 Meeting Summary
On Friday, October 13, 2017, U.S. EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Divisions of Pesticide Reevaluation (PRD) and Health Effects (HED), met--via teleconference--with representatives of the Pyrethrin Joint Venture (PJV) and researchers from the Pyrethrins Stewardship Program (PSP) to discuss the findings of the PSP final report.  The PSP report was developed by the PJV as a condition of the 2006 Pyrethrins Reregistration Eligibility Decision to explore incidents of pyrethrin-containing product exposures reported with a special emphasis on adverse reactions to individuals with allergies or asthma.

The lead authors and researchers of the PSP report provided OPP with an overview of the final report, using the topics and questions posed in Section D as a template for discussion.  OPP provided PJV/PSP with a history of OPP's interest in exposure incidents to pyrethrin-containing products in the U.S. population and potential adverse effects to exposed individuals with medical conditions or predisposition such as asthma, allergies, and smoking.  During the discussion OPP and PJV/PSP developed several action items for their respective organizations which are detailed below in Section C. OPP will review the PSP final report -- as well as previously submitted status reports -- along with the corresponding data as part of OPP's Registration Review of pyrethrins.

 Meeting Attendees
OPP's Pesticide Reevaluation Division: Mark Baldwin, Jill Bloom, Linda Arrington
OPP's Health Effects Division:  David Miller, Aaron Niman, James Nguyen, Shanna Recore
Pyrethrin Joint Venture: Hannah Alleman, Jonathan Berger, Steve Ditto, Janelle Kay, Steve Klaysmat, Jean Killoren, Jim Olson, and Ellen Thom.
Pyrethrin Stewardship Program Consultants: Tom Osimitz (Science Strategies), Rick Kingston (SafetyCall), and Angie Carlson (Data IQ)

 Action Items
 (Completed) OPP would provide a list of missing data fields in the final PSP report and supplemental data to the PJV/PSP.  The missing data fields were provided to the PJV representative Hannah Alleman for distribution.
 (Completed) OPP would provide the PJV/PSP with relevant research articles to the National Institutes of Health, Agricultural Research Studies focused on -- among other things--health effects to farmers from pesticide exposure, which includes pyrethrins. This was provided to Hannah Alleman of the PJV for distribution.
 The PSP authors/researchers offer to make OPP aware of the publication of a pending peer review journal article based on the "Association Score" methodology used in the PSP final report.

 EPA's Suggested Topics and Questions for PSP/PJV
 A discussion of the rationales behind PSP's conclusions (i.e., no label changes warranted, relative low number of incidents to pyrethrins, most outcomes are minor and self-limiting, and pyrethrins containing products do not pose a significant risk of serious dermal or respiratory reactions to individuals with asthmas or allergies).
 A discussion on the comparative differences of the Phase III population against U.S. general population for a study like this (i.e., relatively high number of individuals classified as smokers and asthmatic).
 A more detail discussion of SafetyCall's association score.
 A discussion of the study's findings on foggers and aerosol products.


APPENDIX F

MOBILE6.2 Sample Input Files

Summer Weekday M6Input File Settings

Baltimore Region, 2009

MOBILE6 INPUT FILE

REPORT FILE        :  m6output.out       REPLACE

DATABASE OUTPUT    :

WITH FIELDNAMES    :

EMISSIONS TABLE    :  M6OUTPUT.TB1  REPLACE

POLLUTANTS         :  HC NOX

AGGREGATED OUTPUT  :

RUN DATA           : 0002

EXPRESS HC AS VOC  :

EXPAND EVAPORATIVE :

EXPAND EXHAUST     :

NO REFUELING       :

94+ LDG IMP        : NLEVNE.D

REBUILD EFFECTS    : 0.9

REG DISTRIBUTION   : Reg2005R.bal (2005 Age Data)

FUEL PROGRAM       : 4

 150.0  149.0  129.0  120.0  120.0   90.0   30.0   30.0

  30.0   30.0   30.0   30.0   30.0   30.0   30.0   30.0

1000.0 1000.0 1000.0 1000.0  303.0  303.0   87.0   87.0

  80.0   80.0   80.0   80.0   80.0   80.0   80.0   80.0

DIESEL FRACTIONS   :

0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0007 0.0007 0.0013

0.0017 0.0014 0.0014 0.0018 0.0014 0.0003 0.0017 0.0018 0.0035 0.0018

0.0014 0.0011 0.0174 0.0091 0.0496

0.0085 0.0085 0.0085 0.0085 0.0085 0.0080 0.0077 0.0048 0.0067 0.0106

0.0157 0.0055 0.0187 0.0181 0.0166 0.0124 0.0176 0.0192 0.0224 0.0238

0.0314 0.0262 0.0338 0.0689 0.0832

0.0085 0.0085 0.0085 0.0085 0.0085 0.0080 0.0077 0.0048 0.0067 0.0106

0.0157 0.0055 0.0187 0.0181 0.0166 0.0124 0.0176 0.0192 0.0224 0.0238

0.0314 0.0262 0.0338 0.0689 0.0832

0.0126 0.0126 0.0126 0.0126 0.0126 0.0126 0.0126 0.0126 0.0126 0.0126

0.0126 0.0126 0.0126 0.0126 0.0115 0.0111 0.0145 0.0115 0.0129 0.0096

0.0083 0.0072 0.0082 0.0124 0.0135

0.0126 0.0126 0.0126 0.0126 0.0126 0.0126 0.0126 0.0126 0.0126 0.0126

0.0126 0.0126 0.0126 0.0126 0.0115 0.0111 0.0145 0.0115 0.0129 0.0096

0.0083 0.0072 0.0082 0.0124 0.0135

0.1998 0.1998 0.1998 0.1998 0.1998 0.1998 0.1998 0.1998 0.1998 0.1998

0.1998 0.1998 0.1998 0.1998 0.2578 0.2515 0.3263 0.2784 0.2963 0.2384

0.2058 0.1756 0.1958 0.2726 0.2743

0.6774 0.6774 0.6774 0.6774 0.6774 0.6774 0.6774 0.6774 0.6774 0.6774

0.6774 0.6774 0.6774 0.6774 0.7715 0.7910 0.8105 0.8068 0.8280 0.8477

0.7940 0.7488 0.7789 0.7842 0.6145

0.8606 0.8606 0.8606 0.8606 0.8606 0.8606 0.8606 0.8606 0.8606 0.8606

0.8606 0.8606 0.8606 0.8606 0.8473 0.8048 0.8331 0.7901 0.7316 0.7275

0.7158 0.5647 0.3178 0.2207 0.1968

0.4647 0.4647 0.4647 0.4647 0.4647 0.4647 0.4647 0.4647 0.4647 0.4647

0.4647 0.4647 0.4647 0.4647 0.4384 0.3670 0.4125 0.3462 0.2771 0.2730

0.2616 0.1543 0.0615 0.0383 0.0333

0.6300 0.6300 0.6300 0.6300 0.6300 0.6300 0.6300 0.6300 0.6300 0.6300

0.6300 0.6300 0.6300 0.6300 0.6078 0.5246 0.5767 0.5289 0.5788 0.5617

0.4537 0.4216 0.4734 0.4705 0.4525

0.8563 0.8563 0.8563 0.8563 0.8563 0.8563 0.8563 0.8563 0.8563 0.8563

0.8563 0.8563 0.8563 0.8563 0.8443 0.7943 0.8266 0.7972 0.8279 0.8177

0.7440 0.7184 0.7588 0.7567 0.7431

0.9992 0.9992 0.9992 0.9992 0.9992 0.9992 0.9992 0.9992 0.9992 0.9992

0.9992 0.9992 0.9992 0.9992 0.9989 0.9987 0.9989 0.9977 0.9984 0.9982

0.9979 0.9969 0.9978 0.9980 0.9979

1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

0.9585 0.9585 0.9585 0.9585 0.9585 0.9585 0.9585 0.9585 0.9585 0.9585

0.9585 0.9585 0.9585 0.9585 0.8857 0.8525 0.8795 0.9900 0.9105 0.8760

0.7710 0.7502 0.7345 0.6733 0.5155

OXYGENATED FUELS   : 0.000 1.000 0.000 0.037 1

ANTI-TAMP PROGRAM  : 89 77 83 22222 22222111 1 12  96. 12211112

I/M DESC FILE      : MD_IM09.D (2009 I/M Program)

SCENARIO RECORD    :[01 0002]  1

CALENDAR YEAR      :2009

EVALUATION MONTH   : 7

SEASON             : 1

FUEL RVP           : 6.8

HOURLY TEMPERATURES:

74.61 77.35 79.61 81.20 82.68 83.79 84.33 84.91 85.04 84.88 83.93 82.40

80.11 77.98 76.67 75.58 74.51 73.78 72.87 71.93 71.36 71.22 70.81 71.81

RELATIVE HUMIDITY  :

81.00 74.48 68.58 63.65 61.00 58.42 58.00 56.58 56.84 56.74 58.77 62.81

68.13 73.26 76.16 77.94 80.77 81.90 84.61 85.90 87.06 87.90 88.35 87.10

BAROMETRIC PRES    : 29.83

VMT FRACTIONS      :

0.359277 0.085074 0.283265 0.087296 0.040100 0.043904 0.004313 0.003606 0.002710 0.009801 0.011631 0.012645 0.044919 0.005637 0.002818 0.003004

(Speed, hourly, and facility distributions prepared by PPSUITE post processor for each Run/Scenario)

VMT BY FACILITY    :V000201F.def

VMT BY HOUR        :V000201H.def

SPEED VMT          :V000201S.def

(Scenarios Repeated for each Area, Functional Class Combination)

Baltimore Region 2005 Vehicle Age Distributions Input to MOBILE6.2

 1 0.0664 0.0750 0.0796 0.0833 0.0797 0.0830 0.0705 0.0632 0.0603 0.0510

   0.0524 0.0415 0.0341 0.0278 0.0224 0.0196 0.0153 0.0117 0.0095 0.0069

   0.0048 0.0035 0.0020 0.0012 0.0353

 2 0.0847 0.1206 0.1078 0.1055 0.0866 0.0908 0.0756 0.0642 0.0557 0.0450

   0.0401 0.0306 0.0215 0.0149 0.0114 0.0098 0.0094 0.0076 0.0056 0.0036

   0.0027 0.0019 0.0010 0.0006 0.0029

 3 0.0847 0.1206 0.1078 0.1055 0.0866 0.0908 0.0756 0.0642 0.0557 0.0450

   0.0401 0.0306 0.0215 0.0149 0.0114 0.0098 0.0094 0.0076 0.0056 0.0036

   0.0027 0.0019 0.0010 0.0006 0.0029

 4 0.0496 0.0852 0.0859 0.0795 0.0758 0.0743 0.0624 0.0545 0.0572 0.0455

   0.0487 0.0474 0.0304 0.0251 0.0226 0.0243 0.0260 0.0242 0.0200 0.0187

   0.0106 0.0083 0.0049 0.0034 0.0155

 5 0.0496 0.0852 0.0859 0.0795 0.0758 0.0743 0.0624 0.0545 0.0572 0.0455

   0.0487 0.0474 0.0304 0.0251 0.0226 0.0243 0.0260 0.0242 0.0200 0.0187

   0.0106 0.0083 0.0049 0.0034 0.0155

 6 0.0879 0.0989 0.0746 0.0657 0.0712 0.0869 0.0789 0.0441 0.0585 0.0375

   0.0530 0.0290 0.0209 0.0167 0.0171 0.0224 0.0243 0.0223 0.0190 0.0157

   0.0118 0.0079 0.0052 0.0045 0.0260

 7 0.0879 0.0989 0.0746 0.0657 0.0712 0.0869 0.0789 0.0441 0.0585 0.0375

   0.0530 0.0290 0.0209 0.0167 0.0171 0.0224 0.0243 0.0223 0.0190 0.0157

   0.0118 0.0079 0.0052 0.0045 0.0260

 8 0.0879 0.0989 0.0746 0.0657 0.0712 0.0869 0.0789 0.0441 0.0585 0.0375

   0.0530 0.0290 0.0209 0.0167 0.0171 0.0224 0.0243 0.0223 0.0190 0.0157

   0.0118 0.0079 0.0052 0.0045 0.0260

 9 0.0879 0.0989 0.0746 0.0657 0.0712 0.0869 0.0789 0.0441 0.0585 0.0375

   0.0530 0.0290 0.0209 0.0167 0.0171 0.0224 0.0243 0.0223 0.0190 0.0157

   0.0118 0.0079 0.0052 0.0045 0.0260

10 0.0879 0.0989 0.0746 0.0657 0.0712 0.0869 0.0789 0.0441 0.0585 0.0375

   0.0530 0.0290 0.0209 0.0167 0.0171 0.0224 0.0243 0.0223 0.0190 0.0157

   0.0118 0.0079 0.0052 0.0045 0.0260

11 0.0879 0.0989 0.0746 0.0657 0.0712 0.0869 0.0789 0.0441 0.0585 0.0375

   0.0530 0.0290 0.0209 0.0167 0.0171 0.0224 0.0243 0.0223 0.0190 0.0157

   0.0118 0.0079 0.0052 0.0045 0.0260

12 0.0879 0.0989 0.0746 0.0657 0.0712 0.0869 0.0789 0.0441 0.0585 0.0375

   0.0530 0.0290 0.0209 0.0167 0.0171 0.0224 0.0243 0.0223 0.0190 0.0157

   0.0118 0.0079 0.0052 0.0045 0.0260

13 0.0879 0.0989 0.0746 0.0657 0.0712 0.0869 0.0789 0.0441 0.0585 0.0375

   0.0530 0.0290 0.0209 0.0167 0.0171 0.0224 0.0243 0.0223 0.0190 0.0157

   0.0118 0.0079 0.0052 0.0045 0.0260

14 0.0879 0.0989 0.0746 0.0657 0.0712 0.0869 0.0789 0.0441 0.0585 0.0375

   0.0530 0.0290 0.0209 0.0167 0.0171 0.0224 0.0243 0.0223 0.0190 0.0157

   0.0118 0.0079 0.0052 0.0045 0.0260

15 0.0685 0.0755 0.0593 0.0420 0.0563 0.0850 0.0915 0.0471 0.0643 0.0468

   0.0692 0.0344 0.0284 0.0236 0.0241 0.0276 0.0313 0.0269 0.0256 0.0201

   0.0152 0.0084 0.0064 0.0060 0.0165

16 0.0810 0.1004 0.1217 0.0886 0.0778 0.0635 0.0503 0.0348 0.0301 0.0311

   0.0246 0.2962 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

  0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Baltimore Region 2009 Inspection Maintenance Program Input to MOBILE6.2

*Idle older LDGV, LDGT

I/M PROGRAM        : 1 1984 2050 2 T/O Idle

I/M MODEL YEARS    : 1 1977 1983

I/M VEHICLES       : 1 22222 11111111 1

I/M STRINGENCY     : 1 20.0

I/M COMPLIANCE     : 1 96.0

I/M WAIVER RATES   : 1 13.8 13.8

I/M GRACE PERIOD   : 1 2

*Idle HDGT

I/M PROGRAM        : 2 1984 2050 2 T/O Idle

I/M MODEL YEARS    : 2 1977 2050

I/M VEHICLES       : 2 11111 22222111 1

I/M STRINGENCY     : 2 20.0

I/M COMPLIANCE     : 2 96.0

I/M WAIVER RATES   : 2 13.8 13.8

I/M GRACE PERIOD   : 2 2

*IM240

I/M PROGRAM        : 3 1984 2050 2 T/O IM240

I/M MODEL YEARS    : 3 1984 1995

I/M VEHICLES       : 3 22222 11111111 1

I/M STRINGENCY     : 3 20.0

I/M COMPLIANCE     : 3 96.0

I/M WAIVER RATES   : 3 13.8 13.8

I/M CUTPOINTS      : 3 Mod75V2.C09

I/M GRACE PERIOD   : 3 2

*OBD

I/M PROGRAM        : 4 1984 2050 2 T/O OBD I/M

I/M MODEL YEARS    : 4 1996 2050

I/M VEHICLES       : 4 22222 11111111 1

I/M STRINGENCY     : 4 20.0

I/M COMPLIANCE     : 4 96.0

I/M WAIVER RATES   : 4  5.4  5.4

I/M GRACE PERIOD   : 4 2

*OBD Evap (Actual Start Year: July 2002)

I/M PROGRAM        : 5 2002 2050 2 T/O EVAP OBD

I/M MODEL YEARS    : 5 1996 2050

I/M VEHICLES       : 5 22222 11111111 1

I/M COMPLIANCE     : 5 96.0

I/M WAIVER RATES   : 5  5.4  5.4

I/M GRACE PERIOD   : 5 2

 PAGE

			  PAGE  1

			  PAGE  4


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 52 (Thursday, March 17, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14699-14702]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6171]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64071; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2010-074]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 3 to a Proposed Rule Change and Order
Granting Accelerated Approval to the Proposed Rule Change, as Modified
by Amendment Nos. 1 and 3, To Adopt Rule 4753(c) as a Six-Month Pilot
in 100 NASDAQ-Listed Securities

March 11, 2011.

I. Introduction

    On June 18, 2010, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4

thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to implement, on a six-month
pilot basis, a volatility-based trading pause in 100 Nasdaq-listed
securities (``Volatility Guard''). On June 25, 2010, Nasdaq filed
Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. The proposed rule change,
as modified by Amendment No. 1, was published for comment in the
Federal Register on July 15, 2010.\3\ The Commission received four
comment letters on the proposal.\4\ Nasdaq responded to these comments
on August 12, 2010.\5\ The Commission subsequently extended the time
period in which to either approve the proposed rule change, or to
institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the proposed
rule change, to October 13, 2010.\6\ On October 13, 2010, the
Commission instituted proceedings to determine whether to disapprove
the proposed rule change.\7\ The Commission thereafter received a fifth
comment letter on the proposed rule change.\8\ On January 10, 2011, the
Commission extended the time period within which to either approve or
disapprove the proposed rule change to March 11, 2011.\9\ On March 10,
2011, the Exchange filed Amendment Nos. 2 and 3 to the proposed rule
change.\10\ The Commission is publishing this notice and order to
solicit comments on Amendment No. 3 and to approve the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 3, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62468 (July 7,
2010), 75 FR 41258.
    \4\ See Letter from Joe Ratterman, Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer, BATS Global Markets, Inc., to Hon. Mary Schapiro, Chairman,
Commission, dated July 1, 2010 (``BATS Letter''); Letter from Jose
Marques, Managing Director, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., to
Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated July 21, 2010
(``Deutsche Bank Letter''); Letter from Janet M. Kissane, Senior
Vice President, Legal and Corporate Secretary, NYSE Euronext, to
Elizabeth Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated August 3, 2010
(``NYSE Letter''); Letter from Ann L. Vlcek, Managing Director and
Associate General Counsel, Securities Industry and Financial Markets
Association, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated
June 25, 2010 (``SIFMA Letter'').
    \5\ See Letter from T. Sean Bennett, Assistant General Counsel,
Nasdaq, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission (``Nasdaq
response'').
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62740 (August 18,
2010), 75 FR 52049 (August 24, 2010).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63098 (October 13,
2010), 75 FR 64384 (October 19, 2010).
    \8\ See Letter from Timothy Quast, Managing Director, Modern IR
LLC, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated November
11, 2010 (``Modern IR Letter'').
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63685, 76 FR 2732
(January 14, 2011).
    \10\ See Amendment No. 3 dated March 10, 2011 (``Amendment No.
3''). Amendment No. 3 replaces and supersedes Amendment No. 2.
Amendment No. 3 extended the proposed start date of the pilot
program from August 1, 2010 to a pilot period ending six months
after the date of Commission approval of SR-NASDAQ-2010-074. The
Exchange proposed to implement the rule change on a date to be
announced to the public through a widely disseminated alert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    Nasdaq proposed to adopt, on a pilot basis, a volatility-based
trading halt for 100 Nasdaq-listed securities. Under this proposal,
Nasdaq would suspend trading in a security if a trade in that security
is executed at a price that exceeds a certain threshold, as measured
over the preceding 30 seconds. The triggering threshold varies
according to the price of the security, i.e., 15% for securities with
an execution price of $1.75 and under; 10% for securities over $1.75
and up to $25; 5% for securities over $25 and up to $50; and 3% for
securities over $50. If the Volatility Guard were triggered, Nasdaq
would suspend trading in that security for a period of 60 seconds, but
would maintain all current quotes and orders during that time, and
would continue to accept quotes and orders. Following this 60-second
period, Nasdaq would re-open the market using its Halt Cross
mechanism.\11\ According to Nasdaq, the proposed Volatility Guard is
similar in purpose to the Liquidity Replenishment Points (``LRPs'')
rules that currently exist on the New York Stock Exchange
(``NYSE'').\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Nasdaq Halt Cross is ``the process for determining the
price at which Eligible Interest shall be executed at the open of
trading for a halted security and for executing that Eligible
Interest.'' See Nasdaq Rule 4753(a)(3).
    \12\ See NYSE Rule 1000(a)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Comment Letters

    The Commission received four comment letters opposing the proposed
rule change \13\ and one comment letter in favor of the proposed rule
change.\14\ Nasdaq responded to the comments regarding its
proposal.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See BATS Letter; Deutsche Bank Letter; SIFMA Letter; Modern
IR Letter.
    \14\ See NYSE Letter.
    \15\ See Nasdaq response, supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Three of the four commenters opposing the proposal expressed
concerns about its effect upon market volatility. These commenters
stated that the Volatility Guard could actually increase volatility
marketwide by re-directing trading in a security to other potentially
less liquid venues once trading in that security had been halted on
Nasdaq.\16\ One commenter specifically argued that this proposal,
coupled with the LRPs currently in effect on the NYSE, would result in
disparate market approaches towards dampening volatility that may
create confusion among market participants, particularly in times of
market stress, and exacerbate market volatility.\17\ Another commenter
argued that the Volatility Guard would inappropriately impede the
market's price-setting mechanism, to the detriment of issuers and
investors.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See BATS Letter at 2; Deutsche Bank Letter at 4; SIFMA
Letter at 3.
    \17\ See Deutsche Bank Letter at 4.
    \18\ See Modern IR Letter at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter, however, supported Nasdaq's ``right to design the
controls it believes are best for trading on its market.'' \19\ This
commenter stated that the national market system was designed to
encourage competitive distinctions such as Nasdaq's Volatility Guard
and NYSE's LRPs.\20\ According to this commenter, both the Nasdaq
proposal and the NYSE LRPs ``provide certainty and predictability of
operation,'' and permit those markets to pursue strategies where the
quality of price need not always defer to speed of execution.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See NYSE Letter at 2. In its comment letter, NYSE also
addressed what it perceived as Nasdaq's inaccurate description of
the LRPs. NYSE provided additional detail about the LRPs, the role
of the LRPs during the events of May 6, 2010, and the interaction
between LRPs and the single-stock circuit breaker pilot program.
    \20\ Id.
    \21\ Id. at 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its response, Nasdaq rejected the argument that the proposed
Volatility Guard would exacerbate market volatility.\22\ Nasdaq stated
that it specifically designed the proposed Volatility Guard to work
within the parameters of the single-stock circuit breaker pilot program
currently in effect across all markets, and to avoid the potential for
conflicting standards between the two mechanisms.\23\ Nasdaq also
asserted that there is no evidence that the proposed Volatility Guard
would increase volatility in a particular security; rather, Nasdaq
stated that the Volatility Guard would actually keep aberrant
volatility on Nasdaq from spreading to other markets.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Nasdaq response, supra note 5, at 2.
    \23\ Id.
    \24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq also argued that the proposed Volatility Guard differed
significantly from the NYSE LRPs, and that criticizing the Volatility
Guard by comparing it to the LRPs was misleading. Nasdaq stated that
the Volatility Guard, unlike the LRPs, would be based on clear and
predictable criteria that would trigger a pause only in the event of a
significant imbalance.\25\ Accordingly, Nasdaq did not believe it
appropriate to make a generic assertion that all market-based single-
stock

trading pauses are detrimental to the overall market.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Id. at 3.
    \26\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, Nasdaq stated that it was proposing to employ prudent
precautions in implementing the Volatility Guard. In particular, Nasdaq
would implement the Volatility Guard as a pilot, limited in time and
scope, during which time the Volatility Guard could be adjusted as
needed. Nasdaq would also provide data to the Commission during the
pilot period about the efficiency and effect of the Volatility
Guard.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After carefully considering the proposal and the comments
submitted, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 3, is consistent with the requirements
of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder.\28\ Specifically,
the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\29\ which requires that the rules of an
exchange be designed, among other things, to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general,
to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ In approving this amendment, the Commission has considered
the proposed amendment's impact of efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq's proposal is presented by the Exchange as an effort to
protect Nasdaq-listed securities and Nasdaq market participants from
aberrant volatility, such as that witnessed on May 6, 2010. According
to Nasdaq, the Volatility Guard is similar in purpose to the LRP rules
that currently exist on the NYSE. A few commenters argued that
individual exchange-specific mechanisms to moderate volatility may in
fact exacerbate the volatility of the market overall, create confusion,
and complicate the operation of the market-wide single stock circuit
breakers.\30\ However, the commenters opposing the proposal did not
provide data or other evidence to support their contention. In
addition, the Commission notes that the presence of another exchange-
specific volatility moderator, the NYSE LRPs, was not found by the
Report of the Staffs of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and
the Commission (the ``May 6 Staff Report'') \31\ to have caused or
created the broad-based liquidity crisis on that day.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See notes 16-17 supra and accompanying text.
    \31\ See Report of the Staffs of the CFTC and SEC to the Joint
Advisory Committee on Emerging Regulatory Issues, ``Findings
Regarding the Market Events of May 6, 2010'', dated September 30,
2010.
    \32\ Id. at 70. The May 6 Staff Report did note, however, that
the increasing number of LRPs being triggered on NYSE underscored
the severity of market conditions as they were unfolding, and that
this additional ``evidence'' played into market participants'
decisions to reduce liquidity, pause trading, or withdraw from the
markets. Id. at 70-71.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the events of May 6, 2010, the Commission has been working
with the exchanges and FINRA on a consistent mechanism, applicable
throughout the U.S. markets, to moderate excessive volatility in
individual securities. On June 10, 2010, the Commission approved, on a
pilot basis, circuit breaker rules that pause trading for five minutes
in a security in the S&P 500 Index if its price moves ten percent or
more over a five-minute period.\33\ On September 10, 2010, the circuit
breaker pilot was expanded to include securities in the Russell 1000
Index and certain exchange-traded products.\34\ The Commission
continues to work with the exchanges and FINRA to assess the operation
of the circuit breaker pilot and its possible expansion, as well as the
prospect of supplementing the circuit breakers with ``limit up/limit
down'' style trading parameters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 62251, 75 FR 34183
(June 16, 2010); 62252, 75 FR 34186 (June 16, 2010).
    \34\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 62883, 75 FR 56608
(September 16, 2010); 62884, 75 FR 56618 (September 16, 2010). The
circuit breaker pilot currently is scheduled to end on April 11,
2011. See e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 63497 (December
9, 2010), 75 FR 56618 (December 15, 2010); 63503 (December 9, 2010),
75 FR 78316 (December 15, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the fact that the circuit breaker mechanism in effect
today applies only to certain securities, and that its operation
currently is being evaluated under the pilot, and in recognition of the
current existence of NYSE's LRPs, the Commission believes there is
continued room for experimentation with certain exchange-specific
volatility moderators. Accordingly, the Commission today finds that
Nasdaq's proposal to implement the Volatility Guard for a six-month
pilot program in 100 Nasdaq-listed securities is consistent with the
Act.
    The Commission emphasizes, however, that it is continuing to work
diligently with the exchanges and FINRA to develop an appropriate
consistent cross-market mechanism to moderate excessive volatility that
could be applied widely to individual exchange-listed securities and to
address commenters' concerns regarding the complexity and potential
confusion of exchange-specific volatility moderators. To the extent the
Commission approves such a mechanism, whether it be an expanded circuit
breaker with a limit up/limit down feature or otherwise, the Commission
may no longer be able to find that exchange-specific volatility
moderators--including both Nasdaq's Volatility Guard and the NYSE's
LRPs--are consistent with the Act.

V. Accelerated Approval

    The Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of
the Act,\35\ for approving the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment Nos. 1 and 3 thereto, prior to the 30th day after the date of
publication of Amendment No. 3 in the Federal Register. In Amendment
No. 3, the Exchange proposed to change the start date of the pilot
period from August 1, 2010 to a pilot period ending six months after
the date of Commission approval of SR-NASDAQ-2010-074, because as
originally proposed, the pilot period would have expired on February 1,
2011, which is prior to the Commission's approval date. By granting
accelerated approval, the pilot program may be implemented without
delay. Accordingly, the Commission finds that good cause exists to
approve the proposal, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 3, on an
accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether Amendment No. 3
to 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 Number SR-NASDAQ-2010-074 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-NASDAQ-2010-074. 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 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, on official
business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the
filing will also 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 No. SR-NASDAQ-2010-074 and should be submitted on or before April
7, 2011.

VII. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\36\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NASDAQ-2010-074), as
modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 3, be, and hereby is, approved on an
accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \37\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\37\
Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-6171 Filed 3-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 240 (Friday, December 15, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59680-59682]
[FR Doc No: 2017-26990]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82267; File No. SR-BOX-2017-16]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice
of Filing of Amendment No. 2 to a Proposed Rule Change Amending
Consolidated Audit Trail Funding Fees

December 11, 2017.
    On May 15, 2017, BOX Options Exchange LLC (``Exchange'' or ``SRO'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to
adopt a fee schedule to establish the fees for Industry Members related
to the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit
Trail (``CAT NMS Plan''). The proposed rule change was published in the
Federal Register for comment on May 24, 2017.\3\ The Commission
received seven comment letters on the proposed rule change,\4\ and a
response to comments from the Participants.\5\ On June 30, 2017, the
Commission temporarily suspended and initiated proceedings to determine
whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.\6\ The
Commission thereafter received seven comment letters,\7\ and a response
to comments from the Participants.\8\ On November 7, 2017, the Exchange
filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\9\ On November 9,
2017, the Commission extended the time period within which to approve
the proposed rule change or disapprove the proposed rule change to
January 14, 2018.\10\ On December 7, 2017, the Exchange filed Amendment
No. 2 to 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 from interested persons
on Amendment No. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80721 (May 18,
2017), 82 FR 23864 (May 24, 2017) (``Original Proposal'').
    \4\ Since the CAT NMS Plan Participants' proposed rule changes
to adopt fees to be charged to Industry Members to fund the
consolidated audit trail are substantively identical, the Commission
is considering all comments received on the proposed rule changes
regardless of the comment file to which they were submitted. See
text accompanying note 11 infra, for a list of the CAT NMS Plan
Participants. See Letter from Theodore R. Lazo, Managing Director
and Associate General Counsel, Securities Industry and Financial
Markets Association, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission
(dated June 6, 2017), available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-batsbzx-2017-38/batsbzx201738-1788188-153228.pdf; Letter from
Patricia L. Cerny and Steven O'Malley, Compliance Consultants, to
Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission (dated June 12, 2017),
available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-cboe-2017-040/cboe2017040-1799253-153675.pdf; Letter from Daniel Zinn, General
Counsel, OTC Markets Group Inc., to Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant
Secretary, Commission (dated June 13, 2017), available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-finra-2017-011/finra2017011-1801717-153703.pdf; Letter from Joanna Mallers, Secretary, FIA Principal
Traders Group, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission (dated June
22, 2017), available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-cboe-2017-040/cboe2017040-1819670-154195.pdf; Letter from Stuart J. Kaswell,
Executive Vice President and Managing Director, General Counsel,
Managed Funds Association, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission
(dated June 23, 2017), available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-finra-2017-011/finra2017011-1822454-154283.pdf; and Letter from
Suzanne H. Shatto, Investor, to Commission (dated June 27, 2017),
available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-batsedgx-2017-22/batsedgx201722-154443.pdf. The Commission also received a comment
letter which is not pertinent to these proposed rule changes. See
Letter from Christina Crouch, Smart Ltd., to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Commission (dated June 5, 2017), available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-batsbzx-2017-38/batsbzx201738-1785545-153152.htm.
    \5\ See Letter from CAT NMS Plan Participants to Brent J.
Fields, Secretary, Commission (dated June 29, 2017), available at:
https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-batsbyx-2017-11/batsbyx201711-1832632-154584.pdf.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81067 (June 30,
2017), 82 FR 31656 (July 7, 2017).
    \7\ See Letter from W. Hardy Callcott, Partner, Sidley Austin
LLP, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission (dated July 27,
2017), available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-batsbyx-2017-11/batsbyx201711-2148338-157737.pdf; Letter from Kevin Coleman,
General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer, Belvedere Trading LLC,
to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission (dated July 28, 2017),
available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-batsbyx-2017-11/batsbyx201711-2148360-157740.pdf; Letter from Joanna Mallers,
Secretary, FIA Principal Traders Group, to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Commission (dated July 28, 2017), available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-batsbyx-2017-11/batsbyx201711-2151228-157745.pdf; Letter from Theodore R. Lazo, Managing Director and
Associate General Counsel, SIFMA, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary,
Commission (dated July 28, 2017), available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-batsbyx-2017-11/batsbyx201711-2150977-157744.pdf; Letter
from Stuart J. Kaswell, Executive Vice President and Managing
Director, General Counsel, Managed Funds Association, to Brent J.
Fields, Secretary, Commission (dated July 28, 2017), available at:
https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-batsbyx-2017-11/batsbyx201711-2150818-157743.pdf; Letter from John Kinahan, Chief Executive
Officer, Group One Trading, L.P., to Brent J. Fields, Secretary,
Commission (dated August 10, 2017), available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-finra-2017-011/finra2017011-2214568-160619.pdf; Letter from Joseph Molluso, Executive Vice President and
CFO, Virtu Financial, to Brent J. Fields, Commission (dated August
18, 2017), available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-finra-2017-011/finra2017011-2238648-160830.pdf.
    \8\ See Letter from Michael Simon, Chair, CAT NMS Plan Operating
Committee, to Brent J. Fields, Commission, Secretary (dated November
2, 2017), available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-batsbyx-2017-11/batsbyx201711-2674608-161412.pdf.
    \9\ Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change replaced and
superseded the Original Proposal in its entirety. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 82266 (December 11, 2017).
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82049 (November 9,
2017), 82 FR 53549 (November 16, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change to amend the Fee Schedule to
amend the fees for Industry Members related to the CAT NMS Plan. The
text of the proposed rule change is available from the principal office
of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on
the Exchange's internet website at http://boxexchange.com.

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
    BOX Options Exchange LLC, Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc., Cboe BZX

Exchange, Inc., Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc., Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.,
Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc., Cboe Exchange, Inc., Chicago Stock Exchange,
Inc., Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA''),
Investors' Exchange LLC, Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC,
MIAX PEARL, LLC, NASDAQ BX, Inc., Nasdaq GEMX, LLC, Nasdaq ISE, LLC,
Nasdaq MRX, LLC, NASDAQ PHLX LLC, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, New York
Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE American LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc. and NYSE
National, Inc.\11\ (collectively, the ``Participants'') filed with the
Commission, pursuant to Section 11A of the Exchange Act \12\ and Rule
608 of Regulation NMS thereunder,\13\ the CAT NMS Plan.\14\ The
Participants filed the Plan to comply with Rule 613 of Regulation NMS
under the Exchange Act. The Plan was published for comment in the
Federal Register on May 17, 2016,\15\ and approved by the Commission,
as modified, on November 15, 2016.\16\ The Plan is designed to create,
implement and maintain a consolidated audit trail (``CAT'') that would
capture customer and order event information for orders in NMS
Securities and OTC Equity Securities, across all markets, from the time
of order inception through routing, cancellation, modification, or
execution in a single consolidated data source. The Plan accomplishes
this by creating CAT NMS, LLC (the ``Company''), of which each
Participant is a member, to operate the CAT.\17\ Under the CAT NMS
Plan, the Operating Committee of the Company (``Operating Committee'')
has discretion to establish funding for the Company to operate the CAT,
including establishing fees that the Participants will pay, and
establishing fees for Industry Members that will be implemented by the
Participants (``CAT Fees'').\18\ The Participants are required to file
with the SEC under Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act any such CAT Fees
applicable to Industry Members that the Operating Committee
approves.\19\ Accordingly, SRO submitted the Original Proposal to
propose the Consolidated Audit Trail Funding Fees, which would require
Industry Members that are SRO members to pay the CAT Fees determined by
the Operating Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Note that Bats BYX Exchange, Inc., Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.,
Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc., Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc., LLC, C2 Options
Exchange, Incorporated, and Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated, have been renamed Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc., Cboe BZX
Exchange, Inc., Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc., Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.,
Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc., Cboe Exchange, Inc., respectively.
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \13\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \14\ See Letter from the Participants to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Commission, dated September 30, 2014; and Letter from
Participants to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated
February 27, 2015. On December 24, 2015, the Participants submitted
an amendment to the CAT NMS Plan. See Letter from Participants to
Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated December 23, 2015.
    \15\ Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 77724 (Apr. 27, 2016), 81
FR 30614 (May 17, 2016).
    \16\ Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 79318 (Nov. 15, 2016), 81
FR 84696 (Nov. 23, 2016) (``Approval Order'').
    \17\ The Plan also serves as the limited liability company
agreement for the Company.
    \18\ Section 11.1(b) of the CAT NMS Plan.
    \19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission published the Original Proposal for public comment
in the Federal Register on May 24, 2017,\20\ and received comments in
response to the Original Proposal or similar fee filings by other
Participants.\21\ On June 30, 2017, the Commission suspended, and
instituted proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove,
the Original Proposal.\22\ The Commission received seven comment
letters in response to those proceedings.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 80721 (May 18, 2017),
82 FR 23864 (May 24, 2017).
    \21\ For a summary of comments, see generally Securities
Exchange Act Rel. No. 81067 (June 30, 2017), 82 FR 31656 (July 7,
2017) (``Suspension Order'').
    \22\ Suspension Order.
    \23\ See Letter from Stuart J. Kaswell, Executive Vice
President, Managing Director and General Counsel, Managed Funds
Association, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, SEC (July 28, 2017);
Letter from Theodore R. Lazo, Managing Director and Associate
General Counsel, SIFMA, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, SEC (July 28,
2017); Joanna Mallers, Secretary, FIA Principal Traders Group, to
Brent J. Fields, Secretary, SEC (July 28, 2017); Letter from Kevin
Coleman, General Counsel & Chief Compliance Officer, Belvedere
Trading LLC, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, SEC (July 28, 2017);
Letter from W. Hardy Callcott, Sidley Austin LLP, to Brent J.
Fields, Secretary, SEC (July 27, 2017); Letter from John Kinahan,
Chief Executive Officer, Group One Trading, L.P., to Brent J.
Fields, Secretary, SEC (Aug. 10, 2017); and Letter from Joseph
Molluso, Executive Vice President, Virtu Financial, to Brent J.
Fields, Secretary, SEC (Aug. 18, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the comments on the Original Proposal, the Operating
Committee determined to make the following changes to the funding
model: (1) Adds two additional CAT Fee tiers for Equity Execution
Venues; (2) discounts the market share of Execution Venue ATSs
exclusively trading OTC Equity Securities as well as the market share
of the FINRA over-the-counter reporting facility (``ORF'') by the
average shares per trade ratio between NMS Stocks and OTC Equity
Securities (calculated as 0.17% based on available data from the second
quarter of 2017) when calculating the market share of Execution Venue
ATS exclusively trading OTC Equity Securities and FINRA; (3) discounts
the Options Market Maker quotes by the trade to quote ratio for options
(calculated as 0.01% based on available data for June 2016 through June
2017) when calculating message traffic for Options Market Makers; (4)
discounts equity market maker quotes by the trade to quote ratio for
equities (calculated as 5.43% based on available data for June 2016
through June 2017) when calculating message traffic for equity market
makers; (5) decreases the number of tiers for Industry Members (other
than the Execution Venue ATSs) from nine to seven; (6) changes the
allocation of CAT costs between Equity Execution Venues and Options
Execution Venues from 75%/25% to 67%/33%; (7) adjusts tier percentages
and recovery allocations for Equity Execution Venues, Options Execution
Venues and Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs); (8)
focuses the comparability of CAT Fees on the individual entity level,
rather than primarily on the comparability of affiliated entities; (9)
commences invoicing of CAT Reporters as promptly as possible following
the latest of the operative date of the Consolidated Audit Trail
Funding Fees for each of the Participants and the operative date of the
CAT NMS Plan amendment adopting CAT Fees for Participants; and (10)
requires the proposed fees to automatically expire two years from the
operative date of the CAT NMS Plan amendment adopting CAT Fees for
Participants. On November 7, 2017, SRO filed the First Amendment and
proposed to amend the Original Proposal to reflect these changes.
    SRO submits this Second Amendment to the revise the proposal as set
forth in the First Amendment to discount the OTC Equity Securities
market share of all Execution Venue ATSs trading OTC Equity Securities,
rather than applying the discount solely to those Execution Venue ATSs
that exclusively trade OTC Equity Securities, when calculating the
market share of Execution Venue ATS trading OTC Equity Securities. As
discussed in the First Amendment:

    The Operating Committee determined to discount the market share
of Execution Venue ATSs exclusively trading OTC Equity Securities as
well as the market share of the FINRA ORF in recognition of the
different trading characteristics of the OTC Equity Securities
market as compared to the market in NMS Stocks. Many OTC Equity
Securities are priced at less than one dollar--and a significant
number at less than one penny--per share and low-priced shares tend
to trade in larger quantities. Accordingly, a disproportionately
large number of shares are involved in transactions involving OTC
Equity Securities versus NMS Stocks. Because the proposed fee tiers
are based on market share calculated by share volume,

Execution Venue ATSs exclusively trading OTC Equity Securities and
FINRA would likely be subject to higher tiers than their operations
may warrant.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See SR-BOX-2017-16, Amendment 1, Section 3(a), at page 29.

    The Operating Committee believes that this argument applies equally
to both Execution Venue ATSs exclusively trading OTC Equity Securities
and to Execution Venue ATSs that trade OTC Equity Securities as well as
other securities. Accordingly, SRO proposes to amend paragraph (b)(2)
of the Consolidated Audit Trail Funding Fees to apply the discount to
all Execution Venue ATSs trading OTC Equity Securities. Specifically,
SRO proposes to change the parenthetical regarding the OTC Equity
Securities discount in paragraph (b)(2) of the proposed fee schedule
from ``with a discount for Equity ATSs exclusively trading OTC Equity
Securities based on the average shares per trade ratio between NMS
Stocks and OTC Equity Securities'' to ``with a discount for OTC Equity
Securities market share of Equity ATSs trading OTC Equity Securities
based on the average shares per trade ratio between NMS Stocks and OTC
Equity Securities.'' Additionally, the Exchange proposes to delete
footnote 43 in Section 3(a) on page 29 of the First Amendment as the
footnote is erroneous and was included inadvertently.
2. Statutory Basis
    SRO believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, \25\ which require, among
other things, that the SRO rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest, and not designed to permit unfair discrimination
between customers, issuers, brokers and dealer, and Section 6(b)(4) of
the Act, \26\ which requires that SRO rules provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among members
and issuers and other persons using its facilities. SRO believes that
the proposed change is consistent with the Act, and that the proposed
fees are reasonable, equitably allocated and not unfairly
discriminatory. In particular, SRO believes that the proposed change
would treat all Equity ATSs trading OTC Equity Securities in a
comparable manner when calculating applicable fees. In addition, the
fee structure takes into consideration distinctions in securities
trading operations of CAT Reporters, including all ATSs trading OTC
Equity Securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Section 6(b)(8) of the Act \27\ require that SRO rules not impose
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate. SRO
does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As previously described, SRO
believes that the proposed rule change fairly and equitably allocates
costs among CAT Reporters. In particular, the proposed fee schedule is
structured to impose comparable fees on similarly situated CAT
Reporters. SRO believes that the proposed change would treat all Equity
ATSs trading OTC Equity Securities in a comparable manner when
calculating applicable fees. In addition, the fee structure takes into
consideration distinctions in securities trading operations of CAT
Reporters, including all ATSs trading OTC Equity Securities. Moreover,
the Operating Committee believes that the proposed changes address
certain competitive concerns raised by commenters related to ATSs
trading OTC Equity Securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal, as
amended by Amendment No. 1 and Amendment No. 2, 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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-BOX-2017-16 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-BOX-2017-16. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2017-16, and should be submitted on
or before January 5, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-26990 Filed 12-14-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 249 (Wednesday, December 28, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 95664-95666]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31311]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79652; File No. SR-IEX-2016-21]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Investors Exchange LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Require
That an Issuer of Securities Listed Under Chapter 16 Notify IEX About
Certain Changes to the Index, Portfolio, or Reference Asset Underlying
the Security

December 21, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on December 15, 2016, the Investors Exchange LLC (``IEX''
or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I
and II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\4\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\5\
Investors Exchange LLC (``IEX'' or ``Exchange'') is filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'' or ``SEC'') proposed
rule changes to require that, among other things, an issuer of an ETP
listed under Chapter 16 notify IEX about certain changes to the index,
portfolio, or reference asset underlying the security. The Exchange has
designated this proposal as non-controversial and provided the
Commission with the notice required by Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) under the
Act.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.iextrading.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 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 statement [sic] 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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    IEX listing rules require issuers to notify IEX about substitution
listing events. Specifically, Rule 14.002(a)(32) defines a
``Substitution Listing Event'' \7\ as certain changes in the equity or
legal structure of a company and Rule 14.207(e)(4) requires a listed
company to provide notification to IEX about these events no later than
15 days before implementation of the event. These events generally
would require IEX to review the entity for compliance with the
applicable listing requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ A ``Substitution Listing Event'' means: A reverse stock
split, re-incorporation or a change in the Company's place of
organization, the formation of a holding company that replaces a
listed Company, reclassification or exchange of a Company's listed
shares for another security, the listing of a new class of
securities in substitution for a previously-listed class of
securities or any technical change whereby the Shareholders of the
original Company receive a share-for-share interest in the new
Company without any change in their equity position or rights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IEX proposes to expand the definition of a Substitution Listing
Event to include cases where an issuer of securities listed under
Chapter 16 replaces, or significantly modifies, the index, portfolio,
or reference asset underlying its security (including, but not limited
to, a significant modification to the index methodology, a change in
the index provider, or a change in control of the index provider). This
type of change would require IEX to review the changes to the index,
portfolio, or

reference asset for compliance with the applicable listing requirements
and may require IEX to make a rule filing with the Commission to
continue listing the product with the revised index, portfolio, or
reference asset.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Other types of changes may also require IEX to make a rule
filing with the Commission to continue listing the changed product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IEX believes it is appropriate to require notification of these
changes in the same manner as other Substitution Listing Events,\9\
which will increase to 15 days the time available to IEX to conduct its
initial review of the revised index, portfolio, or reference asset
underlying the security, evaluate compliance with the listing
requirements, and determine if a rule filing is required.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Listed companies would be required to provide notification
of a Substitution Listing Event by filing the appropriate form as
designated by the Exchange. See Rule 14.207(e)(4).
    \10\ Currently, at a minimum, IEX believes that an issuer must
disclose such changes under Rule 14.207(b)(1), which requires public
disclosure of any material information that would reasonably be
expected to affect the value of its securities or influence
investors' decisions, and must notify the Exchange's Regulation
Department at least 10 minutes prior to such announcement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IEX also proposes to modify Rule 16.101 to highlight that certain
changes to the index, portfolio, or reference asset underlying a
security is a Substitution Listing Event that requires 15 calendar
days' notice. The new language also emphasizes that such a change may
affect the company's compliance with the listing requirements and may
require IEX to file a new rule filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of
the Act \11\ and for such rule filing to be approved by the SEC or
otherwise take effect (as applicable), before the product can be listed
or traded. The new rule language also indicates that IEX will halt
trading if a company effectuates a change that requires such a filing
before it is approved by the SEC or otherwise takes effect (as
applicable). The new rule language would also indicate that IEX will
commence delisting proceedings if a company effectuates a change in the
case where IEX determines not to submit a rule filing or withdraws a
rule filing, or where the SEC disapproves a rule filing.\12\ The
proposed rule changes are substantially identical to recent changes to
Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'') rules.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \12\ The proposed rule change would also add language to Rule
16.101 to encourage companies to consult with IEX staff sufficiently
in advance of such changes to allow review and preparation of a rule
filing and SEC approval, if necessary, and to clarify that IEX has
sole discretion as to whether it chooses to submit a rule filing
and, if submitted, whether to withdraw such rule filing.
    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77706 (April 26,
2016), 81 FR 26275 (May 2, 2016) (SR-NASDAQ-2016-059).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange does not currently list any ETPs. The proposed rule
changes would be applicable in the event IEX lists ETPs.
2. Statutory Basis
    IEX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) \14\ of the Act in general, and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\15\ in particular, in that it is designed
to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    IEX believes that the proposed requirement that an issuer of
securities that would be listed under Chapter 16 notify IEX 15 calendar
days in advance of certain changes to the index, portfolio, or
reference asset underlying the security is consistent with the investor
protection objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act. Specifically, the
proposed change will help to ensure that IEX has sufficient time to
review the revised index, portfolio, or reference asset and determine
whether the product complies with IEX's listing requirements and
whether a rule filing must be filed by IEX pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
of the Act and approved by the Commission or otherwise take effect (as
applicable), which will help protect investors. Similarly, the
provisions that provide that IEX will (i) halt trading if a company
effectuates a change that requires such a filing before it is approved
by the SEC or otherwise takes effect (as applicable); and (ii) commence
delisting proceedings if a company effectuates a change in the case
where IEX determines not to submit a rule filing or withdraws a rule
filing, or where the SEC disapproves a rule filing are consistent with
the public interest and the protection of investors because they is
[sic] designed to enable the Exchange to ensure that the necessary rule
filings regarding IEX listed ETPs are approved or otherwise take effect
(as applicable).

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

    IEX does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
    The proposed rule change is not based on competitive factors, but
rather is designed to ensure that IEX staff would have adequate time to
review a change to an index, portfolio, or reference asset for
compliance with the listing requirements and to file and obtain
approval or effectiveness of a rule change, if necessary. As such, the
Exchange believes that the proposed change will have no impact on
competition.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

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

    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and

arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-IEX-2016-21 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-IEX-2016-21. 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-IEX-2016-21 and should be
submitted on or before January 18, 2017.

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

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-31311 Filed 12-27-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 233 (Thursday, December 4, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71992-71993]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28466]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2658-001.
    Applicants: NV Energy, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: OATT Order No. 792
Compliance Filing-Revisions to Attachment O to be effective 8/4/2014.
    Filed Date: 11/26/14.
    Accession Number: 20141126-5244.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/17/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-52-002.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): 2014-11-26 GVTC Clean
up Amendment Filing to be effective 12/6/2014.
    Filed Date: 11/26/14.
    Accession Number: 20141126-5200.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/17/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-118-001.
    Applicants: Morris Cogeneration, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Amendment Refile to be
effective 10/17/2014.
    Filed Date: 11/26/14.
    Accession Number: 20141126-5153.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/17/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-502-000.
    Applicants: Bayou Cove Peaking Power, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):
Reactive Service Rate Filing to be effective 2/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 11/26/14.
    Accession Number: 20141126-5213.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/17/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-503-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2014-
11-26_Rattlesnake SA 847-Wind Belt SA 852 Termination to be effective
11/27/2014.
    Filed Date: 11/26/14.
    Accession Number: 20141126-5214.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/17/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-504-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):
Original Service Agreement No. 4035; Queue No. U2-028A_AT1 to be
effective 10/27/2014.
    Filed Date: 11/26/14.
    Accession Number: 20141126-5215.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/17/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-505-000.
    Applicants: Portland General Electric Company.
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: NAESB Standards Compliance
Filing to be effective 2/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 11/26/14.
    Accession Number: 20141126-5216.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/17/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-506-000.
    Applicants: DeSoto County Generating Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Revised
Reactive Rate Schedule to be effective 12/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 11/26/14.
    Accession Number: 20141126-5218.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/17/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-507-000.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: OATT Order No. 676-H
Compliance Filing and Request for Partial Waiver (Montana) to be
effective 2/2/2015.
    Filed Date: 11/26/14.
    Accession Number: 20141126-5243.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/17/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-508-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 1887R3
Westar Energy, Inc. NITSA and NOA to be effective 8/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 11/26/14.
    Accession Number: 20141126-5246.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/17/14.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For

other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call (202)
502-8659.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-28466 Filed 12-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P