[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 144 (Monday, July 28, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43808-43809]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17640]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72654; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2014-034]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Order
Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Disapprove a Proposed
Rule Change Relating to Proposed Changes To Remove From the Exchange
Rules Fee Provisions Regarding Re-Transmission of ``Third-Party Data''

July 22, 2014.

I. Introduction

    On April 7, 2014, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to remove from its rules all provisions relating
to the market data feeds that NASDAQ receives from other registered
exchanges and other non-NASDAQ sources and then re-transmits to its co-
located firms, including the provisions setting fees for providing this
market data to its co-located firms. The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on April 28, 2014.\3\ The
Commission received no comments on the proposal. On June 5, 2014, the
Commission extended the time to act on the proposal until July 25,
2014. This order institutes proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of
the Act \4\ to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71990 (Apr. 22,
2014), 79 FR 23389 (``Notice'').
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    NASDAQ offers co-location services for clients at its co-location
facility. NASDAQ Rule 7034 lists the services and the fees provided
under its co-location program, which include cabinet space, electric
power, installation and use of cables, and connectivity to various
affiliated market centers. NASDAQ Rule 7034 also offers co-located
clients connectivity to market data feeds from a variety of sources and
lists the fees for these market data feeds.
    The current proposal would remove from NASDAQ's rules the
provisions relating to all third-party market data feeds (i.e., all
market data feeds other than NASDAQ's own market data feeds) that
NASDAQ makes available to co-located member firms. NASDAQ does not
propose to cease offering third-party data feeds to its co-located
clients or to cease assessing the associated fees; it simply proposes
to eliminate these offerings and fees from the NASDAQ rulebook.
    NASDAQ argues that this proposed change is consistent with the Act
because third-party data feeds are not a ``facility'' of the
Exchange.\5\ As described in the Notice,\6\ NASDAQ argues that the
third-party data it provides to its co-located member firms are
facilities of the exchanges that originally produce the data, not a
facility of an exchange that receives and distributes the data as a
voluntary service to its member firms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Section 3(a)(2) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(2)
(defining the term ``facility'' as applied to an exchange).
    \6\ See, supra, n.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Disapprove SR-NASDAQ-2014-034
and Grounds for Disapproval Under Consideration

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \7\ to determine whether the proposal should be
disapproved. Institution of such proceedings is appropriate at this
time in view of the legal and policy issues raised by the proposals.
Institution of disapproval proceedings does not indicate that the
Commission has reached any conclusions with respect to any of the
issues involved. Rather, as described in greater detail below, the
Commission seeks and encourages interested persons to provide
additional comment on the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B),\8\ the Commission is providing
notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration. NASDAQ's
proposal, if approved, would allow a national securities exchange to
offer third-party market data (e.g., the proprietary data feeds of
other exchanges in the National Market System) to member firms that are
co-located on the exchange's premises at its trading facilities, and to
charge fees for that market data, without Commission oversight through
the proposed rule change process. An exchange's provision of third-
party market data feeds to co-located clients appears to be an integral
feature of its co-location program, and co-location programs are
subject to the rule filing process. The Commission believes that
permitting exchanges to provide third-party data feeds to co-located
clients without subjecting the offerings and associated fees to review
through the Rule 19b-4 process presents a novel issue that warrants
further consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for
additional analysis of, and input from commenters with respect to, the
proposed rule change's consistency with Section 3(a)(2) of the Act,
which defines the term ``facility'' when used with respect to an
exchange to include its premises, tangible or intangible property
whether on the premises or not, any right to the use of such premises
or property or any service thereof for the purpose of effecting or
reporting a transaction on an exchange (including, among other things,
any system of communication to or from the exchange, by ticker or
otherwise, maintained by or with the consent of the exchange), and any
right of the exchange to the use of any property or service; Section
6(b)(1) of the Act, which requires that a national securities exchange
be so organized and have the capacity to be able to carry out the
purposes of the Act; Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, which requires that
the rules of an exchange provide for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and issuers
and other persons using its facilities; Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,
which requires that the rules of an exchange be designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative

acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market system, and in general to protect investors and the public
interest; and Section 6(b)(8), which requires that the rules of an
exchange not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Procedure: Request for Written Comments

    The Commission requests that interested persons provide written
submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the
concerns identified above, as well as any others they may have with the
proposed rule change. In particular, the Commission invites the written
views of interested persons concerning whether the proposed rule change
is inconsistent with Sections 3(a)(2), 6(b)(1), 6(b)(4), 6(b)(5), and
6(b)(8) of the Act or any other provision of the Act, or the rules and
regulation thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues
relevant to approval or disapproval which would be facilitated by an
oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will
consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for an opportunity to
make an oral presentation.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, as amended by the Securities
Act Amendments of 1975, Public Law 94-29 (June 4, 1975), grants the
Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding--either
oral or notice and opportunity for written comments--is appropriate
for consideration of a particular proposal by a self-regulatory
organization. See Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Senate Comm. on
Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th Cong., 1st
Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments regarding whether the proposed rule changes should be
[approved or] disapproved by August 18, 2014. Any person who wishes to
file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that
rebuttal by September 2, 2014.
    Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2014-034 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-2014-034. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. 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 publicly available. All submissions should refer to File Number
SR-NASDAQ-2014-034 and should be submitted on or before August 18,
2014. Rebuttal comments should be submitted by September 2, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-17640 Filed 7-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 54 (Wednesday, March 22, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14713-14714]
[FR Doc No: 2017-05709]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-ORD-2015-0765; FRL-9960-04-ORD]

Board of Scientific Counselors Homeland Security Subcommittee;
Notification of Public Teleconference and Public Comment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notification of public meeting and public comment.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-
463, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency hereby provides notice
that the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) Homeland Security
Subcommittee (HSS) will host a public teleconference. The meeting will
be held on Tuesday, March 28, 2017 from 11:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. All
times noted are Eastern Time and are approximate. The primary
discussions will focus on finalizing the draft report on the effective
and efficient tools, strategies and methods to characterize and assess
exposure and decontamination following a biological contamination
incident. There will be a public comment period at 11:15 a.m. For
information on registering to participate on the call or to provide
public comment, please see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below.
Due to unforeseen administrative circumstances, EPA is announcing this
meeting with less than fifteen calendar days' notice.

DATES: The BOSC HSS meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 28, 2017
from 11:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. All times noted are Eastern Time and are
approximate.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions or correspondence concerning
the meeting should be directed to Tom Tracy, Designated Federal
Officer, Environmental Protection Agency, by mail at 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue NW., (MC 8104 R), Washington, DC 20460; by telephone at 202-564-
6518; fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or via email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Charter of the BOSC states that the
advisory committee shall provide independent advice to the
Administrator on technical and management aspects of the ORD's research
program. Additional information about the BOSC is available at: http://www2.epa.gov/bosc.
    Registration: In order to participate in the meeting, you must
register at the following site: https://us-epa-2017-bosc-hs-subcommittee-teleconference.eventbrite.com. Once you have completed the
online registration, you will be contacted and provided with the
meeting information. Registration will close on March 27, 2017.
    Oral Statements: Members of the public who wish to provide oral
comment during the meeting must preregister. Individuals or groups
making remarks during the public comment period will be limited to five

(5) minutes. To accommodate the number of people who want to address
the BOSC HSS, only one representative of a particular community,
organization, or group will be allowed to speak.
    Written Statements: Written comments for the public meeting must be
received by Monday, March 27, 2017, and will be included in the
materials distributed to the BOSC HSS prior to the meeting. Written
comments should be sent to Tom Tracy, Environmental Protection Agency,
via email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW., (MC 8104 R), Washington, DC 20460, or submitted through
regulations.gov, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2015-0765. Members of the
public should be aware that their personal contact information, if
included in any written comments, may be posted online at
regulations.gov.
    Information about Services for Individuals with Disabilities: For
information about services for individuals with disabilities, please
contact Tom Tracy, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
To request special accommodations, please contact Tom Tracy no later
than March 23, 2017, to give the Environmental Protection Agency
sufficient time to process your request. All requests should be sent to
the address, email, or phone number listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

    Dated: March 7, 2017.
Fred S. Hauchman,
Director, Office of Science Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-05709 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


                 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                       HUMAN STUDIES REVIEW BOARD (HSRB)
                         PUBLIC TELECONFERENCE/WEBINAR
                                 MEETING AGENDA

                            Friday, April 12, 2013
                      11:00 am - 12:30 pm (Eastern Time)*

                  HSRB MEETING FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE
               DRAFT JANUARY 17, 2013 HSRB MEETING FINAL REPORT

                  HSRB WEB SITE http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb/
                       Docket Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
                   Docket Number: EPA - HQ - ORD - 2013-0115

                 Meeting location via telephone/Internet only
           Dial in number<PHONE_NUMBER>; conference code<PHONE_NUMBER>
                   https://epa.connectsolutions.com/hsrbtele

11:00 AM	Convene Meeting and Identification of Board Members  -  Jim Downing (Designated Federal Officer, EPA HSRB, OSA)
11:05 AM*	Meeting Administrative Procedures  -  Jim Downing, DFO
11:10 AM	Meeting Process  -  Rebecca Parkin, Ph.D., MPH (HSRB Chair)
11:15 AM	Public Comments
11:20 AM	Board Discussion and Decision on Final Report  - Rebecca Parkin, Ph.D., MPH (HSRB Chair)

The Board's response to EPA charge questions presented at the January 17, 2013 meeting.

A completed study report from the Antimicrobial Exposure Assessment Task Force II (AEATF) in which the dermal and inhalation exposure of professional janitorial workers was monitored as they poured liquid antimicrobial pesticide products from conventional or reduced-splash containers into different sizes and types of receiving containers.

Charge to the Board - Science

   * Was the research reported in the Antimicrobial Exposure Assessment Task Force II
      (AEATF) completed liquid pour study report (AEA05) faithful to the design and objectives of the protocol and governing documents of AEATF?

   * Has EPA adequately characterized, from a scientific perspective, the limitations on these data that should be considered when using the data in estimating the exposure of people who pour liquid antimicrobial pesticide products?

Lead Discussant: William Popendorf, Ph.D.
Associate Discussants: Jose Manautou, Ph.D.
Charge to the Board - Ethics:

   * If the AHETF proposal is revised as suggested in EPA's review and if the research is performed as described, is the research likely to meet the applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 26, subparts K and L?

Lead Discussant: Virginia Ashby Sharpe, Ph.D.
Associate Discussant: Jewell Halanych, MD

12:25 PM*	Summary and Next Steps  -  Rebecca Parkin, Ph.D., MPH (HSRB Chair) and Jim Downing (DFO)

12:30 PM* 	Adjournment


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 117 (Tuesday, June 18, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28384-28386]
[FR Doc No: 2019-12869]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0124; Notice 4]

General Motors LLC, Receipt of Fourth Petition for
Inconsequentiality and Notice of Consolidation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: On January 2, 2019, TK Holdings Inc. (Takata) filed a defect
information report (DIR), in which it determined that a defect existed
in certain passenger-side air bag inflators that it manufactured,
including passenger inflators that it supplied to General Motors, LLC
(GM) for use in certain GMT900 vehicles. GM has petitioned the Agency
for a decision that, because of differences in inflator design and
vehicle integration, the equipment defect determined to exist by Takata
is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety in the GMT900
vehicles, and that GM should therefore be relieved of its notification
and remedy obligations. This notice serves to make the public aware of
GM's pending request to the agency and the period for public comment.
It does not address GM's substantive claims, nor legal arguments or
interpretations asserted by GM.

DATES: The closing date for comments is July 18, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments regarding this petition for inconsequentiality.
Comments must refer to the docket and notice number cited in the title
of this notice and be submitted by one of the following methods:
     Internet: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the
online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    You may call the Docket at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Note that all comments received will be posted without change to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. Thus, submitting such information makes it public. You may
wish to read the Privacy Act notice, which can be viewed by clicking on
the ``Privacy and Security Notice'' link in the footer of http://www.regulations.gov. DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available
for review in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR
19477-78).
    The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received
before the close of business on the closing date indicated above will
be filed in the docket and will be considered. Comments and supporting
materials received after the closing date will also be filed and will
be considered to the extent possible. When the petition is granted or
denied, notice of the decision will also be published in the Federal
Register pursuant to the authority indicated at the end of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  For legal issues: Stephen Hench,
Office of the Chief Counsel, NCC-100, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590
(telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    For general information regarding NHTSA's investigation into Takata
air bag inflator ruptures and the related recalls: http://www.safercar.gov/rs/takata/index.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On May 4, 2016, NHTSA issued, and Takata agreed to, an Amendment to
the November 3, 2015 Consent Order (the ``Amendment''), under which
Takata is bound to declare a defect in all frontal driver and passenger
air bag inflators that contain a phase-stabilized ammonium nitrate
(PSAN)-based propellant and do not contain a moisture-absorbing
desiccant. Such defect declarations are being made on a rolling basis,
with the first declaration due May 16, 2016, the second declaration due
December 31, 2016, the third declaration due December 31, 2017, and the
fourth declaration due December 31, 2018. See Amendment at ] 14.

GM's May 2016, January 2017, and January 2018 DIRs

    Takata timely submitted the first scheduled equipment DIRs on May
16, 2016. See Recall Nos. 16E-042, 16E-043, and 16E-044. Those DIRs
included non-desiccated passenger inflators, designated as types SPI YP
and PSPI-L YD, that were installed as original equipment on certain
motor vehicles manufactured by GM (the ``covered passenger
inflators''), as well as other non-desiccated passenger inflators
installed as original equipment on motor vehicles manufactured by a
number of other automakers, which are not at issue here.
    The Takata filing triggered GM's obligation to file a DIR for the
affected GM vehicles. See 49 CFR part 573; Amendment at ] 16; November
3, 2015 Coordinated Remedy Order at ] 46. GM ultimately submitted two
DIRs on May 27, 2016. See Recall Nos. 16V-381 (for vehicles in Zone A)
and 16V-383 (for vehicles in Zone B). On November 15, 2016, GM
petitioned the Agency, under 49 U.S.C. 30118(d), 30120(h) and 49 CFR
part 556, for a decision that the equipment defect determined to exist
by Takata is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety in
the GMT900 vehicles. See GM's Petition for Inconsequentiality and
Request for Deferral of Determination Regarding Certain GMT900 Vehicles
Equipped with Takata ``SPI YP'' and ``PSPI-L YD'' Passenger Inflators
(the ``First Petition for Inconsequentiality'' or ``First Petition'').
In a Notice published in the Federal Register on November 28, 2016, the
Agency published notice of the First Petition and granted two
administrative requests, accepting the petition out of time and
granting GM additional time to provide data in support of the petition.
See 81 FR 85681.
    On January 3, 2017, Takata timely submitted the second scheduled
equipment DIRs for additional covered passenger inflators. See Recall
Nos. 17E-001, 17E-002, and 17E-003. Again, the Takata filing triggered
GM's obligation to file a DIR for the affected GM vehicles. See 49 CFR
part 573; Amendment at ] 16; Third Amendment to Coordinated Remedy
Order at ] 32. GM ultimately submitted its DIRs on January 10, 2017,
and notified NTHSA of its intention to file an inconsequentiality
petition.\1\

Contemporaneous with its DIRs, GM submitted to the Agency a Petition
for Inconsequentiality and Request for Deferral of Determination
Regarding Certain GMT900 Vehicles Equipped with Takata ``SPI YP'' and
``PSPI-L YD'' Passenger Inflators Subject to January 2017 Takata
Equipment DIR Filings (the ``Second Petition for Inconse quen tiality''
or ``Second Petition'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ When a manufacturer files a petition for inconsequentiality,
the affected DIR will not be made public unless and until the Agency
denies the petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 11, 2017, the Agency published a notice of receipt of
the Second Petition and, as GM's Second Petition was virtually
identical to its First Petition (both involved the same covered
passenger inflators and same vehicle platform, relied upon the same
purported evidence, and would rely upon the same forthcoming report),
consolidated the Second Petition with the First Petition under Docket
No. NHTSA-2016-0124. See 82 FR 42718.
    On January 2, 2018, Takata timely \2\ submitted the third scheduled
equipment DIRs for additional covered passenger inflators. See Recall
Nos. 18E-001, 18E-002, and 18E-003. Again, the Takata filing triggered
GM's obligation to file a DIR for the affected GM vehicles. See 49 CFR
part 573; Amendment at ] 16; Third Amendment to Coordinated Remedy
Order at ] 32. GM ultimately submitted its DIRs on January 9, 2018, and
notified NTHSA of its intention to file an inconsequentiality
petition.\3\ Contemporaneous with its DIRs, GM submitted to the Agency
a Petition for Inconsequentiality Regarding Certain GMT900 Vehicles
Equipped with Takata ``SPI YP'' and ``PSPI-L YD'' Passenger Inflators
Subject to January 2018 Takata Equipment DIR Filings (the ``Third
Petition for Inconsequentiality'' or ``Third Petition''). GM's Third
Petition requested that NHTSA grant GM's First, Second and Third
Petitions or, in the alternative, that NHTSA defer its decision on the
First, Second, and Third Petitions until March 31, 2018, which would
allow GM time to complete further study and analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ December 31, 2017 was a Sunday, and Monday, January 1, 2018
was a federal holiday.
    \3\ When a manufacturer files a petition for inconsequentiality,
the affected DIR will not be made public unless and until the Agency
denies the petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 9, 2018, the Agency published a notice of receipt of the
Third Petition, consolidated the Third Petition with the First and
Second Petitions under Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0124, and--emphasizing
that NHTSA's previous grant of additional time for GM to present
information was extraordinary--denied GM's request that NHTSA defer
decision on the Third Petition until March 31, 2018. See 83 FR 15233.

GM's January 11, 2019 DIRs

    Takata submitted the fourth scheduled equipment DIRs on January 2,
2019. Once more, the Takata filing triggered GM's obligation to file a
DIR for the affected GM vehicles. See 49 CFR part 573; Amendment at ]
16; Third Amendment to Coordinated Remedy Order at ] 32. GM submitted
its DIRs on January 11, 2019. Therein, in accordance with 49 CFR
573.6(c)(8)(iii), GM notified NHTSA of its intention to file a petition
for inconsequentiality and contemporaneously submitted to the Agency a
Petition for Inconsequentiality Regarding Certain GMT900 Vehicles
Equipped with Takata ``SPI YP'' and ``PSPI-L YD'' Passenger Inflators
Subject to January 2019 Takata Equipment DIR Filings (the ``Fourth
Petition for Inconsequentiality'' or ``Fourth Petition'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ When a manufacturer files a petition for inconsequentiality,
the affected DIR will not be made public unless and until the Agency
denies the petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Class of Motor Vehicles Involved

    GM's Fourth Petition involves certain ``GMT900'' vehicles that
contain the covered passenger inflators (designated as inflator types
``SPI YP'' and ``PSPI-L YD''). GMT900 is a GM-specific vehicle platform
that forms the structural foundation for a variety of GM trucks and
sport utility vehicles, including: Chevrolet Silverado 1500, GMC Sierra
1500, Chevrolet Silverado 2500/3500, GMC Sierra 2500/3500, Chevrolet
Tahoe, Chevrolet Suburban, Chevrolet Avalanche, GMC Yukon, GMC Yukon
XL, Cadillac Escalade, Cadillac Escalade ESV, and Cadillac Escalade
EXT. The Fourth Petition involves the following GMT900 vehicles:
     In Zone A, affected model year 2014 GMT900 vehicles. Zone
A comprises the following states and U.S. territories: Alabama,
California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Mississippi, South
Carolina, Texas, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern
Mariana Islands (Saipan), and the U.S. Virgin Islands. See Amendment at
] 7.a.
     In Zone B, affected model year 2011-2014 GMT900 vehicles.
Zone B comprises the following states: Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware,
District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland,
Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina,
Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia.
See Amendment at ] 7.b.
     In Zone C, affected model year 2010-2014 GMT900 vehicles.
Zone C comprises the following states: Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut,
Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New
Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota,
Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. See Amendment at ]
7.c.

III. Summary of GM's Fourth Petition for Inconsequentiality

    GM's Fourth Petition relies on arguments, data, and analysis in its
First and Second Petitions (and supplemental brief thereto) and Third
Petition, information submitted to the Agency during briefings with
NHTSA, additional arguments and engineering analysis as presented in
the Fourth Petition, and the full administrative record. See Fourth
Petition at 1.
    According to the Fourth Petition, ``[a]fter the filing of the Third
Petition, GM and Northrop Grumman continued to investigate and analyze
the longer-term performance of the GMT900 Inflators.'' \5\ Id. at 3.
Specifically, GM states that Northrop Grumman: Aged leftover GMT900
inflators from the original aging study to ``extreme field exposure''
of an estimated thirty-five years--``produc[ing] more ruptures in the
comparison group non-GMT900 Takata inflators but no ruptures in the
GMT900 Inflators''--and applied a predictive-rupture model to GMT900
Inflators yielding results consistent with those from the long-term
aging study. Id. at 3-4. GM contends it thereby ``has established that
worse-than-worst case humidity exposure and temperature cycling will
not cause inflator ruptures in the GMT900 Vehicles at any point within
even unrealistically conservative vehicle-service life estimates''--
i.e., that the covered passenger inflators, as integrated into the
GMT900 vehicles, do not present an unreasonable risk to safety. See id.
at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ To supplement its internal analysis, GM retained a third-
party expert, Orbital ATK (``OATK''), to conduct a long-term aging
study to estimate the service life expectancy of the covered
passenger inflators in the GMT900 vehicles. See First Petition at
12. Northrop Grumman has since acquired OATK.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Fourth Petition, GM's position is based upon the
following: Field data, including GM's estimated 66,894 Takata passenger
air bag inflator deployments in GMT900 vehicles without a reported
rupture and ballistic tests of 4,270 covered passenger inflators
without a rupture, the ``final'' results of Northrop Grumman's study of

inflators artificially exposed to additional humidity and temperature
cycling without a rupture or abnormal deployment and accompanying
statistical interpretation of those results,\6\ and a predictive-aging
model developed by Northrop Grumman. Id. at 12-16. GM also states that
it ``does not believe'' that objections in several public comments
regarding the design of the aging study ``merit a comprehensive
response,'' although GM does ``emphasize[ ]'' ``a few points regarding
the study's design'' to contend that its analysis is supported. See id.
at 15-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ After filing its Third Petition, Northrop Grumman continued
the long-term aging study by aging remaining GMT900 covered
passenger inflators to thirty-five years--five years beyond the
study's original thirty years. Fourth Petition at 13. GM states that
it observed no ruptures in the remaining forty-five inflators after
this additional aging, and that this ``is consistent with field data
and ballistic testing data from GMT900 Inflators recovered from the
field.'' Id. at 13-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, GM states that the covered passenger inflators are not
used by any other original equipment manufacturer and, further, that
the covered inflators have a number of unique design features that
influence burn rates and internal ballistic dynamics, including greater
vent-area-to-propellant-mass ratios, steel end caps, and thinner
propellant wafers. See id. at 6. GM also states that the physical
environment of the GMT900 vehicles better protects the covered
passenger inflators from temperature cycling that can lead to
propellant degradation and, ultimately, inflator rupture. See id. at 7.
    This notice serves to make the public aware of GM's pending request
to the agency and the period for public comment. Accordingly, it does
not address the substantive claims, or legal arguments or
interpretations, asserted by GM.

IV. Consolidation

    GM's Fourth Petition for Inconsequentiality involves newer model
years of the same covered passenger inflators (i.e., frontal passenger
inflator types ``SPI YP'' and ``PSPI-L YD''), the same vehicle platform
(i.e., the GMT900), and similar purported evidence to support the
safety of the inflators (e.g., estimated field deployments, ballistic
testing), and relies upon results derived from the same long-term aging
study as GM's First, Second, and Third Petitions. Accordingly, it is
appropriate to evaluate the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Petitions
together. In the interest of clarity, consistency, and efficiency, the
Agency is consolidating the Fourth Petition with the First, Second, and
Third Petitions (the ``Consolidated Petitions'') under Docket No.
NHTSA-2016-0124.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq., 30118, 30120(h), 30162,
30166(b)(1), 30166(g)(1); delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95(a);
49 CFR parts 556, 573, 577.

    Dated: June 12, 2019.
Jonathan Morrison,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2019-12869 Filed 6-17-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 185 (Wednesday, September 23, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59834-59836]
[FR Doc No: 2020-20937]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-89913; File No. SR-Phlx-2020-45]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Exchange's Transaction Credits at Equity 7, Section 3

September 17, 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 September 10, 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, II, and III, below,
which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's transaction credits
at Equity 7, Section 3, as described further below. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/phlx/rules, at the principal office
of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to revise its schedule of order execution and
routing credits, at Equity 7, Section 3, to add three new credits for
member organizations with non-displayed orders that provide liquidity
to the Exchange. Presently, the Exchange already provides one such
credit--a $0.0023 per share executed credit for all orders with
midpoint pegging that provide liquidity. For all other non-display
orders that provide liquidity, it presently provides no credits. Going
forward, the Exchange proposes to add the following new credits for
member organizations with non-displayed orders that provide liquidity
to the Exchange:
     A $0.0004 per share executed credit for orders entered by
a member organization that provides 0.01% or more of total Consolidated
Volume \3\ during the month through non-displayed orders (other than
midpoint orders) that provide liquidity;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As used in this Rule, the term ``Consolidated Volume'' shall
mean the total consolidated volume reported to all consolidated
transaction reporting plans by all exchanges and trade reporting
facilities during a month in equity securities, excluding executed
orders with a size of less than one round lot. See Equity 7, Section
3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     A $0.0007 per share executed credit for orders entered by
a member organization that provides 0.02% or more of total Consolidated
Volume during the month through non-displayed orders (other than
midpoint orders) that provide liquidity; and
     A $0.0012 per share executed credit for orders entered by
a member organization that provides 0.05% or more of total Consolidated
Volume during the month through non-displayed orders (other than
midpoint orders) that provide liquidity.
    The Exchange believes that the addition of these three new credits
will incentivize member organizations to add non-displayed liquidity to
the Exchange. Moreover, the proposal broadens the availability of
credits to member organizations that add non-displayed liquidity other
than midpoint pegging orders. In incentivizing member organizations to
increase the extent of their non-displayed liquidity adding activity on
the Exchange, the Exchange intends to improve the overall quality and
attractiveness of the PSX market.
Impact of the Changes
    Those participants that act as significant providers of non-
displayed liquidity to the Exchange will benefit directly from the
proposed addition of the new credits. Other participants will also
benefit from the new credits insofar as any increase in liquidity
adding activity on the Exchange will improve the overall quality of the
market, to the benefit of all member organizations.
    The Exchange notes that its proposal is not otherwise targeted at
or expected to be limited in its applicability to a specific segment of
market participants nor will it apply differently to different types of
market participants.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\4\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\5\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and issuers and other persons using any facility, and is
not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers. The proposal is also consistent with
Section 11A of the Act relating to the establishment of the national
market system for securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

The Proposal Is Reasonable
    The Exchange's proposed changes to its schedule of credits are
reasonable in

several respects. As a threshold matter, the Exchange is subject to
significant competitive forces in the market for equity securities
transaction services that constrain its pricing determinations in that
market. The fact that this market is competitive has long been
recognized by the courts. In NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange
Commission, the D.C. Circuit stated as follows: ``[n]o one disputes
that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC
explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of
securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing
agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for
execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share
percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly,
regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker
dealers'. . . .'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market
model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70
FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Numerous indicia demonstrate the competitive nature of this market.
For example, clear substitutes to the Exchange exist in the market for
equity security transaction services. The Exchange is only one of
several equity venues to which market participants may direct their
order flow, and it represents a small percentage of the overall market.
Competing equity exchanges offer similar tiered pricing structures to
that of the Exchange, including schedules of rebates and fees that
apply based upon members achieving certain volume thresholds.
    Within this environment, market participants can freely and often
do shift their order flow among the Exchange and competing venues in
response to changes in their respective pricing schedules. Within the
foregoing context, the proposal represents a reasonable attempt by the
Exchange to increase its liquidity and market share relative to its
competitors.
    The Exchange has designed its proposed schedule of credits to
provide increased overall incentives to members to increase their
liquidity adding activity on the Exchange. An increase in liquidity
adding activity on the Exchange will, in turn, improve the quality of
the PSX market and increase its attractiveness to existing and
prospective participants.
    The Exchange notes that those participants that are dissatisfied
with the proposed new credits are free to shift their order flow to
competing venues that offer them higher credits.
The Proposal Is an Equitable Allocation of Credits
    The Exchange believes its proposal will allocate its proposed new
credits fairly among its market participants. It is equitable for the
Exchange to increase its credits to participants whose orders add
liquidity to the Exchange as a means of incentivizing increased
liquidity adding activity on the Exchange as well as to base the
receipt of the credits on a member organization engaging in a threshold
volume of liquidity adding activity on the Exchange. An increase in
overall liquidity adding activity on the Exchange will improve the
quality of the PSX market and increase its attractiveness to existing
and prospective participants.
    Any participant that is dissatisfied with the proposed new credits
is free to shift their order flow to competing venues that provide more
generous pricing or less stringent qualifying criteria.
The Proposed Credit Is Not Unfairly Discriminatory
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is not unfairly
discriminatory. As an initial matter, the Exchange believes that
nothing about its volume-based tiered pricing model is inherently
unfair; instead, it is a rational pricing model that is well-
established and ubiquitous in today's economy among firms in various
industries--from co-branded credit cards to grocery stores to cellular
telephone data plans--that use it to reward the loyalty of their best
customers that provide high levels of business activity and incent
other customers to increase the extent of their business activity. It
is also a pricing model that the Exchange and its competitors have long
employed with the assent of the Commission. It is fair because it
incentivizes customer activity that increases liquidity, enhances price
discovery, and improves the overall quality of the equity markets.
    To the extent that the proposed changes succeed in increasing
liquidity adding activity on the Exchange, this will improve market
quality and the attractiveness of the PSX market, to the benefit of all
existing and prospective participants.
    Moreover, any participant that is dissatisfied with the proposed
new credits is free to shift their order flow to competing venues that
provide more generous pricing or less stringent qualifying criteria.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Intramarket Competition
    The Exchange does not believe that its proposal will place any
category of Exchange participant at a competitive disadvantage. As
noted above, all member organizations of the Exchange will benefit from
any increase in market activity that the proposal effectuates. Member
organizations may grow or modify their businesses so that they can
receive the higher credits. Moreover, member organizations are free to
trade on other venues to the extent they believe that the credits
provided are not attractive. As one can observe by looking at any
market share chart, price competition between exchanges is fierce, with
liquidity and market share moving freely between exchanges in reaction
to fee and credit changes. The Exchange notes that the tier structure
is consistent with broker-dealer fee practices as well as the other
industries, as described above.
Intermarket Competition
    Addressing whether the proposal could impose a burden on
competition on other SROs that is not necessary or appropriate, the
Exchange believes that its proposed modifications to its schedule of
credits will not impose a burden on competition because the Exchange's
execution services are completely voluntary and subject to extensive
competition from a multitude of other live exchanges and off-exchange
venues. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues
if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or
rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In
such an environment, the

Exchange must continually adjust credits to remain competitive with
other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been
exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to
exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own credits in
response, and because market participants may readily adjust their
order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which
credits change in this market may impose any burden on competition is
extremely limited.
    The proposed new credits are reflective of this competition
because, as a threshold issue, the Exchange is a relatively small
market so its ability to burden intermarket competition is limited. In
this regard, even the largest U.S. equities exchange by volume has less
than 17-18% market share, which in most markets could hardly be
categorized as having enough market power to burden competition.
Moreover, as noted above, price competition between exchanges is
fierce, with liquidity and market share moving freely between exchanges
in reaction to fee and credit changes. This is in addition to free flow
of order flow to and among off-exchange venues which comprises
approximately 44% of industry volume.
    The Exchange intends for the proposed changes to its schedule of
credits to increase member organization incentives to engage in the
addition of non-displayed liquidity on the Exchange. These changes are
procompetitive and reflective of the Exchange's efforts to make it an
attractive and vibrant venue to market participants.
    In sum, if the changes proposed herein is unattractive to market
participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market share as
a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed
changes will impair the ability of member organizations or competing
order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the
financial markets.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

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

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2020-45 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-2020-45. 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-2020-45 and should be submitted on
or before October 14, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-20937 Filed 9-22-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P