[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 158 (Wednesday, August 15, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40583-40587]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17493]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83812; File No. SR-MIAX-2018-21]

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

August 9, 2018.
    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice
is hereby given that on July 31, 2018, Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC (``MIAX Options'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule
change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have
been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Options Fee
Schedule (the ``Fee Schedule'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings, at MIAX's principal
office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Market Maker Sliding Scale
(defined below) contained in its Fee Schedule, and assessed to MIAX
Options Market Makers,\3\ to (i) modify certain volume thresholds, and
(ii) increase certain Maker (as defined below) fees in certain Tiers
for options transactions in Penny classes (as defined below) executed
in the simple order book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Market Makers'' refers to Lead Market Makers
(``LMMs''), Primary Lead Market Makers (``PLMMs''), and Registered
Market makers (``RMMs'') collectively. See Exchange Rule 100. A
Directed Order Lead Market Maker (``DLMM'') and Directed Primary
Lead Market Maker (``DPLMM'') is a party to a transaction being
allocated to the LMM or PLMM and is the result of an order that has
been directed to the LMM or PLMM. See Fee Schedule, note 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 1)a)i) of the Fee Schedule sets forth the Exchange's Market
Maker Sliding Scale for Market Maker Transaction Fees (the ``Sliding
Scale''). The Sliding Scale assesses a per contract transaction fee on
a Market Maker for the execution of simple orders and quotes
(collectively, ``simple orders'') and complex orders and quotes
(collectively, ``complex orders''). The percentage threshold by tier is
based on the Market Maker's percentage of total national market maker
volume in all options classes that trade on the Exchange during a
particular calendar month, or total aggregated volume (``TAV''), and
the Exchange aggregates the volume executed by Market Makers in both
simple orders and complex orders for purposes of determining the
applicable tier and corresponding per contract transaction fee
amount.\4\ The Sliding Scale applies to all MIAX Options Market Makers
for transactions in all products (except for mini-options, for which
there are separate product fees), with fees established for standard
option classes in the Penny Pilot Program \5\ (``Penny classes'') and
separate fees for standard option classes which are not in the Penny
Pilot

Program (``non-Penny classes''), and further based on whether the
Market Maker is acting as a ``Maker'' or a ``Taker'' in simple
orders.\6\ Market Makers that place resting liquidity, i.e., quotes or
orders on the MIAX Options System,\7\ are assessed the ``maker'' fee
(each a ``Maker''). Market Makers that execute against (remove) resting
liquidity are assessed a higher ``taker'' fee (each a ``Taker''). This
is distinguished from traditional ``maker-taker'' models where
``makers'' typically receive a rebate and ``takers'' are assessed a
fee; the Exchange instead assesses lower transaction fees to ``makers''
as compared to ``takers,'' similar to the manner implemented at other
exchanges.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The calculation of the volume thresholds does not include
QCC and cQCC Orders, PRIME and cPRIME AOC Responses, and unrelated
MIAX Market Maker quotes or unrelated MIAX Market Maker orders that
are received during the Response Time Interval and executed against
the PRIME Order (``PRIME Participating Quotes or Orders'') and
unrelated MIAX Market Maker complex quotes or unrelated MIAX Market
Maker complex orders that are received during the Response Time
Interval and executed against a cPRIME Order (``cPRIME Participating
Quote or Order'') (herein ``Excluded Contracts''). See Fee Schedule,
page 2.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83515 (June 25,
2018), 83 FR 30786 (June 29, 2018) (SR-MIAX-2018-12).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78519 (August 9,
2016), 81 FR 54162 (August 15, 2016) (SR-MIAX-2016-21).
    \7\ The term ``System'' means the automated trading system used
by the Exchange for the trading of securities. See Exchange Rule
100.
    \8\ The Exchange notes that similar maker-taker pricing is
implemented at Nasdaq ISE, LLC (``ISE''). See Nasdaq ISE Fee
Schedule, Section I Regular Order Fees and Rebates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange provides certain discounted Market Maker
transaction fees for Members \9\ and their qualified Affiliates \10\
that achieve certain volume thresholds through the submission of
Priority Customer \11\ orders under the Exchange's Priority Customer
Rebate Program (``PCRP''),\12\ which is set forth on two tables: one
setting forth the transaction fees applicable to Members and their
Affiliates that are in PCRP Volume Tier 3 or higher; and the other
setting forth the transaction fees applicable to Members and their
Affiliates that are not in PCRP Volume Tier 3 or higher. The Sliding
Scale also includes Maker and Taker fees in both tables in each Tier
for simple orders in Penny classes and non-Penny classes where the fees
are discounted/differentiated between the tables.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The term ``Member'' means an individual or organization
approved to exercise the trading rights associated with a Trading
Permit. Members are deemed ``members'' under the Exchange Act. See
Exchange Rule 100.
    \10\ For purposes of the MIAX Options Fee Schedule, the term
``Affiliate'' means (i) an affiliate of a Member of at least 75%
common ownership between the firms as reflected on each firm's Form
BD, Schedule A, (``Affiliate''), or (ii) the Appointed Market Maker
of an Appointed EEM (or, conversely, the Appointed EEM of an
Appointed Market Maker). An ``Appointed Market Maker'' is a MIAX
Market Maker (who does not otherwise have a corporate affiliation
based upon common ownership with an EEM) that has been appointed by
an EEM and an ``Appointed EEM'' is an EEM (who does not otherwise
have a corporate affiliation based upon common ownership with a MIAX
Market Maker) that has been appointed by a MIAX Market Maker,
pursuant to the following process. A MIAX Market Maker appoints an
EEM and an EEM appoints a MIAX Market Maker, for the purposes of the
Fee Schedule, by each completing and sending an executed Volume
Aggregation Request Form by email to [email protected] no
later than 2 business days prior to the first business day of the
month in which the designation is to become effective. Transmittal
of a validly completed and executed form to the Exchange along with
the Exchange's acknowledgement of the effective designation to each
of the Market Maker and EEM will be viewed as acceptance of the
appointment. The Exchange will only recognize one designation per
Member. A Member may make a designation not more than once every 12
months (from the date of its most recent designation), which
designation shall remain in effect unless or until the Exchange
receives written notice submitted 2 business days prior to the first
business day of the month from either Member indicating that the
appointment has been terminated. Designations will become operative
on the first business day of the effective month and may not be
terminated prior to the end of the month. Execution data and reports
will be provided to both parties. See Fee Schedule, note 1.
    \11\ The term ``Priority Customer'' means a person or entity
that (i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) does not
place more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average
during a calendar month for its own beneficial account(s). A
``Priority Customer Order'' means an order for the account of a
Priority Customer. See Exchange Rule 100.
    \12\ Under the PCRP, MIAX Options credits each Member the per
contract amount resulting from each Priority Customer order
transmitted by that Member which is executed electronically on the
Exchange in all multiply-listed option classes (excluding, in simple
or complex as applicable, QCC and cQCC Orders, mini-options,
Priority Customer-to-Priority Customer Orders, C2C and cC2C Orders,
PRIME and cPRIME AOC Responses, PRIME and cPRIME Contra-side Orders,
PRIME and cPRIME Orders for which both the Agency and Contra-side
Order are Priority Customers, and executions related to contracts
that are routed to one or more exchanges in connection with the
Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Market Plan referenced
in Exchange Rule 1400), provided the Member meets certain percentage
thresholds in a month as described in the Priority Customer Rebate
Program table. See Fee Schedule, Section 1)a)iii.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current Sliding Scale tables are as follows:

                                Members and Their Affiliates in Priority Customer Rebate Program Volume Tier 3 or Higher
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Simple                                         Complex
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Per contract fee for    Per contract fee for                                Per contract
                                                                penny classes         non-penny classes                                surcharge for
                                                          ------------------------------------------------     Per         Per       removing liquidity
                                 Tier       Percentage                                                      contract    contract     against a resting
                                            thresholds                                                       fee for     fee for     priority customer
                                                                                penny     non-penny   complex order on the
                                                              Maker       Taker       Maker       Taker      classes     classes     strategy book for
                                                                                penny and non-penny
                                                                                classes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All MIAX Market Makers.......        1   0.00-0.075......      $0.21       $0.23       $0.25       $0.30       $0.25       $0.29                  $0.10
                                     2   Above 0.075-0.60       0.15        0.22        0.19        0.27        0.19        0.23                   0.10
                                     3   Above 0.60-1.00.       0.08        0.19        0.12        0.23        0.12        0.16                   0.10
                                     4   Above 1.00-1.50.       0.04        0.18        0.08        0.22        0.07        0.11                   0.10
                                     5   Above 1.50......       0.02        0.17        0.06        0.21        0.05        0.09                   0.10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Members and Their Affiliates not in Priority Customer Rebate Program Volume Tier 3 or Higher
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Simple                                         Complex
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Per contract fee for    Per contract fee for                                Per contract
                                                                penny classes         non-penny classes                                surcharge for
                                                          ------------------------------------------------     Per         Per       removing liquidity
                                 Tier       Percentage                                                      contract    contract     against a resting
                                            thresholds                                                       fee for     fee for     priority customer
                                                                                penny     non-penny   complex order on the
                                                              Maker       Taker       Maker       Taker      classes     classes     strategy book for
                                                                                penny and non-penny
                                                                                classes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All MIAX Market Makers.......        1   0.00-0.075......      $0.23       $0.25       $0.27       $0.32       $0.25       $0.29                  $0.10
                                     2   Above 0.075-0.60       0.17        0.24        0.21        0.29        0.19        0.23                   0.10
                                     3   Above 0.60-1.00.       0.10        0.21        0.14        0.25        0.12        0.16                   0.10
                                     4   Above 1.00-1.50.       0.06        0.20        0.10        0.24        0.07        0.11                   0.10

                                     5   Above 1.50......       0.04        0.19        0.08        0.23        0.05        0.09                   0.10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the Exchange proposes to modify the monthly volume
thresholds in the Market Maker Sliding Scale in both the table setting
forth the transaction fees applicable to Members and their Affiliates
that are in PCRP Volume Tier 3 or higher; and in the second table
setting forth the transaction fees applicable to Members and their
Affiliates that are not in PCRP Volume Tier 3 or higher. Specifically,
the Exchange proposes to adjust the percentage threshold of Tier 2 from
above 0.075% up to 0.60% of the total monthly volume executed by the
Member on MIAX Options, not including Excluded Contracts, divided by
the TAV, to become above 0.075% up to 0.70% of the total monthly volume
executed by the Member on MIAX Options, not including Excluded
Contracts, divided by the TAV. The Exchange proposes to adjust the
percentage threshold of Tier 3 from above 0.60% up to 1.00% of the
total monthly volume executed by the Member on MIAX Options, not
including Excluded Contracts, divided by the TAV, to become above 0.70%
up to 1.10% of the total monthly volume executed by the Member on MIAX,
not including Excluded Contracts, divided by the TAV. The Exchange
proposes to adjust the percentage threshold of Tier 4 from above 1.00%
up to 1.50% of the total monthly volume executed by the Member on MIAX
Options, not including Excluded Contracts, divided by the TAV, to
become above 1.10% up to 1.50% of the total monthly volume executed by
the Member on MIAX Options, not including Excluded Contracts, divided
by the TAV. The Exchange does not propose any adjustment to the
percentage thresholds of Tier 1 or Tier 5.
    Second, the Exchange proposes to increase the Maker fees in the
Market Maker Sliding Scale, in Tiers 2, 3, 4 and 5 for Penny classes,
for Members and their Affiliates that are in PCRP Volume Tier 3 or
higher and also for Members and their Affiliates not in PCRP Volume
Tier 3 or higher. For options transactions in Penny classes by Members
and their Affiliates that are in PCRP Volume Tier 3 or higher, the
Exchange proposes to increase the Maker fee in Tier 2 from $0.15 to
$0.16, in Tier 3 from $0.08 to $0.10, in Tier 4 from $0.04 to $0.05 and
in Tier 5 from $0.02 to $0.03. For options transactions in Penny
classes by Members and their Affiliates that are not in PCRP Volume
Tier 3 or higher, the Exchange proposes to increase the Maker fee in
Tier 2 from $0.17 to $0.18, in Tier 3 from $0.10 to $0.12, in Tier 4
from $0.06 to $0.07 and in Tier 5 from $0.04 to $0.05.
    With all proposed changes Section 1)a)i of the Fee Schedule shall
be the following:

                                Members and Their Affiliates in Priority Customer Rebate Program Volume Tier 3 or Higher
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Simple                                         Complex
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Per contract fee for    Per contract fee for                                Per contract
                                            Percentage          penny classes         non-penny classes        Per         Per     surcharge for trading
                                 Tier       thresholds    ------------------------------------------------  contract    contract     against a priority
                                                                                fee for     fee for      customer complex
                                                             Maker *      Taker      Maker *      Taker       penny     non-penny   order for penny and
                                                                                classes     classes     non-penny classes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All MIAX Market Makers.......        1   0.00-0.075......      $0.21       $0.23       $0.25       $0.30       $0.25       $0.32                  $0.12
                                     2   Above 0.075-0.70       0.16        0.22        0.19        0.27        0.24        0.29                   0.12
                                     3   Above 0.70-1.10.       0.10        0.19        0.12        0.23        0.21        0.25                   0.12
                                     4   Above 1.10-1.50.       0.05        0.18        0.08        0.22        0.20        0.24                   0.12
                                     5   Above 1.50......       0.03        0.17        0.06        0.21        0.19        0.23                   0.12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Members and Their Affiliates Not in Priority Customer Rebate Program Volume Tier 3 or Higher
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Simple                                         Complex
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Per contract fee for    Per contract fee for                                Per contract
                                            Percentage          penny classes         non-penny classes        Per         Per     surcharge for trading
                                 Tier       thresholds    ------------------------------------------------  contract    contract     against a priority
                                                                                fee for     fee for      customer complex
                                                             Maker *      Taker      Maker *      Taker       penny     non-penny   order for penny and
                                                                                classes     classes     non-penny classes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All MIAX Market Makers.......        1   0.00-0.075......       0.23        0.25        0.27        0.32        0.25        0.32                   0.12
                                     2   Above 0.075-0.70       0.18        0.24        0.21        0.29        0.24        0.29                   0.12
                                     3   Above 0.70-1.10.       0.12        0.21        0.14        0.25        0.21        0.25                   0.12
                                     4   Above 1.10-1.50.       0.07        0.20        0.10        0.24        0.20        0.24                   0.12
                                     5   Above 1.50......       0.05        0.19        0.08        0.23        0.19        0.23                   0.12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change is scheduled to become operative August 1,
2018.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its fee schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \13\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\14\ in that it
is an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among Exchange members and issuers and other persons using its
facilities. The Exchange also believes the proposal furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\15\ 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 mechanisms of a
free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest and is not designed to permit
unfair discrimination between customer, issuers, brokers and dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f (b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to the Tier
percentage thresholds in the Market Maker Sliding Scale are consistent
with Section 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act in that they are fair,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they apply equally to
all MIAX Options Market Makers. All MIAX Options Market Makers are
subject to the same fee schedule, and access to the Exchange is offered
on terms that are not unfairly discriminatory.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to the Tier
percentage thresholds in the Market Maker Sliding Scale are consistent
with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act in that they promote equitable access
to the Exchange for all market participants. To the extent that MIAX
Options Marker Maker volume is increased by the proposal, market
participants will increasingly compete for the opportunity to trade on
the Exchange including sending more orders and quotes to the Exchange.
The resulting increased volume and liquidity will benefit all Exchange
participants by providing more trading opportunities and tighter
spreads.
    The specific percentage thresholds of the Tiers for Market Makers
as well as the fees are set based upon business determinations and an
analysis of current volume levels. The Exchange believes that the
proposed Maker fees are generally within the range of fees at other
exchanges that have a comparable pricing structure.\16\ The percentage
thresholds are intended to continue to incentivize MIAX Options Market
Makers to increase the number of orders and quotes they send to the
Exchange so that they can achieve the next threshold, and to encourage
all market participants to send more orders and quotes as well.
Increasing the number of orders and quotes sent to the Exchange will in
turn provide tighter and more liquid markets, and therefore attract
more business overall. Similarly, the different fees at the different
Tier levels are based on an analysis of current revenue and volume
levels and are intended to provide continued incentives to MIAX Options
Market Makers to increase the volume of orders and quotes sent to, and
contracts executed on, the Exchange. The specific volume thresholds of
the Tiers and rates are set in order to encourage MIAX Options Market
Makers to continue to reach for higher tiers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American'') Fee Schedule, p.
11. The NYSE American Market Maker Sliding Scale Tier 1 percentage
threshold is from 0.00% to 0.20%, with a per contract non-take
volume fee of $0.25 and a per contract take volume fee of $0.25, the
Tier 2 percentage threshold is from greater than 0.20% to 0.65%,
with a per contract non-take volume fee of $0.22 and a per contract
take volume fee of $0.24, the Tier 3 percentage threshold is from
greater than 0.65% to 1.40%, with a per contract non-take volume fee
of $0.12 and a per contract take volume fee of $0.17, the Tier 4
percentage threshold is from greater than 1.40% to 2.00%, with a per
contract non-take volume fee of $0.09 and a per contract take volume
fee of $0.14, and the Tier 5 percentage threshold is greater than
2.020%, with a per contract non-take volume fee of $0.06 and a per
contract take volume fee of $0.09. See also Cboe Exchange, Inc.
(``CBOE'') Fees Schedule, p. 3. The CBOE Liquidity Provider Sliding
Scale Tier 1 percentage threshold is from 0.00% to 0.05%, with a
transaction fee per contract of $0.23, the Tier 2 percentage
threshold is from above 0.05% to 0.80%, with a transaction fee per
contract of $0.17, the Tier 3 percentage threshold is from above
0.80% to 1.50%, with a transaction fee per contract of $0.10, the
Tier 4 percentage threshold is from above 1.50% to 2.25%, with a
transaction fee per contract of $0.05, and the Tier 5 percentage
threshold is above 2.25%, with a transaction fee per contract of
$0.03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed Maker fee increases in Penny Classes for simple orders
in the specified Tiers is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because all similarly situated MIAX Options Market
Makers are subject to the same tiered fees and access to the Exchange
is offered on terms that are not unfairly discriminatory. For
competitive and business reasons, the Exchange has kept its Maker fees
for simple orders in Penny Classes lower than certain other options
exchanges that operate comparable pricing models.\17\ The Exchange now
believes that it is appropriate to increase those Maker fees so that
they are more in line with other exchanges, and will still remain
highly competitive such that they should enable the Exchange to
continue to attract order flow and grow market share. While
distinguished from the traditional ``maker-taker'' fee model under
which an exchange pays a per-contract rebate to their members to
encourage them to place resting liquidity by providing quotes and
orders (``maker'') on their trading systems and assessing a fee that
executes against a resting order (``taker''), the Exchange assesses a
reduced fee for ``makers'' as compared to ``takers'' rather than giving
the ``maker'' a rebate. Further, Exchange's proposal to assess a higher
Maker fee is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because this would narrow the difference between the Maker and Taker
fees, which would in turn benefit the public and investors by
encouraging Market Makers to provide more order flow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed fee structure is
intended to promote narrower spreads and encourage the posting of
liquidity (instead of taking liquidity), and thus should promote better
prices. The Exchange believes that the proposed changes in the Tier
structure in the Market Maker Sliding Scale should continue to
encourage the provision of liquidity that enhances the quality of the
Exchange's markets and increases the number of trading opportunities on
MIAX Options for all participants who will be able to compete for such
opportunities. The proposed rule change should enable the Exchange to
continue to attract and compete for order flow with other exchanges.
However, this competition does not create an undue burden on
competition but rather offers all market participants the opportunity
to receive the benefit of competitive pricing.
    The proposed Maker fee increases are intended to keep the
Exchange's fees highly competitive with those of other exchanges, and
to encourage liquidity and should enable the Exchange to continue to
attract and compete for order flow with other exchanges which offer
comparable Maker fees.
    The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market
in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they
deem fee

levels at a particular venue to be excessive. In such an environment,
the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive
with other exchanges and to attract order flow. The Exchange believes
that the proposed rule changes reflect this competitive environment
because they modify the Exchange's fees in a manner that encourages
market participants to provide liquidity and to send order flow to the
Exchange rather than remove liquidity from the market place.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\18\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \19\ thereunder.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change,
the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such
action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether
the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-MIAX-2018-21 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-MIAX-2018-21. 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 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-MIAX-2018-21, and should be submitted on
or before September 5, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-17493 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 115 (Wednesday, June 17, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 28770]
[FR Doc No: E9-14251]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Guidance for the High-Speed Rail/Intercity Passenger Rail Grant
Program

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Announcement of availability of guidance.

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

SUMMARY: On June 17, 2009, FRA intends to issue guidance for the High-
Speed Rail (HSR)/Intercity Passenger Rail (IPR) Grant Program. FRA will
post this guidance on its Web site at: http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/2243. Subsequently, FRA will publish this guidance in the
Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information regarding the
guidance document and grant program, please contact the FRA HSR/IPR
Program Manager via e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail: Office of
Passenger and Freight Programs, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, MS-20, SE., Washington, DC, 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The guidance document and additional
information about the HSR/IPR Grant Program are available on FRA's
public Web site at: http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/2243. This
Program builds upon the President's ``Vision for High-Speed Rail in
America,'' which was issued on April 16, 2009, and which describes a
collaborative effort among the Federal Government, States, railroads
and other key stakeholders to help transform America's transportation
system by investing in an efficient, high-speed passenger rail network
of 100 to 600 mile intercity corridors. The guidance document details
HSR/IPR Grant Program funding opportunities as well as specific
application requirements and procedures. The funds are being made
available under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
(ARRA) and the Department of Transportation Appropriations Acts of
fiscal years 2008 and 2009. ARRA requires the Secretary of
Transportation to issue interim guidance to applicants within 120 days
of enactment. In addition to being available on the FRA's Web site, the
guidance will be published in the Federal Register at a later date.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 12, 2009.
Paul Nissenbaum,
Director, Office of Passenger and Freight Programs.
[FR Doc. E9-14251 Filed 6-16-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


 Page 1 of 5 FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL ( SAP) OPEN MEETING October 28 and 29, 2003 FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http:// www. epa. gov/ scipoly/ sap/ OPP Docket Telephone: ( 703) 305 5805 ENSURING DATA QUALITY FOR IN VITRO TESTS USED AS ALTERNATIVES TO ANIMAL STUDIES FOR REGULATORY PURPOSES: A CONSULTATION Tuesday, October 28, 2003 Holiday Inn Hotel 1900 North Fort Myer Drive Arlington, VA 22209 ( 703) 807 2000 Please note that all times are approximate.

8: 30 AM Meeting Opening  Stephen M. Roberts, Ph. D. ( Chair of the FIFRA SAP)

8: 35 AM Introduction of Panel Members  Steven Heeringa, Ph. D. ( FIFRA SAP Session Chair)

8: 40 AM Administrative Procedures by Designated Federal Official  Mrs. Myrta R. Christian

8: 45 AM Welcome  Mr. Joseph Merenda ( Director, Office of Science Coordination and Policy, EPA)

8: 50 AM Opening Remarks  Mr. Jim Jones ( Director, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA)

8: 55 AM Background on use of In Vitro Alternative Test Methods  Amy Rispin, Ph. D. ( Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA) Legal Considerations Pertaining to Use of Proprietary Test Methods ( PTMs) in Agency Guidelines  Donald Sadowsky, Esq. ( Office of General Counsel, EPA)

10: 30 AM Break

10: 45 AM Validation of new, revised, and alternative test methods: Updated ICCVAM submission guidelines and development of performance standards for Proprietary Test Methods ( PTMs) William Stokes, D. V. M. ( NIH, NIEHS)

11: 45 AM Lunch Page 2 of 5

1: 00 PM Good Laboratory Practices and Quality Control Requirements  Francisca Liem, Ph. D. ( Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, EPA)

1: 45 PM Application of ICCVAM and Agency Quality Control Approaches: Performance Standards for Validated In Vitro Corrosivity Methods  Deborah McCall ( Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA) Linking Assay Validation and Regulatory Application  John W. Harbell, Ph. D. ( Institute for In Vitro Sciences, Inc.)

3: 15 PM Break

3: 30 PM Public Comments

5: 00 PM Adjournment Wednesday October 29, 2003 Holiday Inn Hotel 1900 North Fort Myer Drive Arlington, VA 22209 ( 703) 807 2000 Please note that all times are approximate.

8: 30 AM Meeting Opening  Stephen M. Roberts, Ph. D. ( Chair of the FIFRA SAP)

8: 35 AM Introduction of Panel Members  Steven Heeringa, Ph. D. ( FIFRA SAP Session Chair)

8: 40 AM Administrative Procedures by Designated Federal Official  Mrs. Myrta R. Christian

8: 45 AM Questions to the Panel I. Performance Standards The Agency plans to adopt the Performance Standards developed by the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods ( ICCVAM) as a means of communicating the basis by which each of three validated in vitro test methods, Corrositex ® , EPISKIN   / EpiDerm   , and Transcutaneous Electrical Resistance ( TER), are deemed acceptable for providing dermal corrosivity data. Performance Standards consist of descriptions of ( 1) essential test method components which are the essential structural, functional, and procedural elements of a validated test method that should be included in the protocol of a proposed mechanistically and functionally similar test method; ( 2) a minimum list of Reference Chemicals which is used to assess the accuracy and reliability of the similar test method; and ( 3) comparable accuracy and reliability Page 3 of 5 values that should be achieved by the proposed test method when evaluated using the minimum set of Reference Chemicals.

Question 1. Please comment on the provisions in the Performance Standards for each of the three methods to demonstrate mechanistic similarity of " me too" methods. Do the essential test method components for each method adequately describe the unique characteristics of the method necessary to determine whether a test is mechanistically and functionally similar?

Report Coordinator/ Lead Discussant: Michael Luster, Ph. D. Associate Discussant: George DeGeorge, Ph. D.

Question 2. In its evaluation of any mechanistically similar test system, the Agency plans to use the generic criteria used by ICCVAM for selecting subsets of the Reference Chemicals for all three ICCVAM Performance Standards documents. The criteria specify that chemicals should be selected in such a way that the subset includes representatives of applicable chemical classes, measures a range of corrosive strengths, includes well defined chemicals that are currently available commercially, and has unequivocal animal or other in vivo evidence. Please comment on the strengths or weaknesses of this approach and identify and discuss any modifications to the criteria that should be considered.

Report Coordinator/ Lead Discussant: Gregory A. Reed, Ph. D. Associate Discussants: Joseph P. Bressler, Ph. D., Kenneth Portier, Ph. D.

Question 3. The ICCVAM approach for demonstrating functional similarity of " me too" test methods to validated methods includes the use of wellcharacterized Reference Chemicals and specifies the accuracy and reliability that should be achieved by " me too" test systems when tested in intra and inter laboratory studies. Please comment on whether " me too" test systems should be demonstrated to be effective for evaluating the testing endpoint for all of the chemicals in the Performance Standard. Please comment on the value of including chemicals with range of potencies in the Performance Standard. Under what circumstances might testing of " metoo systems within one laboratory ever be sufficient to demonstrate functional equivalence?

Report Coordinator/ Lead Discussant: George DeGeorge, Ph. D. Associate Discussants: James Freeman, Ph. D., Gregory A. Reed, Ph. D.

10: 00 AM Break Page 4 of 5

10: 15 AM Questions to the Panel ( continued)

II. Quality Control The Agency is proposing quality control measures that should be considered when evaluating the reliability of test kits for regulatory purposes. Please address the following specific issues.

Question 4. Subsets of the Reference Chemicals used in test method validation may be used as training or calibration sets by testing laboratories using in vitro systems. Please discuss the utility of and necessity for training or calibration sets in assuring data quality. Please comment on the chemicals selected by ICCVAM for use as a calibration set for TER for this purpose. Please comment on the ranges of chemical classes and potencies of these chemicals. How might other chemicals be selected for possible use in the calibration sets? Please comment on the value of identifying chemicals that might be used by laboratories as training sets to demonstrate proficiency in performing the test.

Report Coordinator/ Lead Discussant: James Freeman, Ph. D. Associate Discussants: James F. McCormack, Ph. D., Gregory A. Reed, Ph. D.

Question 5. Anticipating the use of systems using tissue constructs, ex vivo systems, microarrays or genetically modified cells, please discuss aspects of the quality control criteria that are necessary for assuring the integrity of such systems over time and from lot to lot. Please comment on whether and how the type of system  tissue constructs, ex vivo systems, or genetically modified cells or animals should affect the criteria for quality control for assuring the integrity of such systems, both over time and from lot to lot.

Report Coordinator/ Lead Discussant: Joseph P. Bressler, Ph. D. Associate Discussants: George DeGeorge, Ph. D., James F. McCormack, Ph. D.

Question 6. Please comment on the advantages and disadvantages of including concurrent positive and negative controls with in vitro assays when used as alternatives to animal testing. What are the important characteristics of positive and negative controls for in vitro studies? What aspects of positive control characteristics allow them to be used as part of the quality control process? When might confirmation that positive controls are performing within expected or historical limits be sufficient to demonstrate that the Proprietary Test Method or non proprietary assay system is functioning properly? When might additional quality control measures be needed? Page 5 of 5 Report Coordinator/ Lead Discussant: Kenneth Portier, Ph. D. Associate Discussants: George DeGeorge, Ph. D., Michael Luster, Ph. D.

Question 7. Does the Panel agree that the benchmark controls serve a useful purpose to demonstrate the level of response that can be expected for each chemical class for each lot of Proprietary Test Method assays? Can the Panel suggest criteria for choice of appropriate benchmark controls?

Report Coordinator/ Lead Discussant: James F. McCormack, Ph. D. Associate Discussant: James Freeman, Ph. D.

12: 00 PM Adjournment As noted above, please be advised that agenda times are approximate. For further information, please contact the Designated Federal Official for this meeting, Mrs. Myrta R. Christian, via telephone: ( 202) 564 8450; fax: ( 202) 564 8382; or email: christian. myrta@ epa. gov


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 104 (Monday, June 1, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31084-31087]
[FR Doc No: 2015-13082]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75039; File No. SR-MSRB-2015-02]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change Consisting of
Proposed Amendments to the MSRB Rule G-14 RTRS Procedures, and the
Real-Time Transaction Reporting System and Subscription Service

May 22, 2015.

I. Introduction

    On March 19, 2015, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (the
``MSRB'' or ``Board'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``SEC'' or ``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 consisting of proposed
amendments to the MSRB Rule G-14 RTRS procedures, and the Real-Time
Transaction Reporting System and subscription service (the ``proposed
rule change''). The proposed rule change was published for comment in
the Federal Register on March 27, 2015.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74564 (March 23, 2015),
80 FR 16466 (March 27, 2015) (the ``Proposing Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission received three comment letters on the proposed rule
change.\4\ On May 20, 2015, the MSRB submitted a response to these
comments.\5\ This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Letters from Leslie M. Norwood, Managing Director and
Associate General Counsel, Securities Industry and Financial Markets
Association (``SIFMA''), dated April 17, 2015 (``SIFMA Letter'');
Michael Nicholas, Chief Executive Officer, Bond Dealers of America
(``BDA''), dated April 17, 2015 (``BDA Letter''); and David T.
Bellaire, Esq., Executive Vice President & General Counsel,
Financial Services Institute (``FSI''), dated April 17, 2015 (``FSI
Letter'').
    \5\ See Letter from Justin R. Pica, Director of Product
Management--Market Transparency, MSRB, dated May 20, 2015 (``MSRB
Response Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    Rule G-14 on reports of sales or purchases requires brokers,
dealers and municipal securities dealers (collectively ``dealers'') to
report all executed transactions in municipal securities to the MSRB's
Real-Time Transaction Reporting System (``RTRS'') within 15 minutes of
the time of trade, with limited exceptions.\6\ The MSRB makes certain
transaction data reported to RTRS available to the general public
through the Electronic Municipal Market Access (``EMMA'') Web site at
no cost, and disseminates such data through paid subscription services
to market data vendors, institutional market participants and others
that subscribe to the data feed.\7\ The MSRB believes that RTRS serves
the dual objectives of price transparency and market surveillance.\8\
According to the MSRB, the proposed rule change would enhance the post-
trade price transparency information provided through RTRS.\9\ A full
description of the proposed rule change is contained in the Proposing
Release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See supra note 3.
    \7\ Id.
    \8\ Id.
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Expanding the Application of Existing List Offering Price and
Takedown Transaction Indicator

    The MSRB stated that the proposed rule change would expand the
application of the List Offering Price and Takedown Transaction
indicators to sale transactions by distribution participant dealers to
customers at the list offering price and sale transactions by a sole
underwriter or syndicate manager to distribution participant
dealers.\10\ The MSRB stated that since the introduction of the List
Offering Price indicator in 2005 and Takedown Transaction indicator in
2007, certain market practices in this area have evolved and the
proposed rule change would expand the application of the indicators to
require reporting of such market practices to RTRS.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id.
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Eliminating the Requirement for Dealers To Report Yield on Customer
Trade Reports

    The MSRB stated that the proposed rule change would eliminate the
requirement for dealers to include yield on customer trade reports.\12\
The MSRB represented that it would calculate and disseminate yield on
customer trade reports, consistent with the manner in which it
calculates and includes in disseminated RTRS information yield on
inter-dealer trades.\13\ The MSRB believes that this would remove one
aspect of a dealer's burden in reporting customer transactions to the
MSRB in compliance with MSRB Rule G-14 and ensure that the calculation
and dissemination of yields for both inter-dealer and customer
transactions are consistent.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id.
    \13\ Id.
    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Establishing a New Indicator for Customer Trades Involving Non-
Transaction-Based Compensation Arrangements

    The MSRB stated that the proposed rule change would require dealers
to include a new indicator on their trade reports that would be
disseminated publicly to distinguish customer transactions that do not
include a dealer compensation component and those that include a mark-
up, mark-down, or a commission.\15\ The MSRB believes the proposed rule
change would improve the usefulness of the transaction information
disseminated publicly.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id.
    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Establishing a New Indicator for ATS Transactions

    The MSRB stated that the proposed rule change would establish an
additional new indicator to better ascertain the extent to which
alternative trading systems (``ATSs'') are used in the municipal market
and to indicate to market participants on disseminated transaction
information that an ATS was used.\17\ The MSRB believes that
identifying in disseminated transaction information that an ATS was
employed should facilitate higher quality research and analysis of
market structure by providing information about the extent to which
ATSs are used and should complement the existing indicator disseminated
for transactions involving a broker's broker.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id.
    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Effective Date of the Proposed Rule Change/Testing Period

    The MSRB proposed that an effective date for the proposed rule
change would be announced by the MSRB in a notice published on the
MSRB's Web site.\19\ The MSRB stated that the date would be no later
than May 23, 2016, and announced no later than sixty (60) days prior to
the effective date.\20\ The MSRB believed that such effective date
would provide time for the MSRB to undertake the programming changes to
implement the proposed rule change, as well as provide an adequate
testing period for dealers and subscribers that interface with
RTRS.\21\ Also, the MSRB plans to provide a six month testing period in
advance of the effective date.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Id.
    \20\ Id.
    \21\ Id.
    \22\ Id.

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

III. Summary of Comments Received and the MSRB's Response

    As noted previously, the Commission received three comment letters
on the proposed rule change.\23\ FSI generally supports the proposed
rule change.\24\ BDA generally supports the proposed rule change but
suggested an extension of the testing period.\25\ SIFMA expresses
concerns and provides suggestions about certain aspects of the proposed
rule change.\26\ A full description of the comments and response by the
MSRB are contained in the comments letters and MSRB Response Letter,
respectively.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See supra notes 4 and 5.
    \24\ See FSI Letter.
    \25\ See BDA Letter.
    \26\ See SIFMA Letter.
    \27\ See supra notes 4 and 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Expanding the Application of Existing List Offering Price and
Takedown Transaction Indicator

    SIFMA generally supports this aspect of the proposed rule
change.\28\ However, SIFMA requests that if dealers are currently using
the List Offering Price and Takedown Transaction indicator for group
net or net designated orders, or for distribution agreement trades,
that they be permitted to continue to do so until the proposed rule
change is effective, without risk of an enforcement action.\29\ The
MSRB responded by stating that it does not believe it would be fair to
those dealers that have not programmed systems to use the existing List
Offering Price and Takedown Transaction indicator in the expanded
manner contemplated in the proposed rule change to advance the timing
of the effective date of this component of the proposed rule
change.\30\ Also, the MSRB does not believe such a request is relevant
to a determination of whether to approve the proposed rule change.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See SIFMA Letter.
    \29\ Id.
    \30\ See MSRB Response Letter.
    \31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Eliminating the Requirement for Dealers To Report Yield on Customer
Trade Reports

    SIFMA generally supports this aspect of the proposed rule
change.\32\ However, SIFMA notes that reporting yield on trade reports
alerts dealers to trades where the dealer calculated yield is outside
the acceptable tolerance from the MSRB calculated yield.\33\ SIFMA
notes that such alert mechanism would be eliminated if the proposed
rule change is approved.\34\ The MSRB responded by noting that while
such alert mechanism does provide benefit in identifying security
master and day count discrepancies, the MSRB does not believe that this
benefit outweighs the burden on dealers associated with researching and
reconciling all questionable errors.\35\ Also, the MSRB notes that
dealers would continue to be able to compare dealer calculated yields
with MSRB calculated yields by viewing MSRB calculated yields on the
EMMA Web site.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See SIFMA Letter.
    \33\ Id.
    \34\ Id.
    \35\ See MSRB Response Letter.
    \36\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, SIFMA continues to have concerns that the proposed
rule change may lead to investor confusion because not all transactions
are consummated based on yield to worst.\37\ SIFMA believes that there
are many reasons and scenarios why the dealer calculated yield and the
MSRB's calculations of yield might not match, such as trading based on
yield-to-average life for continuously callable securities, and
differences in day counts relating to questionable holidays or market
closes.\38\ The MSRB responded by stating that the MSRB yield
calculations under the proposed rule change would be done in a manner
consistent with the requirements of MSRB Rule G-15(a) on customer
confirmations.\39\ Accordingly, the MSRB believes irrespective of the
basis on which the transaction was executed, the yield calculation
performed by RTRS under the proposed rule change would match the
calculation as required to be performed by dealers when generating
customer confirmations.\40\ Also, the MSRB states that with regard to
the potential for differing MSRB and dealer call information resulting
in differing MSRB and dealer calculated yields, the MSRB plans to
display the call price and date to which yield was calculated, which
should provide sufficient transparency to the inputs used in MSRB yield
calculations to explain any calculation differences that arise.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See SIFMA Letter.
    \38\ Id.
    \39\ See MSRB Response Letter.
    \40\ Id.
    \41\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Establishing a New Indicator for Customer Trades Involving Non-
Transaction-Based Compensation Arrangements

    SIFMA acknowledges that the establishment of a new indicator to
indicate trades with non-transaction-based compensation would be
helpful for transparency purposes.\42\ However, SIFMA suggest that a
more cost efficient alternative would be for the MSRB to disseminate
information it already collects: Whether a trade is done as agent or as
principal, and whether the MSRB has added commission in to
``normalize'' agency trades.\43\ The MSRB responded by stating it
believes that to ensure that this new indicator applies to all
transactions involving non-transaction-based compensation, it is
critical that the indicator apply to principal trades that do not
include a mark-up or mark-down.\44\ The MSRB also believes that it is
important for dealers to affirmatively indicate on agency transactions
that no commission was charged using the new indicator.\45\ The MSRB
believes this would provide for an additional data quality measure as
well as enable dealers to program systems to include the indicator for
all transactions involving non-transaction-based compensation as
opposed to only a subset of such transactions.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See SIFMA Letter.
    \43\ Id.
    \44\ See MSRB Response Letter.
    \45\ Id.
    \46\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, SIFMA suggests modifying the proposed definition of
``non-transaction-based compensation arrangement transaction.'' \47\
Specifically, SIFMA requests that the definition be limited to
transactions involving non-transaction-based compensation ``in a
customer account that is subject to an arrangement that does not
provide for dealer compensation to be paid on a transaction-based
basis.'' \48\ The MSRB responded by stating that it is not proposing to
limit the application of the indicator in this manner because this
indicator is intended to distinguish in price transparency data all
customer transactions that do not include a dealer compensation
component from those that include a mark-up, mark-down or commission
and is not intended to distinguish such transactions based on the type
of compensation arrangement associated with a customer account.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See SIFMA Letter.
    \48\ Id.
    \49\ See MSRB Response Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Establishing a New Indicator for ATS Transactions

    SIFMA suggests an alternative where the MSRB is responsible for
flagging ATS trades when an ATS firm takes a principal position between
a buyer and a seller, similar to how it currently flags trades between
dealers and municipal securities broker's brokers.\50\ SIFMA believes
this would eliminate the unnecessary and burdensome requirements of the
proposed rule

change.\51\ The MSRB responded by stating that it believes a consistent
approach should be taken for all transactions executed using the
services of an ATS by requiring dealers to include the ATS indicator on
trade reports, regardless of whether the ATS takes a principal
position.\52\ Also, the MSRB believes that this approach would reduce
the potential for dealer confusion surrounding the requirement to
include the ATS indicator and would help ensure that a dealer currently
using the services of an ATS that takes a principal position is
prepared to include an ATS indicator on trade reports if that ATS
determines in the future to change its business practice and not take a
principal position between the buyer and seller.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ See SIFMA Letter.
    \51\ Id.
    \52\ See MSRB Response Letter.
    \53\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Economic Considerations

    SIFMA expresses concern about the costs and burdens associated with
the proposed rule change.\54\ SIFMA believes that evaluating the costs
and burdens of new regulation and weighing those costs against any
benefits derived from such new regulation, is critical to ensure
efficient regulation.\55\ SIFMA states that the proposed rule change
will drive up transaction costs and certain aspects of the proposed
rule change do not measure up to the costs and burdens that will be
imposed upon dealers.\56\ The MSRB responded by noting that in each of
the three solicitations for public comment the MSRB requested input on
the operational costs and burdens of each proposed change as well as
the benefits that could be achieved.\57\ According to the MSRB, the
responses from commenters, to the extent they addressed those issues,
well informed the MSRB's determination to seek those changes that would
balance the improvements to post-trade price transparency with the
regulatory burdens that would be imposed on dealers.\58\ Also, the
comments received through the public comment process enabled the MSRB
to refine a broad set of potential changes that could be made to the
limited set of changes in the proposed rule change.\59\ The MSRB
believes that the proposed rule change best balances the improvements
to post-trade price transparency that would be gained with the
regulatory burdens that would be imposed on dealers.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See SIFMA Letter.
    \55\ Id.
    \56\ Id.
    \57\ See MSRB Response Letter.
    \58\ Id.
    \59\ Id.
    \60\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Effective Date of the Proposed Rule Change/Testing Period

    SIFMA requests that the MSRB publish technical specifications
related to the proposed rule change at least nine months prior to the
effective date of the proposed rule change.\61\ BDA notes that smaller
dealers with fewer IT resources may need more than six months to make
changes necessary to comply with the proposal.\62\ Specifically, BDA
requests a testing period of at least nine months prior to
implementation.\63\ The MSRB anticipates publishing updated technical
specifications in early September 2015.\64\ In response to comments
from SIFMA and BDA, the MSRB now intends to set a specific effective
date of May 23, 2016, which is the latest effective date contemplated
by the proposed rule change. The MSRB believes this effective date
would likely provide dealers and subscribers with nearly nine months to
make necessary system changes after publication by the MSRB of
technical specifications.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ See SIFMA Letter.
    \62\ See BDA Letter.
    \63\ Id.
    \64\ See MSRB Response Letter.
    \65\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    The Commission has carefully considered the proposed rule change,
the comments received, and the MSRB's response to such comments. The
Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to the MSRB.
    In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change
is consistent with Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act,\66\ which requires,
among other things, that the rules of the MSRB be designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in municipal
securities and municipal financial products, to remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market in municipal
securities and municipal financial products, and, in general, to
protect investors, municipal entities, obligated persons, and the
public interest. The Commission believes that the proposed rule change
is consistent with Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act because the proposed
rule change is reasonably designed to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market in municipal securities by
increasing the quality and usefulness of the post-trade price
transparency information provided through RTRS. As noted by the MSRB,
the (i) expansion of the application of the existing List Offering
Price and Takedown Transaction indicator to cases involving
distribution participant dealers and takedown transactions that are not
at a discount from the list offering price, (ii) establishment of a new
indicator for customer trades involving non-transaction-based
compensation arrangements, and (iii) establishment of a new indicator
for ATS transactions would enable users of the post-trade price
transparency information provided through RTRS to better understand the
pricing of certain transactions as well as how such transactions were
executed.\67\ As further noted by the MSRB, identifying in disseminated
transaction information that an ATS was employed should facilitate
higher quality research and analysis of market structure by providing
information about the extent to which ATSs are used and should
complement the existing indicator disseminated for transactions
involving a broker's broker.\68\ Accordingly, the Commission believes
that the proposed rule change would contribute to the MSRB's continuing
efforts to improve market transparency and to protect investors,
municipal entities, obligated persons and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C).
    \67\ See supra note 4.
    \68\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule change's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation.\69\ The Commission recognizes that
the proposed rule change would impose a burden on dealers and
subscribers that interface with RTRS to comply with the reporting and
dissemination of the new indicators that would be required by the
proposed rule change. However, the Commission believes that the
potential burden created by the proposed rule change is likely
outweighed by the benefits, such as increasing the quality and
usefulness of post-trade price transparency information. Also, the
Commission believes that the proposed rule change includes
accommodations that help promote efficiency. Specifically, the

proposed rule change would eliminate the requirement for dealers to
include yield on customer trade reports. The Commission believes that
this would remove one aspect of a dealer's burden in reporting customer
transactions to the MSRB in compliance with MSRB Rule G-14.
Furthermore, the MSRB has revised its implementation schedule in
response to comments from BDA and SIFMA, which would likely provide
dealers and subscribers with nearly nine months to make necessary
system changes after publication by the MSRB of the technical
specifications. This accommodation would likely provide dealers and
subscribers with sufficient time to make any required changes in due
course without causing adverse disruptions. The Commission does not
believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on
competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes
of the Act because the requirements of the proposed rule change would
apply equally to all dealers who report trade information to RTRS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the Commission received three comment letters on
the filing. The Commission believes that the MSRB considered carefully
and responded adequately to comments and concerns regarding the
proposed rule change. Although one commenter suggested changes and
opposed certain aspects of the proposed rule change, the Commission
notes that no commenters argued that the proposed rule change was
inconsistent with the applicable provisions of the Act.
    For the reasons noted above, including those discussed in the MSRB
Response Letter, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change
is consistent with the Act.

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\70\ that the proposed rule change (SR-MSRB-2015-02) be, and hereby
is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, pursuant to delegated authority.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-13082 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 53 (Monday, March 19, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12057-12058]
[FR Doc No: 2018-05528]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

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

Extension:
    Form SF-1, SEC File No. 270-610, OMB Control No. 3235-0707.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget this request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information discussed below.
    Form SF-1 (17 CFR 239.44) is the registration statement for non-
shelf issuers of assets-backed securities register a public offering of
their securities under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et
seq.). The information collected is intended to ensure that the
information required to be filed by the Commission permits verification
of compliance with securities law requirements and assures the public
availability of such information in the asset-backed securities market.
Form SF-1 takes approximately 1,380 hours per response and is filed by
approximately 6 respondents. We estimate that 25% of

the 1,380 hours per response (345 hours) is prepared by the registrant
for a total annual reporting burden of 2,070 hours (345 hours per
response x 6 responses).
    An agency may conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid control number.
    The public may view the background documentation for this
information collection at the following website, www.reginfo.gov.
Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to:
[email protected]; and (ii) Pamela Dyson Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email
to: [email protected]. Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30
days of this notice.

    Dated: March 14, 2018.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-05528 Filed 3-16-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 21, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 20682]
[FR Doc No: 2021-08237]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. RM20-10-000; AD19-19-000]

Electric Transmission Incentives Policy Under Section 219 of the
Federal Power Act; Notice of Workshop

    Take notice that Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission)
staff will convene a workshop to discuss certain performance-based
ratemaking approaches, particularly shared savings, that may foster
deployment of transmission technologies. Commissioners may attend and
participate in the workshop.
    Transmission technologies, as deployed in certain circumstances,
may enhance reliability, efficiency, and capacity, and improve the
operation of new or existing transmission facilities. The workshop will
discuss issues related to shared savings approaches \1\ for
transmission technologies seeking incentives under Federal Power Act
section 219.\2\ The workshop will focus on how to calculate ex ante and
ex post benefit analyses for transmission technologies seeking
incentives. Specifically, the workshop will explore the maturity of the
modeling approaches for various transmission technologies; the data
needed to study the benefits/costs of such technologies; issues
pertaining to access to or confidentiality of this data; the time
horizons that should be considered for such studies; and other issues
related to verifying forecasted benefits. The workshop may also discuss
other issues, including whether and how to account for circumstances in
which benefits do not materialize as anticipated. The workshop may also
explore other performance-based ratemaking approaches for transmission
technologies seeking incentives under Federal Power Act section 219,
particularly market-based incentives.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See, e.g., WATT Coalition and Advanced Energy Economy July
1, 2020 Comments.
    \2\ 16 U.S.C. 824s(b)(3).
    \3\ See, e.g., Potomac Economics July 1, 2020 Comments at 11-12,
19; Independent Market Monitor for PJM July 1, 2020 Comments at 7-
15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The workshop will be held on September 10, 2021, from approximately
9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time. At this time, the workshop is
expected to be held remotely. A supplemental notice will be issued
prior to the workshop with further details regarding the agenda and
organization, as well as the details for accessing the workshop.
    Individuals interested in participating as panelists should submit
a self-nomination email by 5:00 p.m. on May 21, 2021 to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Each nomination should indicate the proposed
panelist's name, contact information, organizational affiliation, and
what topics the proposed panelist would speak on.
    The workshop will be open for the public to attend electronically.
There is no fee for attendance.
    Commission workshops are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please
send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free 1-866-208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY) or send a fax to<PHONE_NUMBER> with
the required accommodations.
    For more information about this workshop, please contact:

Samin Peirovi (Technical Information) Office of Energy Policy and
Innovation,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected]
Meghan O'Brien (Legal Information) Office of the General Counsel, (202)
exception occurred on : 2021-08237.htm
exception occurred on : 2021-08237.htm
502-6137, meghan.o'[email protected]
Sarah McKinley (Logistical Information) Office of External Affairs,
(202) 502-8004<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: April 15, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-08237 Filed 4-20-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


07128895
DET NORSKE VERITAS
TYPE APPROVAL CERTIFICATE

CERTIFICATE NO. P-13117
This Certificate consists of 5 pages
This is to certify that the
Ballast Water Management System
771.91
with type designation(s)
OceanSaver BWMS
Manufactured by
OceanSaver AS
LYSAKER, Norway
is found to comply with
IMO Resolution MEPC.125(53), IMO Resolution MEPC.126(53) and DNV Type Approval
Programme No.771.91
Application
This is to certify that the Ballast Water Management System listed below has
been examined and tested in accordance with the requirements of the
specifications contained in
the Guidelines and DNV Rules stated above. This certificate is valid only for
the Ballast Water Management System referred to above.
The certificate is issued on behalf of Norwegian Maritime Directorate

      Place and date This Certificate is valid until
      Høvik, 2009-04-08 2013-04-08
      for Det Norske Veritas AS

       Øivin Lorentzen   Jad Michel Mouawad
      Head of Section Surveyor

Ballast Water Management System Supplier
OceanSaver AS
Under type and model designation
OceanSaver BWMS - C3T
Equipment / Assembly drawings
Ballast Water Management System manufactured equipment / assembly drawings
referred to under Type Approval documentation below.
Product description
The OceanSaver BWMS consists of the following components:
- C3T cavitation unit
- C2E disinfection unit with rectifiers
- TRO neutralization system
- Control, monitoring, automation and data storage system
- Nitrogen generator
- Compressor for the Nitrogen generator
- Filter unit
- Ejector unit for the nitrogen
- Control pressure valve (CPV) for back pressure management
The components have their operational specifications as tested during the
shipboard testing listed under Application\Limitation below.
Application/Limitation
Treatment Rated Capacity: 600 m3/h
The Treatment Rated Capacity corresponds to the type and model: OceanSaver BWMS
C3T with 18 C3T sub-units as tested during ship board testing in accordance with
the G8 Guidelines of the Convention.
Although not tested, other model designations with higher or lower flow rate
have been documented in teoretical studies to have killing rate in compliance
with the D-2 standards of the convention. The teoretical studies are given in
OceanSaver (OS) - BWMS "Scaling by duplication" dated 2009-03-31 and operating
range of the different models of the OceanSaver BWMS is given in "OS - Applied
operating range", Rev. 3, dated 2009-03-31.
The following operational specifications apply for the different components:
C3T cavitation unit
Minimum flow rate: 540 m3/h; with differential pressure between 1.6bar and
2.4bar for the model tested during ship baord test.
C2E disinfection unit
The hydrogen trap and ventilation of the C2E unit, together with all electrical
and electronical sensors in the C2E unit must be installed according to the P&ID
diagram approved by DNV. See reference in Type Approval documentation below.
TRO neutralization system
Reference is made to "TRO Neutralization Unit", Document ref. 41101-DS-01 issued
2009-03-16.
Control and monitoring system
The control and monitoring system included in the Type Approval consists of:
- Personal computers A3300M, covered by type approval certificate A-10538
- Measurement converter, PR Electronics AS, covered by type approval certificate
A-9898
- Programmable electronic system, Rockwell automation, covered by type approval
certificate A-10217
- Programmable electronic system, Micrologix 1762 and 1763 series, covered by
type approval certificate A-10434
- Rectifier units, FlexKraft (3-5M) and (6-10M)
EMC: A
Humidity: A
Vibration: A
Temperature: Up to 40 deg C
Automatic control of the process according to requirements in IMO MEPC.58/23
ANNEX 4 Guidelines for approval of ballast water management systems (G8) have
been verified.
Nitrogen generator with ejector unit
Volumetric injection rate is 7% of the total ballast water flow rate.
Nitrogen purity must exceed 98%.
Filter unit:
The type approved system includes a Bollfilter Automatic Filter Selfclean type
6.18.2 BWT with wedge type wire mesh 50 microns. The application of any filter
mesh type or size that gives documented better efficiency than the tested
filter, provided within the operational limits for the CT3 unit (with respect to
water flow and pressure) will be accepted under this type approval.
Installation
The installation of the system shall be in accordance with the principles of the
P&ID diagram approved by DNV. See reference in Type Approval documentation
below.
Installation onboard tankers with low flash point products and cargo pump room
The installation of the system onboard tankers (oil tankers, chemical carriers
and gas carriers) with low flash point products and cargo pump room shall be
done in accordance with the P&ID diagram no. BWT-PID-005-01 Rev.0 "BWT System -
Arrangement for Tankers with pump room" Approved in Principle by DNV on
2009-01-19.
Type Approval documentation
- Land based testing of the OceanSaver ballast water management system of
MetaFil As - Final rapport, Report Report SNO 5529-2008 reviewed by DNV on
2008-02-29.
- QAPP for shipboard tests with shipboard test results reviewed by DNV on
2009-02-12.
- Ballast Water Management System - User Manual (Parts 1 & 2) approved by DNV on
2009-03-06.
- G9 Final Approval Application.
- Report of the Marine Environmental Protection Committee on its fifty-eightth
session, MEPC 58/23.
- OceanSaver Type approval onboard testing, Survey Report no.
HOVHA/2008-11-21-J-
- Quality assurance project plan reviewed by DNV on 2007-10-18
- OceanSaver Plan I and OceanSaver Plan II (Quality assurance manual - BWT
system details) approved by DNV on 2007-10-18
- Drawing No. APPROVAL-PID-500-01 Rev. 1 "BWMS Piping and Instrument Diagram"
approved by DNV with comments.
- Drawing No. H2-APPROVAL-PID-500-01 Rev. 1 "H2 venting principle" approved by
DNV with comments.
- OceanSaver BWMS Type model and configuration Rev. 3 dated 2009-03-31.
- OS - BWMS "Scaling by duplication" dated 2009-03-31.
- "TRO Neutralization Unit", Document ref. 41101-DS-01 issued 2009-03-16.
Tests carried out
The Certificate is issued based on submitted documentation in form of approved
QAPP, QMP and test results reports from UNIFOB. DNV has witnessed a function
test of the system.
Landbased testing in accordance with IMO Resolution MEPC.125(53) verified by DNV
Shipboard testing in accordance with IMO Resolution MEPC.125(53)
Active Substance approval testing in accordance with IMO Resolution MEPC.126(53)

Factory Acceptance Test and Extended Factory Acceptance Test of the control and
monitoring system verified by DNV
Marking of product
For tracability of this type approval, each treatment system is to be marked
with:
-Manufacturers name or trade mark
-Type designation
-Serial no.
Certificate retention survey
For retention of the Type Approval, a DNV surveyor shall perform a survey every
second year and before the expiry date of this certificate to verify that the
conditions of the type approval are complied with.
Copy of type approval certificate
A copy of this Type Approval Certificate should be carried on board a vessel
fitted with this Ballast Water Management System at all times. A reference to
the test protocol and a copy of the test results should be available for
inspection on board the vessel. If the Type
Approval Certificate is issued based on approval by another Administration;
reference to that Type Approval Certificate shall be made.
END OF CERTIFICATE

Notice: This Certificate is subject to terms and conditions overleaf. Any
significant change in design or construction may render this Certificate
invalid.
If any person suffers loss or damage which is proved to have been caused by any
negligent act or omission of Det Norske Veritas, then Det Norske Veritas shall
pay compensation to such person for his proved direct loss or damage. However,
the compensation shall not exceed an amount equal to ten times the fee charged
for the service in question, provided that the maximum compensation shall never
exceed USD 2 million.In this provision "Det Norske Veritas" shall mean the
Foundation Det Norske Veritas as well as all its subsidiaries, directors,
officers, employees, agents and any other acting on behalf of Det Norske
Veritas.

DET NORSKE VERITAS AS · VERITASVEIEN 1, 1322 HØVIK, NORWAY · TEL: (+47) 67 57 99
00 · FAX: (+47) 67 57 99 11