to route orders to other market centers is optional; \10\ and (5)
Nasdaq will not route orders to an affiliated exchange, such as BX,
unless they check the Nasdaq book prior to routing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 50311 (September 3,
2004), 69 FR 54818 (September 10, 2004) (Order Granting Application
for a Temporary Conditional Exemption Pursuant To Section 36(a) of
the Exchange Act by the National Association of Securities Dealers,
Inc. Relating to the Acquisition of an ECN by The Nasdaq Stock
Market, Inc.) and 52902 (December 7, 2005), 70 FR 73810 (December
13, 2005) (SR-NASD-2005-128) (Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change
To Establish Rules Governing the Operation of the INET System).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 58752 (October 8,
2008), 73 FR 61181 (October 15, 2008) (SR-NASDAQ-2008-079); 58135
(July 10, 2008), 73 FR 40898 (July 16, 2008) (SR-NASDAQ-2008-061);
58069 (June 30, 2008), 73 FR 39360 (July 9, 2008) (SR-NASDAQ-2008-
054); 56708 (October 26, 2007), 72 FR 61925 (November 1, 2007) (SR-
NASDAQ-2007-078); 56867 (November 29, 2007), 72 FR 69263 (December
7, 2007) (SR-NASDAQ-2007-065); 55335 (February 23, 2007), 72 FR 9369
(March 1, 2007) (SR-NASDAQ-2007-005); 54613 (October 17, 2006), 71
FR 62325 (October 24, 2006) (SR-NASDAQ 2006-043); 54271 (August 3,
2006), 71 FR 45876 (August 10, 2006) (SR-NASDAQ-2006-027); and 54155
(July 14, 2006), 71 FR 41291 (July 20, 2006) (SR-NASDAQ-2006-001).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.17d-1.
    \10\ Because only Nasdaq members may enter orders into Nasdaq,
it also follows that routing by NES is available only to Nasdaq
members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has approved NES's affiliation with BX subject to
the conditions that: (1) NES remains a facility of Nasdaq; (2) use of
NES's routing function by Nasdaq members continues to be optional and
(3) NES does not provide routing of Directed Orders to BX or any
trading facilities thereof, unless such orders first attempt to access
any liquidity on the Nasdaq book.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58324 (August 7,
2008), 73 FR 46936 (August 12, 2008) (SR-BSE-2008-23).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq proposes that, upon the resumption of cash equity trading by
BX, NES, in its operation as a facility of Nasdaq, be permitted to
route all orders, including Directed Orders, to BX's equity market
without checking the Nasdaq book prior to routing. Directed Orders are
orders that route directly to other exchanges on an immediate-or-cancel
basis without first checking the Nasdaq book for liquidity.\12\ In
order to modify the conditions regarding the operation of NES and allow
NES to route Directed Orders to BX, Nasdaq proposes to modify the
restriction in Nasdaq Rule 4751(f)(9) that prohibits the routing of
Directed Orders to a facility of an exchange that is an affiliate of
Nasdaq. Under the proposed rule change, inbound routing of Directed
Orders to the NASDAQ OMX BX Equities Market would be permitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Rules 4751 and 4755 provide for routing of ``directed
orders'' to automated market centers other than Nasdaq on an
``immediate-or-cancel'' basis. Such directed orders may be
designated as intermarket sweep orders (``ISOs''), which may be
executed by the receiving venue based on the representation of the
market participant that it has routed to all superior protected
quotations, or not so designated, in which case the orders will
execute only if their execution would not result in a trade-through.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 29, 2008, the Commission approved rule changes to
permit the NYSE, NYSE Arca and NYSE Alternext US to accept inbound
orders that their affiliate Arca Securities routes in its capacity as a
facility of NYSE or NYSE Arca, subject to certain limitations and
conditions intended to address the Commission's concerns regarding
affiliation.\13\ In the orders approving these rule changes, the
Commission noted its concerns about potential informational advantages
and conflicts of interest between an exchange's self-regulatory
obligations and its commercial interest when the exchange is affiliated
with one of its members, but determined that the proposed limitations
and conditions were sufficient to mitigate its concerns.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 58681 (September
29, 2008), 73 FR 58285 (October 6, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2008-90)
(``NYSE Arca Order''); 58680 (September 29, 2008), 73 FR 58283
(October 6, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-76) (``NYSE Order''); 58673
(September 29, 2008), 73 FR 57707 (October 3, 2008) (SR-Amex-2008-
62) (``NYSE Alternext US Order'').
    \14\ The Commission also set forth these concerns in its order
abrogating NYSE Arca Rule 7.31(x). See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 57648 (April 11, 2008), 73 FR 20981 (April 17, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq proposes to amend Nasdaq Rule 4758 to provide that NES will
establish and maintain procedures and internal controls reasonably
designed to adequately restrict the flow of confidential and
proprietary information between Nasdaq and its facilities (including
NES) and any other entity.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ This sentence was modified at the request of the Exchange
from the text contained in the proposed rule change. Telephone
conversation between John Yetter, Vice President and Deputy General
Counsel, NASDAQ OMX, and Nancy Burke-Sanow, Assistant Director,
Division of Trading and Markets, Commission on December 22, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, in the BX Rulebook Proposal, BX is proposing a rule
change and certain undertakings intended to manage the flow of
confidential and proprietary information between NES and BX and to
minimize potential conflicts of interest.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See BX Rulebook Proposal, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\17\ in

general, and with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\18\ in particular, in
that the proposal is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative
acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to,
and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest. The proposed rule change would permit inbound routing of
Directed Orders and other orders to BX from its affiliate NES while
minimizing the potential for conflicts of interest and informational
advantages involved where a member firm is affiliated with an exchange
to which it is routing orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml ); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-Nasdaq-2008-098 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-2008-098. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room on official
business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-Nasdaq-2008-098 and should be submitted on or before
January 21, 2009.

IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a
Proposed Rule Change

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\19\ In
particular, the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5)
of the Act,\20\ which requires, among other things, that the rules of a
national securities exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices; to promote just and equitable
principles of trade; to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities; to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system; and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest; and are not designed to
permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 7, 2008, the Commission approved the acquisition of BX
(formerly The Boston Stock Exchange, Incorporated) by NASDAQ OMX.\21\
In conjunction with that transaction, the Exchange amended its rules to
prohibit the routing of Directed Orders \22\ to any facility of an
exchange that is an affiliate of Nasdaq.\23\ This limitation
corresponds to one of the conditions proposed by BX at the time it was
acquired by NASDAQ OMX to permit its affiliation with NES.\24\ NES, a
broker-dealer that will become a member of BX, currently provides to
Nasdaq members optional routing services to other market centers. NES
is owned by NASDAQ OMX, which also owns three registered securities
exchanges--Nasdaq, BX, and the PHLX.\25\ Thus, NES is an affiliate of
each of these exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See supra note 11.
    \22\ Nasdaq Rule 4751(f)(9) defines Directed Orders as
immediate-or-cancel orders that are directed to an exchange other
than Nasdaq without checking the Nasdaq book.
    \23\ See Nasdaq Rule 4751(f)(9). See also Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 58135, supra note 8.
    \24\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58324, supra note
11, at notes 117-123 and accompanying text. See also Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 58135, supra note 8.
    \25\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. Release No. 58324,
supra note 11; and 58179 (July 17, 2008), 73 FR 42874 (July 23,
2008) (order approving NASDAQ OMX's acquisition of the PHLX.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BX previously proposed as a condition to its affiliation with NES,
that NES would only route orders to BSE that first attempt to access
liquidity on Nasdaq. In connection with the resumption of equities
trading on BX, BX is now proposing to accept orders routed to it by NES
in its capacity as a facility of Nasdaq, including orders that do not
first attempt to access liquidity on Nasdaq.\26\ In the instant filing,
the Exchange proposes to amend Nasdaq Rule 4751 to allow the routing of
Directed Orders \27\ from Nasdaq to the NASDAQ OMX BX Equities Market.
The Exchange is also proposing to amend Nasdaq Rule 4758 to add a
requirement that NES establish and maintain procedures and internal
controls reasonably designed to adequately restrict the flow of
confidential and proprietary information between Nasdaq and its
facilities, including NES, and any other entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59154 (December 23,
2008) (SR-BSE-2008-48) (order approving the BX Rulebook Filing)
(``BX Rulebook Approval Order'').
    \27\ Pursuant to Nasdaq Rule 4751(f)(9), Nasdaq currently may
not route Directed Orders to a facility of an exchange that is an
affiliate of Nasdaq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the past, the Commission has expressed concern that the
affiliation of an exchange with one of its members raises potential
conflicts of interest, and the potential for unfair competitive

advantage.\28\ Although the Commission continues to be concerned about
potential unfair competition and conflicts of interest between an
exchange's self-regulatory obligations and its commercial interests
when the exchange is affiliated with one of its members, the Commission
believes that it is consistent with the Act to permit NES to expand the
outbound routing services it provides to Nasdaq, subject to certain
conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 58324,
supra note 11; 58673, (September 29, 2008), 73 FR 57707 (October 3,
2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-60 and SR-Amex-2008-62) (order approving the
business combination between NYSE Euronext and NYSE Alternext US
LLC); 54170 (July 18, 2006), 71 FR 42149 (July 25, 2006) (SR-NASDAQ-
2006-006) (order approving Nasdaq's proposal to adopt Nasdaq Rule
2140, restricting affiliations between Nasdaq and its members); and
53382 (February 27, 2006, 71 FR 11251) (March 6, 2006) (SR-NYSE-
2005-77) (order approving the combination of the New York Stock
Exchange, Inc. and Archipelago Holdings).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq Rule 4758 imposes certain conditions on NES as the
Exchange's outbound order router. For example, NES must: (1) Be a
member of a self-regulatory organization unaffiliated with Nasdaq that
is its designated examining authority; (2) be regulated as a facility
of the Exchange; \29\ and (3) not engage in any business other than its
outbound router function unless otherwise approved by the Commission.
Also, the books, records, premises, officers, agents, directors and
employees of NES, as a facility of Nasdaq are deemed to be those of the
Exchange for purposes of and subject to oversight pursuant to the
Act.\30\ In addition, use of NES to route orders from Nasdaq to away
market centers is optional,\31\ and a Nasdaq member is free to route
orders to other market centers through alternative means. Pursuant to
the proposal, NES will also establish and maintain procedures and
internal controls reasonably designed to restrict the flow of
confidential and proprietary information between Nasdaq and its
facilities, including NES, and any other entity.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ The Commission notes that, as a facility of the Exchange,
NES is subject to Exchange oversight, as well as Commission
oversight. Further, the Exchange is responsible for filing with the
Commission proposed rule changes and fees relating to NES's outbound
router function and NES's outbound router function is subject to
exchange non-discrimination requirements.
    \30\ See Nasdaq Rule 4758(b)(6). In addition, the books and
records of NES, as a facility of the Exchange, are subject at all
times to inspection and copying by the Exchange and the Commission.
Id.
    \31\ Nasdaq Rule 4758(b)(7).
    \32\ See proposed Nasdaq Rule 4758(b)(8). The Commission notes
that this proposed requirement is consistent with the rules for
Nasdaq Options Services LLC, which provides outbound routing
services for the Nasdaq Options Market, that were previously
approved by the Commission. See Nasdaq Options Rule Section 11(e).
See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57478 (March 12, 2008),
73 FR 14521 (March 18, 2008) (SR-NASDAQ-2007-004 and SR-NASDAQ-2007-
080) (order approving a proposed rule change relating to the
establishment and operation of the NASDAQ Options Market).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the protections discussed above and contained in Nasdaq
Rule 4758, the Commission believes that it is consistent with the Act
to permit Nasdaq to expand the availability of the outbound routing
services provided by its affiliate, NES.
    Nasdaq has asked the Commission to accelerate approval of the
proposed rule change concurrent with approval of the BX Rulebook
Proposal which establishes protections against possible conflicts of
interest as a result of routing by NES to BX.\33\ The Commission finds
good cause for approving the proposed rule change before the thirtieth
day after the date of publication of notice of filing thereof in the
Federal Register. The Commission notes that Nasdaq's proposal to expand
the use of NES as its outbound order routing facility is consistent
with prior Commission action.\34\ Accordingly, the Commission finds
good cause, consistent with Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\35\ to approve
the proposed rule change on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See SR-Nasdaq-2008-098, Item 7. The Commission is also
approving today the BX Rulebook Proposal. See BX Rulebook Approval
Order, supra note 26.
    \34\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 59009
(November 24, 2008), 73 FR 73363 (December 2, 2008) (SR-NYSEALTR-
2008-07); 58681, supra note 13; and 58680 supra note 13.
    \35\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that the proposed rule change (SR-NASDAQ-2008-098) is hereby approved
on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\36\
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-31130 Filed 12-30-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: May 9, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 89)]
[Notices]
[Page 26349-26350]
[DOCID:fr09my07-52]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-412-000]

Columbia Gulf Transmission Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in
FERC Gas Tariff

May 2, 2007.
    Take notice that on April 27, 2007, Columbia Gulf Transmission
Company (Columbia Gulf) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas
Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff
sheets with a proposed effective date of June 1, 2007:

First Revised Sheet No. 85
First Revised Sheet No. 86
Second Revised Sheet No. 333
Original Sheet No. 333A
Original Sheet No. 333B
Original Sheet No. 333C

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date

need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than
the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

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

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

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-8844 Filed 5-8-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P