[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 142 (Tuesday, July 24, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43417-43418]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17976]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[FMCSA Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0109]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes
Mellitus

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 22 individuals from its
rule prohibiting persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM)
from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce.
The exemptions will enable these individuals to operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.

DATES: The exemptions are effective July 24, 2012. The exemptions
expire on July 24, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Room
W64-224, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at: http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and/or Room W12-140 on the
ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of DOT's dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, or other
entity). You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the Federal
Docket Management System (FDMS) published in the Federal Register on
January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

Background

    On June 6, 2012, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of Federal
diabetes exemption applications from 22 individuals and requested
comments from the public (77 FR 33554). The public comment period
closed on July 6, 2012, and no comments were received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of the 22 applicants and
determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would
achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that
would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR
391.41(b)(3).

Diabetes Mellitus and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The Agency established the current requirement for diabetes in 1970
because several risk studies indicated that drivers with diabetes had a
higher rate of crash involvement than the general population. The
diabetes rule provides that ``A person is physically qualified to drive
a commercial motor vehicle if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring
insulin for control'' (49 CFR 391.41(b)(3)).
    FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the
Agency's July 2000 study entitled ``A Report to Congress on the
Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated
Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the
Transportation Act for the 21st Century.'' The report concluded that a
safe and practicable protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to
operate CMVs is feasible. The September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441), Federal
Register notice in conjunction with the November 8, 2005 (70 FR 67777),
Federal Register notice provides the current protocol for allowing such
drivers to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
    These 22 applicants have had ITDM over a range of 1 to 41 years.
These applicants report no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in
loss of consciousness or seizure, requiring the assistance of another
person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred
without warning symptoms, in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or
more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the past 5 years. In each case,
an endocrinologist verified that the driver has demonstrated a
willingness to properly monitor and manage his/her diabetes mellitus,
received education related to diabetes management, and is on a stable
insulin regimen. These drivers report no other disqualifying
conditions, including diabetes-related complications. Each meets the
vision requirement at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
    The qualifications and medical condition of each applicant were
stated and discussed in detail in the June 6, 2012, Federal Register
notice and they will not be repeated in this notice.

Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA did not receive any comments in this proceeding.

Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) if the exemption
is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than
would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the
applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered medical reports about the applicants' ITDM and vision, and
reviewed the treating endocrinologists' medical opinion related to the
ability of the driver to safely operate a CMV while using insulin.
    Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these
applicants from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) is
likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption.

Conditions and Requirements

    The terms and conditions of the exemption will be provided to the
applicants in the exemption document and they include the following:
(1) That each individual submit a quarterly monitoring checklist
completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual
checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) that each
individual reports within 2 business days of occurrence, all episodes
of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to
manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other
adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or

not it is related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) that each
individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's
report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical
examination; and (4) that each individual provide a copy of the annual
medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's
qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification
file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of
the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized
Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 22 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts Jack D. Alt (NH), Hallie L. Ayers (AR), Tony O. Billman (PA),
Tracy M. Dowton (MT), Anil D. Gharmalkar (KS), Larry A. Hamilton (MO),
Gregory S. Heun (OK), Irene M. Howard (UT), Allen K. Kates (NJ), Andrew
L. Lyman (PA), Franklin L. Oberender (IA), Nancy A. Plunk (MO),Victor
C. Port (ND), Scott D. Roles (MN), Jeffrey A. Ryan (IA), Keith A.
Siekmeier (AK), Tom L. Simmons (IA), James H. Stichberry, Jr. (MD),
Loyd J. Wagner (MO), John F. Watson (IN), Melvin E. Welch (NJ), and
Leroy R. Wille (IA) from the ITDM requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3),
subject to the conditions listed under ``Conditions and Requirements''
above.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 each exemption will
be valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption
will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply
with the terms and conditions of the 1/exemption; (2) the exemption has
resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was
granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent
with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. If the
exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the
person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at
that time.

    Issued on: July 18, 2012.
 Larry W. Minor,
 Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-17976 Filed 7-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 51 (Thursday, March 15, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15432-15436]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6236]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66558; File No. SR-EDGX-2012-06]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Amendments to the EDGX Exchange, Inc. Fee Schedule

March 9, 2012.
    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 February 29, 2012 the EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
the ``EDGX'') 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 self-regulatory
organization. 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 its fees and rebates applicable to
Members \3\ of the Exchange pursuant to EDGX Rule 15.1(a) and (c). All
of the changes described herein are applicable to EDGX Members. The
text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Internet Web site at http://www.directedge.com, at the Exchange's
principal office, and at the Public Reference Room of the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A Member is any registered broker or dealer, or any person
associated with a registered broker or dealer, that has been
admitted to membership in the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to make a technical amendment to the
description of Footnote 9 and Flag CL to reflect the Commission's
approval of the BATS BZX Exchange (``BATS BZX'') as a primary listing
exchange.\4\ Therefore, Footnote 9 will state that Flag O will be
yielded and a fee of $0.0005 per share will be assessed if an order is
routed to NYSE Arca & BATS BZX's closing process. This fee in footnote
9 ($0.0005 per share) gives a flat rate for the NYSE Arca & BATS BZX's
closing processes, which is lower than other primary listing markets.
Flag CL will apply to orders routed to a primary listing market's
closing process except NYSE Arca and BATS BZX. In addition, the
Exchange proposes to revise the descriptions on Flags CL, 8, and 9 to
broaden their applicability to several routing strategies rather than
just ROOC.\5\ Therefore, the Exchange proposes that Flag CL state
``Routed to listing market closing process except NYSE Arca & BATS
BZX.'' The Exchange proposes conforming amendments to Flags 8 and 9 to
delete the ROOC routing strategy from the descriptions of these flags.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 65225 (August
30, 2011), 76 FR 55148 (September 6, 2011) (SR-BATS-2011-018).
    \5\ See EDGX Exchange Rule 11.9(b)(3)(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend Flag 9 and Flag 10 of its fee
schedule. At this time, NYSE Arca offers its Members a rebate of
$0.0021 for orders that add liquidity on Tapes A or C and a rebate of
$0.0022 for orders that add liquidity on Tape B. The Exchange proposes
to amend Flag 9 to account for the pass-through of the NYSE Arca rebate
for adding liquidity through Tapes A or C and to create Flag 10 to
account for the pass-through of the NYSE Arca rebate for adding
liquidity on Tape B.
    The Exchange proposes to make a technical amendment by re-naming
Flag H as Flag HA, which represents all non-displayed orders that add
liquidity (not including Midpoint Match orders). Flag HA will identify
all non-displayed orders that add liquidity to EDGX, not including
Midpoint Match orders, and the Exchange will continue to provide a
rebate of $0.0015 per share. Finally, the Exchange proposes to make
technical amendments to Flags G, L, N, and 3 to replace the ``and''
connector with ``or'' (i.e., ``Tapes A or C'' instead of ``Tapes A and
C'') to make these references accurate.
    In SR-EDGX-2011-37,\6\ the Exchange amended several routing options
contained in Rule 11.9(b)(3) to allow Users \7\ more discretion if
shares remain unexecuted after routing. In particular, Rule
11.9(b)(3)(c)(i)-(iii) was amended to provide that Users may elect that
any remainder of an order be posted to another destination on the
System routing table. In conjunction with this amendment, the Exchange
proposes to create the following new flags: \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65903 (December 6,
2011), 76 FR 77284 (December 12, 2011) (SR-EDGX-2011-37).
    \7\ As defined in Rule 1.5(ee).
    \8\ These flags account for all postable destinations that are
not already accounted for by other flags on the fee schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to add Flag RB for orders that are routed
from EDGX to Nasdaq OMX BX and add liquidity. The Exchange proposes to
assess a charge of $0.0018 per share to account for the pass-through of
the Nasdaq OMX BX fee for adding liquidity.
    The Exchange proposes to add Flag RC for orders that are routed
from EDGX to the National Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NSX'') and add
liquidity. The Exchange proposes to offer Members a rebate of $0.0026
per share to account for the pass-through of the NSX rebate for adding
liquidity.
    The Exchange proposes to add Flag RM for orders that are routed
from EDGX to the Chicago Stock Exchange, LLC (``CHX'') and add
liquidity. The Exchange proposes to assess no charge to account for the
pass-through of no CHX fee for adding liquidity.
    The Exchange proposes to add Flag RS for orders that are routed
from EDGX to the Nasdaq OMX PSX (``PSX'') and add liquidity. The
Exchange proposes to offer Members a rebate of $0.0024 per share to
account for the pass-through of the PSX rebate for adding liquidity.
    The Exchange proposes to add Flag RW for orders that are routed
from EDGX to the CBOE Stock Exchange, LLC (``CBSX) and add liquidity.
The Exchange proposes to assess a charge of $0.0017 per share to
account for the pass-through of the CBSX fee for adding liquidity.
    The Exchange proposes to add Flag RY for orders that are routed
from EDGX to the BATS BYX and add liquidity. The Exchange proposes to
assess a charge of $0.0003 per share to account for the pass-through of
the BATS BYX fee for adding liquidity.
    The Exchange proposes to add Flag RA for orders that are routed
from EDGX to EDGA Exchange, Inc. (``EDGA'') and add liquidity. The
Exchange proposes to offer Members a rebate of $0.0004 per share to
account for the pass-through of the EDGA fee for adding liquidity.
    The Exchange proposes to add Flag RZ for orders that are routed
from EDGX to the BATS BZX and add liquidity. The Exchange proposes to
offer Members a rebate of $0.0025 per share to account for the pass-
through of the BATS BZX rebate for adding liquidity to BATS BZX.
Additional Changes to the EDGX Fee Schedule
    The Exchange proposes to add three additional rebates to the fee
schedule:
    First, Members can qualify for the Mega Tape B Tier and be provided
a $0.0034 rebate per share for liquidity added on EDGX if the Member on
a daily basis, measured monthly: (i) Posts greater than or equal to
.10% of the TCV in ADV more than their January 2012 ADV added to EDGX;
and (ii) posts greater than or equal to .10% of the TCV in ADV in Tape
B securities more than their January 2012 ADV added to EDGX.
    Secondly, Members can qualify for the Mini Tape B Tier and be
provided a $0.0030 rebate per share for liquidity added on EDGX if the
Member on a daily basis, measured monthly: (i) Posts greater than or
equal to .05% of the TCV in ADV more than their January 2012 ADV to
EDGX; and (ii) posts greater than or equal to .05% of the TCV in ADV in
Tape B securities more than their January 2012 ADV added to EDGX.
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend footnote 11 on its fee
schedule to provide that if a Member internalizes more than 4% of their
ADV on EDGX (added, removed, and routed liquidity) and the Member, at a
minimum, meets the criteria for the Mega Tier rebate of $0.0032 per
share in footnote 1, then the Member's internalization \9\ rate would
be a rebate of $0.00015 per share, instead of a fee of $0.0001 per
share if they met the tier provided in footnote 11 (posting 10,000,000
shares of more of ADV to EDGX) or a fee of $0.00035 per share if a
Member did not meet the tier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ This occurs when two orders presented to the Exchange from
the same Member (i.e., MPID) are presented separately and not in a
paired manner, but nonetheless inadvertently match with one another.
Members are advised to consult Rule 12.2 respecting fictitious
trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to implement these amendments to its fee
schedule on March 1, 2012.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\10\ in general, and
furthers the

objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\11\ in particular, as it is designed to
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other
charges among its members and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposed technical amendment to
Footnote 9 and Flag CL to include BATS BZX as one of the primary
listing exchanges adds additional transparency to its fee schedule for
investors as it brings the schedule up-to-date to account for a new
listing exchange. The Exchange also believes that the amendments to
Flags 8,9, and CL to remove the specific ``ROOC routing strategy'' from
those flags descriptions provides additional transparency to the fee
schedule by broadening those flags applicability to several routing
strategies. This encourages Members to utilize the Exchange to route to
various destinations. The Exchange believes that the proposed technical
amendment to delete Flag H and replace it with Flag HA promotes market
transparency and improves investor protection by adding additional
transparency to its fee schedule by alerting Members of the name change
for the flag.
    In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed pass-through
of rates for Flags 9, 10, RA, RB, RC, RM, RS, RW, RY, and RZ represent
an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
since it reflects the pass-through of the rates associated with
transactions done on other exchanges, as described above. In addition,
EDGX believes that it is reasonable and equitable to pass-through
certain rates to its Members. The Exchange also believes that the
proposed pass-through of rates is non-discriminatory because it applies
to all Members.
    In addition, the Exchange believes that adding an additional method
to achieve rebates of $0.0034 per share and $0.0030 per share,
respectively, that are tied to January 2012 baselines and Tape B volume
also represents an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges since it encourages Members, based on growth over new
baselines and in a new subset of securities (Tape B), to add increasing
amounts of liquidity to EDGX each month. Such increased volume
increases potential revenue to the Exchange, and would allow the
Exchange to spread its administrative and infrastructure costs over a
greater number of shares, leading to lower per share costs. These lower
per share costs would allow the Exchange to pass on the savings to
Members in the form of higher rebates. The increased liquidity also
benefits all investors by deepening EDGX's liquidity pool, offering
additional flexibility for all investors to enjoy cost savings,
supporting the quality of price discovery, promoting market
transparency and improving investor protection. Volume-based rebates
such as the ones proposed herein have been widely adopted in the cash
equities markets, and are equitable because they are open to all
Members on an equal basis and provide discounts that are reasonably
related to the value to an exchange's market quality associated with
higher levels of market activity, such as higher levels of liquidity
provision and introduction of higher volumes of orders into the price
and volume discovery processes. In addition, the rebates specific for
Tape B securities are also reasonable in that other exchanges also
employ similar pricing mechanisms. For example, Nasdaq OMX charges
$0.0027 per share for market participant identifiers (``MPIDs'')
removing 1.50% and adding 0.50% of Tape B consolidated volume, and
MPIDs that remove 0.50% and add 0.25% of Tape B consolidated volume are
charged $0.0028 per share. All other MPIDs are charged $0.0030 per
share.\12\ Similarly, NYSE Arca has rebates and fees that are specific
to adding/removing in Tape B securities throughout their fee
schedule.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Nasdaq OMX Rule 7018 [sic].
    \13\ See NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. Schedule of Fees and Charges
for ExchangeServices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange believes that the rebates of $ 0.0034 per
share and $0.0032 [sic] per share for the new Tape B tiers also
represent an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges since higher rebates are directly correlated with more
stringent criteria.
    Currently, the Mega Tier rebates of $0.0034/$0.0032 per share have
the most stringent criteria associated with them, and are $0.0003/
$0.0001 greater than the Ultra Tier rebate ($0.0031 per share) and
$0.0006/$0.0004 greater than the Super Tier rebate ($0.0028 per share).
    For example, in order for a Member to qualify for the Mega Tier
rebate of $0.0034, the Member would have to add or route at least
4,000,000 shares of average daily volume during pre and post-trading
hours and add a minimum of 20,000,000 shares of ADV on EDGX in total,
including during both market hours and pre and post-trading hours. The
criteria for this tier is the most stringent as fewer Members generally
trade during pre and post-trading hours because of the limited time
parameters associated with these trading sessions. The Exchange
believes that this higher rebate awarded to Members would incent
liquidity during these trading sessions.
    In order to qualify for an equivalent rebate of $0.0034 per share
(Mega Tape B tier), a Member would have to (i) post greater than or
equal to .10% of the TCV in ADV more than their January 2012 ADV added
to EDGX; and (ii) post greater than or equal to .10% of the TCV in ADV
in Tape B securities more than their January 2012 ADV (baseline) added
to EDGX. Assuming a TCV for January 2012 of 8.0 billion and a January
2012 ADV of 1 million shares, the Member would have to post greater
than or equal to 9 million shares (8 million shares more than their
January 2012 baseline of 1 million shares in ADV added to EDGX), and
post greater than or equal to 9 million shares in Tape B securities to
EDGX).
    Another way a Member can qualify for the Mega Tier (with a rebate
of $0.0032 per share) would be to post 0.75% of TCV. Assuming an
average TCV for January 2012 (8.0 billion), this would be 60 million
shares on EDGX. A second method to qualify for the rebate of $0.0032
per share would be to post 0.12% of the TCV (9.6 million shares) more
than the Member's February 2011 or (as proposed, December 2011) ADV
added to EDGX. Assuming the Member's February 2011/December 2011 ADVs
are 1 million shares, the Exchange believes that requiring Members to
post 10.6 million more shares than a February or December 2011 baseline
ADV encourages Members to add increasing amounts of liquidity to EDGX
each month. Such increased volume increases potential revenue to the
Exchange, and would allow the Exchange to spread its administrative and
infrastructure costs over a greater number of shares, leading to lower
per share costs. These lower per share costs would allow the Exchange
to pass on the savings to Members in the form of higher rebates. The
increased liquidity also benefits all investors by deepening EDGX's
liquidity pool, offering additional flexibility for all investors to
enjoy cost savings, supporting the quality of price discovery,
promoting market transparency and improving investor protection.
Volume-based rebates such as the ones proposed herein have been widely
adopted in the cash equities markets, and are equitable because they
are open to all Members on an equal basis and provide discounts that
are reasonably related to the value to an exchange's market quality
associated with higher levels of market activity, such as higher levels
of

liquidity provision and introduction of higher volumes of orders into
the price and volume discovery processes.
    A Member can also qualify for the Mega Tier rebate of $0.0032 per
share by adding or routing at least 4,000,000 shares of ADV prior to
9:30 a.m. or after 4 p.m. (includes all flags except 6) and adding a
minimum of .20% of the TCV on a daily basis measured monthly, including
during both market hours and/or pre and post-trading hours. Based on an
average TCV for January 2012 (8.0 billion shares), a Member would
qualify by adding 16 million shares during both market hours and/or pre
and post-trading hours and adding or routing at least 4,000,000 shares
of ADV during pre and post trading hours. The Exchange notes that fewer
Members generally trade during pre and post-trading hours because of
the limited time parameters associated with these trading sessions.
Therefore, the amount of shares that the Exchange requires to be added
or routed to satisfy this tier is less than for the Ultra Tier, for
example, which is based on posting liquidity to EDGX during regular
trading hours. The Exchange believes that this higher rebate awarded to
Members would incent liquidity during these trading sessions. Such
increased volume increases potential revenue to the Exchange, and would
allow the Exchange to spread its administrative and infrastructure
costs over a greater number of shares, leading to lower per share
costs. These lower per share costs would allow the Exchange to pass on
the savings to Members in the form of a higher rebate.
    In order to qualify for the Ultra Tier, which has less stringent
criteria than the Mega Tier and Mega Tape B Tier, and be provided a
rebate of $0.0031 per share, the Member would have to post 0.50% of
TCV. Based on average TCV for January 2012 (8.0 billion shares), this
would be 40 million shares on EDGX.
    Members can qualify for the Mini Tape B Tier and be provided a
$0.0030 rebate per share for liquidity added on EDGX if the Member on a
daily basis, measured monthly: (i) posts greater than or equal to .05%
of the TCV in ADV more than their January 2012 ADV added to EDGX; and
(ii) posts greater than or equal to .05% of the TCV in ADV in Tape B
securities more than their January 2012 ADV added to EDGX. Based on a
TCV of 8.0 billion shares for January 2012 and a Member's ADV for
January 2012 of 1 million shares (baseline), this would amount to (i)
posting greater than or equal to 5 million shares to EDGX; and (ii)
posting greater than or equal to 5 million shares in Tape B securities
to EDGX.
    The Super Tier has the least stringent criteria of the tiers
mentioned above. In order for a Member to qualify for this rebate, the
Member would have to post at least 10 million shares on EDGX and would
qualify for a rebate of $0.0028 per share. As stated above, these
rebates also result, in part, from lower administrative and other costs
associated with higher volume. The reduction in rebate would allow the
Exchange to recoup additional revenue to recover increased
infrastructure and administrative expenses. This rebate also results,
in part, from lower administrative and ther costs associated with
higher volume.
    Another way a Member can qualify for a rebate of $0.0028 per share
is to post 0.065% of the TCV in ADV more than their February 2011 ADV
added to EDGX. This tier allows Members even greater flexibility with
respect to achieving an additional rebate and rewards growth patterns
in volume by Members as this rebate's conditions encourage Members to
add increasing amounts of liquidity to EDGX each month. Based on an ADV
in February 2011 (baseline) of 1,000,000 shares, the Member would have
to add 6.2 million shares total to qualify for such rebate. This rebate
also results, in part, from lower administrative and other costs
associated with higher volume.
    The Exchange believes that the rebate for the internalization tier
of $0.00015 per share represents an equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees and other charges among its members and other persons using
its facilities since it allows Members of the Exchange who
inadvertently match against each other on both sides of a trade to
avoid having to be penalized by paying an internalization fee of
$0.00035 per share per side during regular or pre and post trading
sessions (Flags E/5) or a fee of $0.0001 per share per side if they met
the tier provided in footnote 11 of the fee schedule.
    Finally, the internalization rebate is equitable in that it is in
line with the EDGX fee structure \14\ which currently has a maker/taker
spread of $0.0006 per share (the standard rebate to add liquidity on
EDGX is $0.0023 per share, while the standard fee to remove liquidity
is $0.0029 per share). EDGX also has a variety of tiered rebates
ranging from $0.0023-$0.0034 per share, which makes its maker/taker
spreads range from $.0006 (standard add-standard removal rate), -$.0001
(standard removal rate-Super Tier rebate), -$0.0002, (standard removal
rate-Ultra Tier rebate), -$0.0003 (standard removal rate-Mega Tier
rebate of $0.0032), and -$.0005 (standard removal rate-Mega Tier rebate
of $0.0034 per share). As a result of the customer internalization
rebate, Members who internalized and met the criteria to satisfy the
Mega Tier and the volume threshold of 4% of their ADV on EDGX would be
rebated $0.00015 per share per side of an execution (total rebate of
$0.0003 per share), which would be an internalization rate that is no
more favorable the prevailing maker/taker spread by satisfying the Mega
Tier rebate of $0.0032 ($-0.0003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ In SR-EDGX-2011-13 (April 29, 2011), the Exchange
represented that ``it will work promptly to ensure that the
internalization fee is no more favorable than each prevailing maker/
taker spread.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also notes that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive. The proposed rule change reflects a competitive pricing
structure designed to incent market participants to direct their order
flow to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed rates are
equitable and non-discriminatory in that they apply uniformly to all
Members. The Exchange believes the fees and credits remain competitive
with those charged by other venues and therefore continue to be
reasonable and equitably allocated to Members.

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

    The proposed rule change does not 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 not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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) of the Act \15\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \16\ thereunder. At any
time within 60 days of the filing of such 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \16\ 17 CFR 19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-EDGX-2012-06 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGX-2012-06. 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
a.m. and 3 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; 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-EDGX-2012-06 and should be
submitted on or before April 5, 2012.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-6236 Filed 3-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 8, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 45)]
[Notices]
[Page 11693-11694]
[DOCID:fr08mr06-131]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53395; File Nos. SR-DTC-2006-04, SR-FICC-2006-01, and
SR-NSCC-2006-01]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company,
Fixed Income Clearing Corporation, and National Securities Clearing
Corporation; Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval
of a Proposed Rule Change To Exclude Non-U.S.-Based Central Securities
Depositories From a Requirement To Purchase Shares of the Common Stock
of The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation

March 2, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ notice is hereby given that on February 9, 2006, The
Depository Trust Company (``DTC''), the Fixed Income Clearing
Corporation (``FICC''), and the National Securities Clearing
Corporation (``NSCC'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') proposed rule changes SR-DTC-2006-04, SR-
FICC-2006-01, and SR-NSCC-2006-01 as described in Items I, II, and III
below, which items have been prepared primarily by DTC, FICC, and NSCC.
The Commission is publishing this notice and order to solicit comments
on the proposed rule changes from interested parties and to grant
accelerated approval of the proposed rule changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    DTC, FICC, and NSCC are seeking to exclude non-U.S.-based central
securities depositories from the requirement to purchase shares of the
common stock of The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (``DTCC'').

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

    In its filing with the Commission, DTC, FICC, and NSCC 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. DTC, FICC, and NSCC have prepared
summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most
significant aspects of these statements.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Commission has modified the text of the summaries
prepared by DTC, FICC, and NSCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    DTCC is a holding company parent of DTC, FICC, and NSCC, each a
clearing agency registered with the Commission. In 2005, amendments
were made to DTCC's Shareholders Agreement and new provisions were
added to the rules of each of the three clearing agencies pursuant to
which participants of DTC, FICC, and NSCC that make full use of the
services of one or more of the clearing agencies will be required to
purchase DTCC common shares (``Mandatory Purchaser Participants'').
Other participants that make only limited use of the services of one or
more of the clearing agencies will have the right but not the
obligation to purchase DTCC common shares (``Voluntary Purchaser
Participants'').\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52922 (December 7,
2005), 70 FR 74070 (December 14, 2005) [File Nos. SR-DTC-2005-16,
SR-FICC-2005-19, and SR-NSCC-2005-14].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of those amendments to DTCC's Shareholders Agreement
and revisions to the agency rules was to help ensure that participants
continue to govern and to control the activities of DTC, FICC, and
NSCC, including the services provided, service fees charged, and the
practice of returning to participants revenues in excess of expenses
and necessary reserves, by providing that all DTCC common shares are
owned by participants of the three clearing agencies.
    DTCC's clearing agency subsidiaries have links with non-U.S.-based
central securities depositories (``non-U.S. CSDs'') in order to support
the activities of the clearing agencies' participants. The definition
of ``Mandatory Purchaser Participant'' in each of DTC, FICC, and NSCC's
Rules has the unintended consequence of requiring non-U.S. CSDs to
purchase DTCC common shares.\4\ Most of these non-U.S. CSDs have ``free
of payment'' links and therefore do not expose the clearing agencies to
settlement risk. In other cases, where the non-U.S. CSD is permitted to
process transactions ``against payment'' and therefore benefits from
settlement guarantees provided by the clearing agencies, there are
reciprocal arrangements under which the clearing agency subsidiaries
obtains the benefits of settlement guarantees provided by the non-U.S.
CSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The definition of ``Mandatory Purchaser Participant'' is
contained in DTC Rule 31, FICC Rule 49, and NSCC Rule 64.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of the current proposed rule changes is to provide that
non-U.S. CSDs would be excluded from the category of DTC, FICC, and
NSCC participants that are required to purchase DTCC common shares.
These entities would, however, have the right to purchase DTCC common
shares.
    DTC, FICC, and NSCC each believe that their proposed rule change is
consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \5\ and the
rules and regulations thereunder applicable to DTC, FICC, and NSCC
because each believe the proposed changes to DTCC's Shareholders
Agreement and to their rules will assure fair representation of DTC,
FICC, and NSCC's participants in the selection of their directors and
the

administration of their affairs, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    DTC, FICC, and NSCC do not believe that the proposed rule change
will have any impact or impose any burden on competition.

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

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not yet
been solicited or received. DTC, FICC, and NSCC will notify the
Commission of any written comments they receive.

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

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder and particularly with the requirements of Section
17A(b)(3)(C).\6\ Section 17A(b)(3)(C) requires that the rules of a
clearing agency be designed to assure fair representation in the
selection of its directors and in the administration of its affairs.
The Commission finds that DTC, FICC, and NSCC's proposed rule changes
are consistent with this requirement because the allocation of common
share purchase requirements will more accurately represent the actual
use of the clearing agencies' services and the risks posed by such
uses. Moreover, the removal of non-U.S. CSDs from the definition of
Mandatory Purchaser Participant should not result in a significant
increase in the burden imposed on the remaining shareholders, because
the common shares that would otherwise be purchased by the non-U.S.
CSDs represent slightly more than one percent of the total number of
DTCC common shares to be purchased by the Mandatory Purchaser
Participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DTC, FICC, and NSCC have requested that the Commission approve the
proposed rules prior to the thirtieth day after publication of the
notice of the filing. The Commission finds good cause for approving the
proposed rule change prior to the thirtieth day after the publication
of notice because such approval will permit DTCC to complete the
necessary calculations to determine the number of shares to be
purchased by Mandatory Purchaser Participants without including the
non-U.S. CSDs, and will permit the clearing agencies' participants to
complete their purchases of such shares prior to DTCC, DTC, FICC, and
NSCC's annual shareholders meetings to be held in April 2006.

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Numbers SR-DTC-2006-04, SR-FICC-2006-01, and SR-NSCC-2006-01 in
the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Numbers SR-DTC-2006-04, SR-
FICC-2006-01, and SR-NSCC-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 Section, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of
such filings also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal offices of DTC, FICC, and NSCC and on DTC's Web site at
http://www.dtc.org, and on FICC's Web site at http://www.ficc.com, and on NSCC's Web site, http://www.nscc.com. 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 Numbers SR-DTC-2006-04, SR-FICC-2006-01, and SR-
NSCC-2006-01 and should be submitted on or before March 29, 2006.

    For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-3269 Filed 3-7-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 28, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 12671]
[FR Doc No: 2023-04006]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ID-6672-006]

Fisfis, David T.; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on January 23, 2023, David T. Fisfis submitted for
filing, revised application for authority to hold interlocking
positions, pursuant to section 305(b) of the Federal Power Act, 16
U.S.C. 825d (b) and part 45.8 of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR part
45.8.
    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, 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 on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically may mail
similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in
docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on March 3, 2023.

    Dated: February 21, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-04006 Filed 2-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


                    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

            DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                    OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

                             WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on May 16, 2003

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKETS OST-2001-9766

________________________________________________________________________
_____________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Application of   US Airways, Inc.   filed   4/8//03  to:

XX  Renew for two years exemption under 49 U.S.C. §40109 to provide the
following service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between Charlotte, North Carolina, and New York, New York, on the one
hand, and Freeport, Bahamas, on the other.

Applicant rep:  Joel Stephen Burton<PHONE_NUMBER>  DOT Analyst:  Sylvia
Moore<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted

The above action was effective when taken:   May 16, 2003,  through
May 16, 2005

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		    Office of International Aviation

XX   The authority granted is consistent with the overall state of
aviation relations between the United States and the Bahamas.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:  XX  Holder’s
certificates of public convenience and necessity

   XX  Standard exemption conditions (attached)

________________________________________________________________________
______

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department’s regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the referenced
Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this
Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR §
385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of
issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and the
filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this order is available on the World Wide Web
at

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_ aviation.asp

APPENDIX

U.S. CARRIER

Standard Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of operations authorized by the attached notice, the
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with the applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration Regulations and with all applicable U.S. Government
requirements concerning security; and

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

										10/2002

 To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, the holder should, before commencing any new
service (including charter flights) to or from a foreign airport, inform
its Principal Security Inspector of its plans.


[Federal Register: January 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 8)]
[Notices]
[Page 1497-1498]
[DOCID:fr12ja07-46]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-124-000]

Crossroads Pipeline Company; Notice of Revenue Crediting Report

January 4, 2007.
    Take notice that on December 29, 2006, Crossroads Pipeline Company
(Crossroads) pursuant to section 19.6 of the General Terms and
Condition tendered for filing a report showing that it did not collect
any penalties for the 2005-2006 contract year.
    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 on or before the date as indicated
below. 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
(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time January 11, 2007.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-275 Filed 1-11-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: April 2, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 62)]
[Notices]
[Page 15047]
[DOCID:fr02ap09-101]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Rule on Request To Release Airport Property
at the Brownsville/South Padre Island International Airport,
Brownsville, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of request to release airport property.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the
release of land at the Brownsville/South Padre Island International
Airport under the provisions of Title 49, U.S.C. Section 47153(c).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 4, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to
the FAA at the following address:
    Mr. Mike Nicely, Manager, Federal Aviation Administration,
Southwest Region, Airports Division, Texas Airports Development Office,
ASW-650, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0650.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be
mailed or delivered to Mr. Larry Brown, Director of Aviation, at the
following address:
    City of Brownsville, Department of Aviation, 700 South Minnesota
Avenue, Brownsville, Texas 78521-5721.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    Mr. Glenn Boles, Program Manager, Federal Aviation Administration,
Southwest Region, Airports Division, Texas Airports Development Office,
ASW-650, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0650, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The request to release property may be reviewed in person at this
same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA invites public comment on the
request to release property at the Brownsville/South Padre Island
International Airport.
    On March 23, 2009, the FAA determined that the request to release
property at Brownsville/South Padre Island International Airport,
submitted by the City, met the procedural requirements of the Federal
Aviation Regulations, Part 155. The FAA may approve the request, in
whole or in part, 30 days from the posting of this Federal Register
Notice.
    The following is a brief overview of the request:
    The City of Brownsville requests the release of 10.971 acres of
non-aeronautical airport property. The land is part of a War Assets
Administration deed of airport property to the City in 1948. The funds
generated by the release will be used for upgrading, maintenance,
operation and development of the airport.
    Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office
listed above under ``FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.'' In addition,
any person may, upon request, inspect the application, notice and other
documents relevant to the application in person at the Brownsville/
South Padre Island International Airport, telephone number (956) 542-
4373.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas on March 24, 2009.
Joseph G. Washington,
Acting Manager, Airports Division.
[FR Doc. E9-7255 Filed 4-1-09; 8:45 am]


transfer between animal and human bacteria and its subsequent effects is
needed. When risks are diffuse and pertinent data cannot be obtained, risk
analysis usually employs assumptions to estimate the magnitude of the risk.
Probability of transmission of resistance genes
To further illustrate one of the dissemination routes in figure 8.I, the path
from animal to consumer via the food-chain was examined. The scenario
discusses the acquisition of gene
XXX
A, coding for resistance against
antibiotic X, through consumption of animal product Y. The following
assumptions were made on basis of data available for glycopeptides,
glycopeptide resistance, enterococci and broiler meat :
·
the consumption of antibiotic X is low, 100 defined daily doses (DDD)
per 10 000 inhabitants and year (based on total human glycopeptide
consumption in Sweden 1995)
·
the consumption of product Y is high, occurring 50 days per year and
individual (corresponding to a consumption of 12.5 kg chicken per
capita and year)
·
the prevalence of gene
XXX
A in/on product Y is 50% (estimated from
Kruse, 1995)
·
one meal of product Y weighs 250 g
·
product Y contains 1000 colony forming units (CFU) of bacteria/g
carrying gene
XXX
A (estimated from Kruse, 1995)
·
the transfer rate of gene
XXX
A from animal to human bacteria is
10 /donor.
-6
Further, as the optimal conditions of transfer are unknown, the model was
restricted by the assumption that:
·
transmission will only occur if the individual has a contact with product
Y while being treated with antibiotic X.

8. Assessment
SOU 1997:132
202
The probability (P) of an individual having contact with product Y
contaminated with bacteria carrying the gene
XXX
A while being treated with
antibiotic X, at least once in 365 days, can be expressed as:
P = 1- (1-p)
365
it is further assumed that:
p = k * d
where;  k is the probability of having contact with product Y on any
randomly selected day
d is the probability of being treated with antibiotic X on any
randomly selected day
Table 8.IIa. Probability of having contact with product Y containing gene
XXX
A while being treated with antibiotic X - assumptions and calculations
4ABELL½))A½3ANNOLIKHET½F¶R½KONTAKT½MED½PRODUKT½9½INNEH¥LLANDE½GENEN½XXX!
SAMTIDIGT½SOM½BEHANDLING½MED½ANTIBIOTIKUM½8½SKER½
½ANTAGANDEN½OCH
BER¤KNINGAR
#ALCULATED¹AS
2ESULT
!NTIBIOTIC¹8¹CONSUMPTION¹HUMANS
Defined daily doses (DDD) per 10000 individuals
and year
100
#ONSUMPTION¹OF¹ANIMAL¹PRODUCT¹9
Consumption of product, days/year
50
Prevalence of gene
XXX
A in/on product
0.5
Consumption of product with
XXX
A
½
days/year
0.5*50
25
/CCURRENCE¹AND¹TRANSFER¹OF¹
XXX
!
CFU with
XXX
A/g of product
10
3
No.
XXX
A in 250g
2.5*10
5
Transfer rate of
XXX
A/donor bacterium
10
-6
Total transfers per 250g
250*10
3
0.25
0ROBABILITIES
Probability of treatment any selected day
d
100/(10000*365)
0.00003
Probability of having contact with product with
XXX
A
any selected day
k
25/365
0.07
Probability of having contact and being treated
p
p=k*d
0.000002
Probability of having at least one contact with
product containing
XXX
A while being treated during
one year (365 days)
P
P=1-(1-p)
365
0.0007
Probability of successful transfer of
XXX
A when
contact and treated
P*0.25
0.0002

SOU 1997:132
8. Assessment
203
With the assumed values P = 0.0007, i.e. 7 individuals in 10 000 will have
at least one contact with product Y while being treated with antibiotic X. As
the number of successful transfers from the bacteria in one portion of product
Y will be 0.25, a successful transfer of
XXX
A will be expected to occur in ¼
of the contacts, i.e. in 2 out of 10 000 individuals.
A sensitivity analysis was performed to test the impact of each assumed
variable on the outcome of the calculations (see table 8.IIb).
Table 8.IIb. Sensitivity analysis of estimate of probability of transfer of gene
xxxA expressed as number of individuals colonised bytransconjugant per 10
000 individuals and year
4ABELL½))B½3ENSITIVITETSANALYS½AV½SKATTNING½AV½SANNOLIKHETEN½F¶R½¶VERF¶RING
AV½GENEN½
xxx
!½UTTRYCKT½SOM½ANTAL½INDIVIDER½SOM½KOLONISERAS½AV
TRANSKONJUGANTEN½PER½½½INDIVIDER½OCH½¥R
!SSUMPTIONS
2ESULTS¹FOR¹ASSUMPTIONS
)NITIAL
,OW
(IGH
)NITIAL
,OW
(IGH
Consumption of
antibiotic X

10
10 000

0.2
166
Consumption of product
Y, days/year

20
90

0.7
3
Prevalence of
XXX
A
in/on Y

0.1
0.7

0.3
2
No. of bacteria with
XXX
A, CFU per g of Y

1
100 000

0.002
171
Transfer rate

10
-8
10
-4

0.02
171
Neither the number of days/year that the product is consumed, nor the
prevalence of products with bacteria carrying the resistance gene had any
major influence on the results. Of much greater importance were the rate of
transfer of the resistance gene between different bacteria, the consumption of
the particular antibiotic and the number of resistant bacteria in the product.
The two latter factors are also those most likely to vary with time and
geographic region.
The antibiotic consumption in this example is assumed to be low. If the
consumption is increased to 10 000 DDD per 10 000 inhabitants and year the
final number of successful transfers will be 2 in 100 inhabitants per year,
maintaining the original bacterial content in the product. This higher figure
for consumption is only slightly higher than the human macrolide
consumption in the Nordic countries (Apoteksbolaget, 1996; DANMAP,
1997; MAF, 1997).
The transfer rate will be dependent on the transfer mechanisms of the
resistance gene in question as well as on the donor-recipient combination. A
transfer rate of 10
-6
can not be considered as unusually high (see Chapter 4).

8. Assessment
SOU 1997:132
204
All the bacteria in one portion of product Y were assumed to be in a
condition capable of transferring
XXX
A. When the product is actually
consumed, this might not be the case.
%NTEROCOCCUS½FAECIUM
has been
reported to survive for 10 minutes at 65
°
C (Panagea and Chadwick, 1996)
but a thorough heat treatment of the product will reduce or eliminate its
content of viable bacteria. When the number of bacteria in the example was
lowered to 1 colony forming unit per gram of the product, the final amount of
successful contacts was 2 out of 10 000 000 individuals per year. On the
other hand, zoonotic food-borne illnesses with infectious doses in the range
of 10 -10 organisms do occur in spite of heat treatment. This shows that
6
9
higher numbers of viable bacteria of animal origin do occur in food.
Recontamination and lax enforcement of basic hygienic rules provide
opportunities for microorganisms to multiply. Numerous occasions for
transfer are encountered before heat treatment (kitchen utensils etc.) and the
gene might survive heat treatment. The prevalence of re-contamination in the
case of resistance genes is not known. Further, the dose required for
successful colonisation of an individual with for instance resistant
enterococci is largely unknown.
In the above calculations, it was assumed that transmission will only occur
when the individual is consuming the relevant antibacterial. The occurrence
of individuals colonised with, for instance, vancomycin resistant enterococci
(VRE) without prior exposure to vancomycin indicates that this is not always
the case (Van der Auwera
½ET½AL
, 1996). However, experimental evidence
from a mouse model shows that exposure to vancomycin is important in
establishment of a long term colonisation of VRE (Whitman
½ET½AL
, 1996).
Therefore, the restriction seems prudent in order not to overestimate the
risks.
To summarise the probability of at least one transfer of a resistance gene to
human bacteria via one type of product in the food-chain was estimated to
occur in 2 out of 10 000 individuals each year, ranging from 2/100 to
2/10 000 000. It is important to note that this figure does not account for
secondary transmissions between humans.
Impact of transmission of resistance
In the calculations above, it was assumed that the consumption of the
antibacterial was low. Such antibacterials are likely to be of use only in
special situations, and most likely in hospitals (e.g. vancomycin, quinpristin-
dalfopristin). Therefore, it is probable that the individuals in the example
above are hospitalised when the effective contact occurs.
The likelihood of secondary spread of resistant bacteria in antibiotic dense
surroundings such as hospitals is high (Salyers, 1995). In the case of VRE,
numerous reports on spread to both patients and staff within hospital wards

SOU 1997:132
8. Assessment
205
have been published (for a review see Woodford
½ET½AL
, 1995). For example,
Wade (1995) reported acquisition of VRE by 110 patients in a hospital ward
during a 22 month period. Five ribotypes accounted for 78% of the isolates.
Duration of admission was the only independent risk factor for acquisition of
VRE in the study. This concurs with the findings of Garber (1989) who
found that not only patients treated with ampicillin, but also other patients in
the ward experienced a higher risk of infections with ampicillin resistant
bacteria.
Transmission of and subsequent colonisation with resistant bacteria is not
in itself a problem but disease caused by resistant bacteria is. Multiple factors
predispose a person to infection  with VRE, but colonisation precedes most
infections (Edmond
½ET½AL
, 1995). In another study on VRE epidemiology
(Montecalvo
½ET½AL
, 1995), the colonisation rate was 16.6 patients per 1000
patient-hospital days. Colonisation persisted for at least 7 weeks and
sometimes for as long as 1 year. The colonisation rate was 10.6 times greater
than the VRE infection rate. Using the figures from the scenario above, this
would mean that 2/1000-2/100 000 000 individuals would experience clinical
problems due to the transmission from product Y. This does not account for
cases resulting from secondary spread.
The control of nosocomial infections is primarily based on isolation of
cases and hygienic measures. Repeated new introductions into a hospital
would in most cases complicate such control measures.
Consequences for health and health economics
The adverse economic and health effects of drug resistant bacterial infections
can only be roughly quantified. The evaluation has to be based on the disease
consequences as the human carriage of resistant bacterial strains does not in
itself constitute a direct cost. Naturally, the two issues are linked as an
increased prevalence of carriers is linked to an increased probability of
diseases due to infections with resistant bacteria. According to Holmberg and
co-workers (1987) the mortality, likelihood of hospitalisation and length of
hospital stay was generally at least twice as great for patients infected with
drug resistant strains as for those infected with drug susceptible strains of the
same bacterial species.
In table 8.III, some of the items that can lead to costs in relation to disease
caused by resistant bacteria in humans and animals have been listed (adapted
from Salyers, 1995).
It has been argued that with adequate diagnostics, identifying correctly the
drug susceptibility of the infectious organism, the patient would get the
correct treatment and resistance would not be a problem. However, apart
from extending the time span between clinical diagnosis and treatment,
laboratory diagnostics will also involve increased costs. Further, if a resistant

8. Assessment
SOU 1997:132
206
strain is introduced into a hospital ward it is likely to spread, thereby
increasing the number of patients in need of alternative drugs.
Table 8.III. Negative effects of increased resistance in human and animal
pathogens
4ABELL½)))½.EGATIVA½EFFEKTER½AV½¶KAD½RESISTENS½HOS½HUMAN
½OCH
DJURPATOGENER
(UMANS
!NIMALS
3HORT¹TIME¹EFFECTS
3HORT¹TIME¹EFFECTS
Patient suffering
Animal suffering
Cost of new antibiotics
Cost of new antibiotics
Cost of increased laboratory testing
Cost of increased laboratory testing
Longer course of disease
Longer course of disease
Higher costs for medical consultations
Higher costs for veterinary consultations
,ONG¹TERM¹EFFECTS
,ONG¹TERM¹EFFECTS
Irreversible damage to internal organs
Irreversible damage to internal organs
Days missed from work
Production losses
Costs for alternative measures for control
and prevention
Costs for alternative measures for control
and prevention
Reduced compliance with other
recommendations or preventive measures
due to loss of confidence in physicians
Reduced compliance with other
recommendations or preventive measures
due to loss of confidence in veterinarians
Measures to protect health care workers
Shorter life span of new therapeuticals
Shorter life span of new therapeuticals
Cost of increased monitoring
Cost of increased monitoring
Loss of consumers confidence
Disruption of patients family life
The difference in cost between older drugs, such as erythromycin, and
newer alternatives may be 6-fold (Nightingale and Quintiliani, 1997).
However, some newer drugs are less likely to produce adverse reactions and
might have other advantages which will reduce the final treatment cost
(Norinder
½ET½AL
, 1997).
The cost of increased resistance as a consequence of antimicrobial use at
society level was calculated by Phelps (1989). The extra societal cost arising
from any use of antibiotic was assumed to be the product of the expected loss
in therapeutic value of the antibiotic times the proportional effect of the drug
use on microbial resistance. For an estimated 150 million annual antibiotic
prescriptions (United States), this cost appeared to be between $0.35 billion
and $35 billion. In the lower end of the estimate, no mortalities were
expected while the higher figure represents 1 death due to resistance per
1000 infected patients with a value of a premature loss of life assigned to $1
million. The calculations depend heavily on unknown parameters but even if
the assumptions are only partly true, the estimate shows that the

SOU 1997:132
8. Assessment
207
unrecognised cost is substantial. Critical points in the analysis are the
proportion of infections resisting treatment, the numerical relation between
use and development of resistance over time and the proportion of bacterial
infections by resistant bacteria leading to death. Further analysis on these
issues is needed in order to obtain valid estimates to be used both in risk
management and in risk communication. It has been suggested that VRE
infections may lead to premature death in one per 1 000 000 inhabitants in
the EU (Baquero, 1996).
The relative impact of resistance genes dervied from animal production on
the extra society costs discussed above will depend on the proportion of
usage in different animal populations and in humans. In a situation where a
drug is widely used in human medicine, the impact added by animal usage
will probably be low. For resistance to substances, such as quinpristin-
dalfopristin (streptogramins), that have recently been introduced more widely
in human medicine, the situation is different. Following the usage of related
substances (virginamycin) as AFA, a pool of resistance genes is available in
animals. The effective lifespan of the new drug may therefore be
substantially shortened. This is even more pronounced for substances that are
yet under development for human therapy. Everninomycins is currently a
promising candidate for human therapy, belonging to a class that has never
been used in humans therapy. Everninomycins belong to the orthosomycins
class and are structurally closely related to the feed additive avilamycin. This
emphasises substances used as AFA may be useful templates for future
drugs. However, cross-resistance is likely to occur.
No studies concerning the cost of antimicrobial resistance in animals have
been found. As an example, the cost of a newer drug such as tiamulin is
about 2-fold compared to an older drug such as tylosin. The comparison
refers to one tonne of medicated feed at recommended therapeutic
concentrations for swine. This may not be the major cost involved, as
production losses including mortality and the consequences of increased
withdrawal times generally outweigh the cost of therapeuticals. Obviously,
morbidity is associated with high costs in pig production. Wallgren (1994)
reported significantly (p<0.05) better production data, in terms of higher
daily weight gain, lower mortality, larger litters and lower feed consumption
per kg weight gain from specific pathogen free (SPF) herds than from
conventional pig herds. This was ascribed to differences in incidence of
infections. Similar results have been reported by other authors (Young
½ET½AL
,
1959; Caldwell
½ET½AL
, 1961; Jorgensen, 1987).
Losses due to swine dysentery in Australia have been estimated to about
2.5 % of the annual gross national pig production (Hampson, 1991). This
figure includes costs for medication, i.e. it assumes that there are available
therapeutic drugs. In the future this may not be the case. Resistance to
tiamulin, as well as to tylosin, in
3½HYODYSENTERIAE
, or banning of the use of

8. Assessment
SOU 1997:132
208
pleuromutilin drugs in veterinary therapy, could quickly change the prospect.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 179 (Monday, September 18, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43584-43587]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19709]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81579; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2017-088]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 4703(a) To Allow
Members To Designate When an Order With a RTFY or SCAN Routing Order
Attribute Will Be Activated

September 12, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on August 30, 2017, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 Rule 4703(a) to allow members to
designate when an Order with a RTFY or SCAN routing Order Attribute
will be activated.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal office of
the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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 is proposing to amend Rule 4703(a) to allow members to
designate when an Order with a RTFY or SCAN routing Order Attribute \3\
will be activated. RTFY is a routing option available for an order that
qualifies as a Designated Retail Order under which orders check the
System for available shares only if so instructed by the entering firm
and are thereafter routed to destinations on the System routing
table.\4\ If shares remain unexecuted after routing, they are posted to
the book.\5\ Once on the book, should the order subsequently be locked
or crossed by another market center, the System will not route the
order to the locking or crossing market center.\6\ RTFY is designed to
allow orders to participate in the opening, reopening and closing
process of the primary listing market for a security. SCAN is a routing
option under which orders check the System for available shares and
simultaneously route the remaining shares to destinations on the System
routing table. If shares remain un-executed after routing, they are
posted on the book.\7\ Once on the book, should the order subsequently
be locked or crossed by another market center, the System will not
route the order to the locking or crossing market center.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Order'' means an instruction to trade a specified
number of shares in a specified System Security submitted to the
Nasdaq Market Center by a Participant. An ``Order Type'' is a
standardized set of instructions associated with an Order that
define how it will behave with respect to pricing, execution, and/or
posting to the Nasdaq Book when submitted to Nasdaq. An ``Order
Attribute'' is a further set of variable instructions that may be
associated with an Order to further define how it will behave with
respect to pricing, execution, and/or posting to the Nasdaq Book
when submitted to Nasdaq. The available Order Types and Order
Attributes, and the Order Attributes that may be associated with
particular Order Types, are described in Rules 4702 and 4703. One or
more Order Attributes may be assigned to a single Order; provided,
however, that if the use of multiple Order Attributes would provide
contradictory instructions to an Order, the System will reject the
Order or remove non-conforming Order Attributes. See Rule 4701(e).
    \4\ See Rule 4758(a)(1)(A)(v)b.
    \5\ Id.
    \6\ Id.
    \7\ See Rule 4758(a)(1)(A)(iv).
    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 4703 provides the various Order Attributes that may be
assigned to Orders entered into the System. All Orders have a Time-in-
Force,\9\ during which the Order is active. During Pre-Market
Hours,\10\ the Exchange has historically provided a member two options
concerning when an Order with a RTFY or SCAN Order Attribute may become
active--upon entry or at single designated time, which is currently
8:00 a.m. ET. Orders with a RTFY or SCAN Order Attribute entered prior
to 8:00 a.m. ET that are not designated to activate immediately are
held by the System until 8:00 a.m. ET, at which time they become
active. During Market Hours \11\ and Post-Market Hours,\12\ Orders with
a RTFY or SCAN Order Attribute may only become active upon entry. The
Exchange is proposing to provide members with greater control over
their Orders with RTFY and SCAN Order Attributes by allowing members to
designate when such Orders become active at any point during the
trading day. Accordingly, the Exchange is amending Rule 4703(a) and
paragraph (7) thereunder to make it clear that Orders with a RTFY or
SCAN Order Attribute may either be active upon entry or at a time
designated by the member. The Exchange is also clarifying under Rule
4703(a)(7) that Orders with a RTFY or SCAN Order Attribute may be
designated to activate at any time during System Hours, which
encompasses the full trading day on Nasdaq, on the same day.\13\ Thus,
an Order with a RTFY or SCAN Order Attribute not designated to become
active immediately may only be designated to activate during System
Hours of the day on which the Order was entered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Rule 4703(a).
    \10\ The term ``Pre-Market Hours'' means the period of time
beginning at 4:00 a.m. ET and ending immediately prior to the
commencement of Market Hours. The term ``Market Hours'' means the
period of time beginning at 9:30 a.m. ET and ending at 4:00 p.m. ET
(or such earlier time as may be designated by Nasdaq on a day when
Nasdaq closes early). The term ``Post-Market Hours'' means the
period of time beginning immediately after the end of Market Hours
and ending at 8:00 p.m. ET. The term ``System Hours'' means the
period of time beginning at 4:00 a.m. ET and ending at 8:00 p.m. ET
(or such earlier time as may be designated by Nasdaq on a day when
Nasdaq closes early). See Rule 4701(g).
    \11\ Id.
    \12\ Id.
    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange will implement the proposed changes upon approval by
the Commission.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\14\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\15\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public
interest, by providing members with greater control over their Orders
with a RTFY or SCAN Order Attribute and more flexibility to carry out
their investment strategies. Currently, market participants are limited
by the time at which their RTFY and SCAN Orders may activate--either
upon entry or at 8:00 a.m. ET. The proposed rule change removes this
limitation by allowing a member to designate the precise time at which
it wishes the Order to become active. The Exchange notes that a member
may currently replicate what is being proposed by entering an Order
with a RTFY or SCAN Order Attribute precisely at the time that they
wish it to become active during the trading day. The proposed change
merely frees members from having to time their Order entry to achieve
their investment goals. Currently, members may cancel an Order with a
RTFY or SCAN Order Attribute at any time before it activates at 8 a.m.
ET. Under the proposed change, members may cancel their inactive Orders
with a RTFY or SCAN Order Attribute at any time, thus allowing them to
react to market conditions that may cause them to violate their
obligation of best execution to their customers should the Order
activate and execute. Similarly, members may cancel their active Orders
with RTFY or SCAN and enter new RTFY or SCAN Orders to activate at a
time that the members believe will better satisfy their obligation of
best execution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With this change, and as is currently the case, all Nasdaq members
may use the SCAN Order Attribute, and all Nasdaq members may use the
RTFY Order Attribute if they meet its

requirements.\16\ Thus, the proposed change will benefit all members
that may use, or are eligible to use, SCAN or RTFY Order Attributes by
removing a limitation, and by providing more choice over their market
participation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ As set forth in Rule 4758(a)(1)(A), RTFY is a routing
option available for an order that qualifies as a Designated Retail
Order. Rule 7018 defines a Designated Retail Order as an agency or
riskless principal order that meets the criteria of FINRA Rule
5320.03 and that originates from a natural person and is submitted
to Nasdaq by a member that designates it pursuant to this rule,
provided that no change is made to the terms of the order with
respect to price or side of market and the order does not originate
from a trading algorithm or any other computerized methodology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is equitable to limit the proposed
change to RTFY or SCAN Orders because of the nature of the members that
use these Order types with the current order activation delay.
Currently, members that enter Orders with a RTFY or SCAN Order
Attribute with delayed activation tend to represent customers on an
agency basis--for example, individual retail investors.\17\ The
Exchange has become aware that the proposed functionality would ease
burdens associated with entering members' agency Orders with these
Routing Order Attributes. Consequently, the Exchange is proposing to
apply the proposed change to Orders with a RTFY or SCAN Order
Attribute. Should the Exchange become aware of other Routing Order
Attributes that would also benefit from the flexibility proposed
herein, it will consider filing a rule change to expand the time during
which such Orders may be designated to become active.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ RTFY, by definition, is entered on behalf of retail
customers, whereas the Orders with a SCAN Order Attribute are
entered on behalf of a wide array of customer, including retail
customers. Consequently, although the proposed change will relieve
burdens placed on members using both RTFY and SCAN, it will
beneficially impact SCAN Orders more so than RTFY Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. All Nasdaq members may use the
SCAN Order Attribute, and Nasdaq members may use the RTFY Order
Attribute if they meet its requirements. Any member that may use, or is
eligible to use, Orders with RTFY or SCAN Order Attributes may avail
itself of the proposed change. The Exchange believes that the proposed
rule change promotes competition by removing a restriction on the use
of two Order Attributes, thereby making the process of entering Orders
with RTFY and SCAN Order Attributes more efficient and less burdensome
on members. Members may not have functionality that allows them to send
large numbers of RTFY and SCAN Orders to the Exchange for execution at
a designated time. As discussed above, such members must either enter
RTFY and SCAN Orders for immediate execution or send them to the
Exchange for execution at 8 a.m. ET, relying on the Exchange to queue
and activate these Orders at this single time. The Exchange is
proposing to allow such queuing and activation done by the Exchange to
occur at any time, since the Exchange can better handle the large
number of queued Orders received by certain members. Consequently, the
proposed change eliminates the burden that affects these members, but
will also allow any other member that currently queues RTFY and SCAN
Orders for activation at a precise time to use the Exchange for this
functionality instead. Should the Exchange find a similar burden placed
on members using other Orders, it may extend the proposed activation
functionality to other such Orders through rulemaking. The Exchange
notes that providing members greater efficiency and control over their
trading may make Nasdaq a more attractive venue, which may, in turn,
cause other markets to consider similar changes that would remove
unnecessary restrictions to the benefit of their members. For these
reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed change will not impose
any burden on competition, but rather will reduce burdens, as described
above.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic 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-2017-088 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-2017-088. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of 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; 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-2017-088 and should
be submitted on or before October 10, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-19709 Filed 9-15-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P