[Federal Register: April 20, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 76)]
[Notices]
[Page 19988-19990]
[DOCID:fr20ap07-124]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55636; File No. SR-Amex-2007-32]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Shorten the Minimum Required Time Periods Required Between Tape
Indications and Openings or Reopenings

April 16, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 30, 2007, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'' or
``Exchange''), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Amex. The Exchange has
filed the proposal pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act,\3\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective
upon filing with the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Amex Rules regarding openings
and halts in trading to shorten the minimum time periods required
between tape indications and openings or reopenings. The Exchange has
designated this proposal as non-controversial and has requested that
the Commission waive the 30-day pre-operative waiting period contained
in Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) under the Act.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Amex's Web
site at http://www.amex.com, the Office of the Secretary, the Amex 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, Amex 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
    Specialists in equity-traded securities \6\ are responsible for
ensuring that their specialty securities open for trading as close to
the opening bell as possible, and reopen for trading after a trading
halt as soon as possible. After a trading halt, the specialist must
strive to open or reopen a security in a manner that is not only
timely, but is also fair and orderly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Equity-traded securities include stocks (both listed and
those trading on an Unlisted Trading Privileges Basis), Exchange
Traded Funds, and other securities that trade like equities. See
Amex Rule 1A-AEMI(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ordinarily, before the opening bell, the specialist will assess
existing market conditions and consider the balance of supply and
demand for a security as reflected by orders represented in the market.
Under certain conditions, he or she may provide this information to the
market in the form of price indications that are published on the
consolidated tape. In the event of a delayed opening, or the reopening
of trading in a security after a trading halt, the specialist may be
required to assess market conditions prior to the delayed opening or
reopening, and publish a price indication to the market accordingly,
while providing market participants with sufficient time to react and
participate as they deem appropriate.
    Current rules require minimum time periods as long as ten minutes
between a specialist's dissemination of a price indication and the
delayed opening or reopening of trading. Technological developments
have increased the speed of communication since these rules were
introduced, and market conditions may change substantially within the
time periods now required between the indication and the opening or
resumption of trading. Accordingly, the Exchange is proposing an
amendment to the rules to provide flexibility to react quickly, when
appropriate, by reducing the minimum amount of time required between
indications and delayed openings or reopenings after a trading halt.
    Amex Rule 119-AEMI (governing indications, openings and reopenings)
currently provides that the specialist may not open or reopen a stock
that has been the subject of a halt or delayed opening until ten
minutes have elapsed following the first indication. Where there is
more than one indication, a minimum of five minutes must elapse from
the last indication, provided that at least ten minutes has elapsed
since the first indication. The Exchange proposes that these minimum
time periods be shortened from ten minutes to three minutes after the
first indication, and from three minutes to one minute after the last
indication, provided that a minimum of three minutes have elapsed since
the first indication.
    For a stock that is halted during the trading day, current rules
require a minimum of five minutes between the first indication and the
stock's reopening. Where there is more than one indication, a minimum
of three minutes must elapse from the last indication, provided that at
least five minutes have elapsed after the first indication. The
Exchange proposes that these time periods be shortened from five
minutes to three minutes after the first indication, and from three
minutes to one minute after the last indication, provided that a
minimum of three minutes has elapsed after the dissemination of the
first indication.
    If a stock is halted during the trading day due to an ``equipment
changeover,'' a minimum of five minutes must elapse following the halt
before trading resumes. Should a significant order imbalance develop
\7\ or a regulatory condition occur (i.e., news pending or news
dissemination), current rules require a ten minute minimum halt period
following the first indication before reopening for trading. The
Exchange now proposes that the standard five minute period after an
``equipment changeover'' be shortened to one minute and the ten minute
period be shortened to three minutes after an ``equipment changeover''
during which a significant order imbalance or regulatory condition
develops.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ A ``significant order imbalance'' is one which would result
in a reopening at a price change constituting the greater of 1% or
two points away from the last previous sale in a stock selling at
$20 or more, one point or more away from the last previous sale in a
stock selling at $10 or more (but less than $20), and one/half point
or more away from the last previous sale in a stock selling at less
than $10. See Amex Rule 119-AEMI(3)(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further proposes amendments to Exchange Rule 118-AEMI,
Trading in Nasdaq Securities, to conform the minimum time periods
required for openings and reopenings in securities traded on the Amex
on an unlisted trading privileges basis to those proposed for listed
securities. Additionally, the Exchange proposes a housekeeping change
where references to a ``Floor Governor'' in Rule 119-AEMI would be
changed to ``Senior Floor Official'' reflecting that the authority
granted to a Floor Governor can be exercised by a Senior Floor
Official.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Commission approved an amendment to Amex Rule 21 which
provides that: ``An Exchange Official who has been appointed as a
Senior Floor Official has the same authority and responsibilities as
a Floor Governor with respect to matters that arise on the Floor and
require review or action by a Floor Governor or Senior Floor
Official.'' See Securities Exchange Act Release 51503 (April 7,
2005), 70 FR 19534 (April 13, 2005) (SR-Amex-2004-65).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) \9\ of the
Act in general and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \10\ 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, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change will impose no burden on competition.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing proposed rule change is subject to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \11\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder \12\
because the proposal: (i) Does not significantly affect the protection
of

investors or the public interest; (ii) does not impose any significant
burden on competition; and (iii) does not become operative prior to 30
days after the date of filing or such shorter time as the Commission
may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest; provided that the Exchange has given the Commission
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five
business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change,
or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the filing.
However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\13\ the Commission may
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay.\14\ The Commission
believes that such waiver is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest because the proposed changes to the
required minimum time periods between tape indications and openings and
reopenings are substantially similar to a recently approved proposal
submitted by the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'').\15\ For this
reason, the Commission designates the proposed rule change to be
operative on April 2, 2007, as the Exchange proposed.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \14\ Id.
    \15\ The Commission recently approved a substantially similar
proposal from the NYSE that included identical changes to the
required minimum time periods between tape indications and openings
and reopenings. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54530
(September 28, 2006), 71 FR 58645 (October 3, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2006-
49).
    \16\ For purposes only of accelerating the operative date of
this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's
impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors or otherwise in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

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

File Number SR-Amex-2007-32 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2007-32. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of the filing
also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal
office of the Amex. 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-Amex-2007-32 and should be submitted on or before May 11, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-7553 Filed 4-19-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 182 (Friday, September 18, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58415-58418]
[FR Doc No: 2020-20568]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-89860; File No. SR-BX-2020-025]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Exchange's Transaction Fees, at Equity 7, Section 118(a)

September 14, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on September 1, 2020, Nasdaq BX, Inc. (``BX'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below,
which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's transaction fees, at
Equity 7, Section 118(a), as described further below. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/bx/rules, at the principal office of
the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange operates on the ``taker-maker'' model, whereby it
generally pays credits to members that take liquidity and charges fees
to members that provide liquidity. Currently, the Exchange has a
schedule, at Equity 7, Section 118(a), which consists of several
different credits that it provides for orders in securities priced at
$1 or more per share that access liquidity on the Exchange and several
different charges that it assesses for orders in such securities that
add liquidity on the Exchange.
Description of the Changes
    The Exchange proposes to revise its schedule of charges to add one
new fee. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to charge a $0.0022 per
share executed fee for displayed orders that add liquidity entered by a
member that: (i) Adds liquidity equal to or exceeding 0.12% of total
Consolidated Volume during a month; and (ii) adds at least 35% more
liquidity, as a percentage of total Consolidated Volume during a month,
than it did during August 2020. The proposed fee represents a discount
relative to the standard $0.0030 per share executed charge for orders
that provide liquidity to the Exchange, as well as a discount relative
to the $0.0024-$0.0028 per share executed range of existing charges for
displayed orders that add liquidity above certain threshold percentages
of total Consolidated during a month. Accordingly, the Exchange
believes that the proposed new fee will incentivize members to grow
their existing level of liquidity adding activity on the Exchange, and
in particular, to grow such levels relative to a baseline of such
activity. In doing so, the Exchange intends to improve the overall
quality and attractiveness of the Nasdaq BX market.
Impact of the Changes
    Those participants that act as net adders of liquidity from the
Exchange will benefit directly from the proposed fee. Other
participants will also benefit from the new fee insofar as any ensuing
increase in liquidity adding activity will improve the overall quality
of the market.
    The Exchange notes that its proposal is not otherwise targeted at
or expected to be limited in its applicability to a specific segment(s)
of market participants nor will it apply differently to different types
of market participants.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\3\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\4\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and issuers and other persons using any facility, and is
not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers. The proposal is also consistent with
Section 11A of the Act relating to the establishment of the national
market system for securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposal Is Reasonable
    The Exchange's proposed change to its schedule of charge is
reasonable in several respects. As a threshold matter, the Exchange is
subject to significant competitive forces in the market for equity
securities transaction services that constrain its pricing
determinations in that market. The fact that this market is competitive
has long been recognized by the courts. In NetCoalition v. Securities
and Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit stated as follows: ``[n]o one
disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC
explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of
securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing
agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for
execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share
percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly,
regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker
dealers'. . . .'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market
model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70
FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Numerous indicia demonstrate the competitive nature of this market.
For example, clear substitutes to the Exchange exist in the market for
equity security transaction services. The Exchange is only one of
several equity venues to which market participants may direct their
order flow, and it represents a small percentage of the overall market.
It is also only one of several taker-maker exchanges. Competing equity
exchanges offer similar tiered pricing structures to that of the
Exchange, including schedules of rebates and fees that apply based upon
members achieving certain volume thresholds.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See CBOE EDGA Fee Schedule, at https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/edga/; NYSE National Fee Schedule,
at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/regulation/nyse/NYSE_National_Schedule_of_Fees.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Within this environment, market participants can freely and often
do shift their order flow among the Exchange and competing venues in
response to changes in their respective pricing schedules.\8\
Separately, the Exchange

has provided the SEC staff with multiple examples of instances where
pricing changes by BX and other exchanges have resulted in shifts in
exchange market share. Within the foregoing context, the proposal
represents a reasonable attempt by the Exchange to increase its
liquidity and market share relative to its competitors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange perceives no regulatory, structural, or cost
impediments to market participants shifting order flow away from it.
In particular, the Exchange notes that these examples of shifts in
liquidity and market share, along with many others, have occurred
within the context of market participants' existing duties of Best
Execution and obligations under the Order Protection Rule under
Regulation NMS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has designed its proposed schedule of charges to
provide increased overall incentives to members to increase their
liquidity adding activity on the Exchange. An increase in liquidity
adding activity on the Exchange will, in turn, improve the quality of
the Nasdaq BX market and increase its attractiveness to existing and
prospective participants. Generally, the proposed new charge will be
comparable to, if not favorable to, those that its competitors
provide.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See n. 7, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that those participants that are dissatisfied
with the proposed charge are free to shift their order flow to
competing venues that offer them lower fees.
The Proposal Is an Equitable Allocation of Charges
    The Exchange believes its proposal will allocate its proposed new
charge fairly among its market participants. It is equitable for the
Exchange to charge a discounted fee to participants whose displayed
orders add liquidity to the Exchange as a means of incentivizing
increased liquidity adding activity on the Exchange as well as to tie
the charge to the member engaging in a threshold volume of liquidity
adding activity on the Exchange. An increase in liquidity adding
activity on the Exchange will improve the quality of the Nasdaq BX
market and increase its attractiveness to existing and prospective
participants.
    Any participant that is dissatisfied with the proposed new charge
is free to shift their order flow to competing venues that provide more
favorable pricing or less stringent qualifying criteria.
The Proposed Charge Is not Unfairly Discriminatory
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is not unfairly
discriminatory. As an initial matter, the Exchange believes that
nothing about its volume-based tiered pricing model is inherently
unfair; instead, it is a rational pricing model that is well-
established and ubiquitous in today's economy among firms in various
industries--from co-branded credit cards to grocery stores to cellular
telephone data plans--that use it to reward the loyalty of their best
customers that provide high levels of business activity and incent
other customers to increase the extent of their business activity. It
is also a pricing model that the Exchange and its competitors have long
employed with the assent of the Commission. It is fair because it
incentivizes customer activity that increases liquidity, enhances price
discovery, and improves the overall quality of the equity markets.
    The Exchange intends for its proposal to improve market quality for
all members on the Exchange and by extension attract more liquidity to
the market, improving market wide quality and price discovery. Both net
removers and net adders of liquidity to the Exchange stand to benefit
directly from the proposed change. That is, to the extent that the
proposed change increases liquidity adding activity on the Exchange,
this will improve market quality and the attractiveness of the Nasdaq
BX market, to the benefit of all existing and prospective participants.
    Moreover, any participant that is dissatisfied with the proposed
new charge is free to shift their order flow to competing venues that
provide more favorable pricing or less stringent qualifying criteria.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Intramarket Competition
    The Exchange does not believe that its proposal will place any
category of Exchange participant at a competitive disadvantage. As
noted above, all members of the Exchange will benefit from any increase
in market activity that the proposal effectuates. Members may grow or
modify their businesses so that they can receive the discounted fee.
Moreover, members are free to trade on other venues to the extent they
believe that the fee charged is not attractive. As one can observe by
looking at any market share chart, price competition between exchanges
is fierce, with liquidity and market share moving freely between
exchanges in reaction to fee and credit changes. The Exchange notes
that the tier structure is consistent with broker-dealer fee practices
as well as the other industries, as described above.
Intermarket Competition
    Addressing whether the proposal could impose a burden on
competition on other SROs that is not necessary or appropriate, the
Exchange believes that its proposed modifications to its schedule of
charges will not impose a burden on competition because the Exchange's
execution services are completely voluntary and subject to extensive
competition both from a multitude of other live exchanges and off-
exchange venues. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more
favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust
its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with
alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance
with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because
competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because
market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices,
the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this
market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
    The proposed new charge is reflective of this competition because,
as a threshold issue, the Exchange is a relatively small market so its
ability to burden intermarket competition is limited. In this regard,
even the largest U.S. equities exchange by volume has less than 17-18%
market share, which in most markets could hardly be categorized as
having enough market power to burden competition. Moreover, as noted
above, price competition between exchanges is fierce, with liquidity
and market share moving freely between exchanges in reaction to fee and
credit changes. This is in addition to free flow of order flow to and
among off-exchange venues which presently comprises approximately 44%
of industry volume.
    The Exchange intends for the proposed change to its schedule of
fees to increase member incentives to engage in the addition of
liquidity to the Exchange. These changes are procompetitive and
reflective of the Exchange's efforts to make it an attractive and
vibrant venue to market participants.
    In sum, if the changes proposed herein is unattractive to market
participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market share as
a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed
change will impair the ability of members or competing order execution
venues to

maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BX-2020-025 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-BX-2020-025. 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-BX-2020-025 and should be submitted on
or before October 9, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-20568 Filed 9-17-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 108 (Monday, June 6, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36381-36385]
[FR Doc No: 2016-13261]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2016-0053]

Establishment of Interim National Multimodal Freight Network

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST), Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Maritime Administration (MARAD),
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC), and U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: Section 70103 of title 49, United States Code (U.S.C.), which
was established in section 8001 of the Fixing America's Surface
Transportation (FAST) Act, directs the Under Secretary of
Transportation for Policy (Under Secretary) to establish a National
Multimodal Freight Network (NMFN) to: (1) Assist States in
strategically directing resources toward improved system performance
for the efficient movement of freight on the NMFN; (2) inform freight
transportation planning; (3) assist in the prioritization of Federal
investment; and (4) assess and support Federal investments to achieve
the national multimodal freight policy goals described in section
70101(b) of title 49, U.S.C., and the national highway freight program
goals described in section 167 of title 23, U.S.C.
    Within 180 days of the enactment of the FAST Act, the Under
Secretary is directed to establish an Interim NMFN. This notice
establishes an Interim NMFN per the statutory requirements and solicits
public comment to help inform the Final NMFN that will be designated by
December 4, 2017, per the statutory requirement.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 6, 2016 to
receive consideration by DOT with respect to the final designation of
the NMFN.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that you do not duplicate your docket submissions,
please submit them by only one of the following means:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is (202) 366-
9329.
     Instructions: You must include the agency name and docket
number at the beginning of your comments. All comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ryan Endorf,<PHONE_NUMBER> or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Additional Information

    Background: Each day, our roads, rails, bridges, seaports,
airports, and waterways transport 55 million tons of goods, worth more
than $49 billion. Freight travels over an extensive multimodal network
of highways, railroads, ports, waterways, pipelines, and airways. A
significant portion of the freight moved on this network requires
multiple modes of transportation and intermodal connections to reach
its final destination. Thus, the reliable movement of freight in the
United States depends on all modes working together such that the
multimodal freight system functions smoothly and without costly delays.
    In a transportation law passed in July, 2012--the Moving Ahead for
Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21)--Congress directed DOT to
develop a National Freight Strategic Plan and a National Freight
Network (NFN) of highways. The NFN was to include the designation of a
Primary Freight Network (PFN) of 27,000 centerline miles. On November
19, 2013, DOT published a draft PFN for comment in the Federal
Register. In developing the PFN and reviewing the resulting public
comments, DOT determined that efforts to incorporate all of the
criteria required by MAP-21 did not yield a network that could
comprehensively represent the most critical elements of the national
freight system. Among other factors, the effort to link qualifying PFN
segments to achieve a contiguous network, and to ensure sufficient
connections to Mexico and Canada, would require the designation of many
thousands of miles beyond the 27,000 centerline miles allowed by MAP-
21. Significantly, the draft PFN also did not reflect the location of
non-truck freight modes including rail, water and pipeline, which play
an essential role in long-distance movement of freight.
    In October 2015, DOT released a draft Multimodal Freight Network
(MFN) as part of its draft National Freight Strategic Plan (NFSP).\1\
That draft network addressed the deficiencies of the PFN by identifying
65,000 centerline miles of road, more than 28 percent of the mileage of
the National Highway System (NHS) and approximately 1.6 percent of the
nation's total public road mileage; 49,900 route miles of railways
representing 35 percent of the nation's rail route miles; 78 ports that
accounted for approximately 90 percent of total 2013 U.S. tonnage; and
56 airports that accounted for approximately 90 percent by weight of
the nation's landed air cargo in 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ https://www.transportation.gov/freight/MFNOct2015
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 70103 of title 49, U.S.C., which was established in section
8001 of the FAST Act, directs the Under Secretary to establish a NMFN
that will be used to: (1) Assist States in strategically directing
resources toward improved system performance for the efficient movement
of freight on the NMFN; (2) inform freight transportation planning; (3)
assist in the prioritization of Federal investment; and (4) assess and
support Federal investments to achieve the national multimodal freight
policy goals described in section 70101(b) of title 49, U.S.C., and the
national highway freight program goals described in section 167 of
title 23, U.S.C.
    Within 180 days of the enactment of the FAST Act, the Under
Secretary is directed to establish an Interim NMFN that includes the
following components: (1) The National Highway Freight Network (NHFN),
as established under section 167 of title 23, U.S.C.; (2) the freight
rail systems of Class I railroads as designated by the Surface
Transportation Board; (3) the public ports of the United States that
have total annual foreign and domestic trade of at least 2,000,000
short tons, as identified by the Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center
of the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), using the data from the latest
year for which such data are available; (4) the inland and intracoastal
waterways of the United States, as described in section 206 of the
Inland Waterways Revenue Act of 1978 (33 U.S.C. 1804); (5) the Great
Lakes, the St. Lawrence Seaway, and coastal and ocean routes along
which domestic freight is transported; (6) the 50 airports

located in the United States with the highest annual landed weight, as
identified by the FAA; and (7) other strategic freight assets,
including strategic intermodal facilities and freight rail lines of
Class II and Class III railroads, designated by the Under Secretary as
critical to interstate commerce.
    Not later than 1 year after the enactment of the FAST Act, the
Under Secretary is directed, after soliciting input from stakeholders
\2\ through a public process and providing notice and an opportunity
for comment on a draft NMFN, to designate a Final NMFN with the goal of
(1) improving network and intermodal connectivity; and (2) using
measurable data as part of the assessment of the significance of
freight movement, including consideration of points of origin,
destinations, and linking components of domestic and international
supply chains. The Interim NMFN will serve as the draft NMFN.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ These stakeholders include the following: multimodal freight
system users, transportation providers, Metropolitan Planning
Organizations (MPOs), local governments, ports, airports, railroads,
and States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interim National Multimodal Freight Network Establishment: The
Interim NMFN is based on the statutory requirements identified in 49
U.S.C. 70103(b)(2).\3\ Maps and tables that provide details of this
Interim NMFN can be found at https://www.transportation.gov/freight/InterimNMFN. This section will describe the factors used to establish
the Interim NMFN.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Note that pipelines are not identified specifically in title
49 as a network component to include on the Interim NMFN. DOT
considered the inclusion of pipelines in the draft MFN released in
October 2015 and concluded that mapping this system or identifying
its most important components would likely not yield an enriched
level of field information. Additionally, the inclusion of high
volume pipelines would likely raise security concerns as pipelines
carry valuable energy products that could be potential targets for
acts of domestic terrorism and key pipeline networks stretch across
miles of remotely populated areas that may not necessarily be
monitored regularly. Moreover, pipelines carry only a limited number
of product types and are primarily privately owned and operated. For
all of these reasons, DOT has not included pipelines in the Interim
NMFN.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NHFN is established under 23 U.S.C. 167 and includes: (1) The
Primary Highway Freight System (PHFS), which Congress designated in the
FAST Act to replace the PFN (the new PHFS is a 41,518-mile network
identified during the designation process for the PFN); (2) the
critical rural freight corridors established under 23 U.S.C. 167(e);
(3) the critical urban freight corridors established under 23 U.S.C.
167(f); and (4) the portions of the Interstate System not designated as
part of the PHFS. States have the authority to designate critical rural
freight corridors. Critical urban freight corridors may be designated
by the relevant States or Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPOs), in
consultation with each other, depending on population size. As no State
or MPO has yet designated a critical rural or urban freight corridor as
part of the NHFN, the highway portion of the Interim NMFN will consist
of the 41,518-mile PHFS and the other portions of the Interstate System
not designated as part of the PHFS. The current total mileage of the
NHFN shown on the maps for the Interim NMFN is 51,029 miles, however,
this mileage will continue to fluctuate as there are some Interstate
System segments that have been recently constructed or converted to
Interstate System designation and, as such, are automatically included
in the NHFN. These additional segments are not yet shown on our NHFN
maps or calculated in the 51,029 miles.
    As specified by the FAST Act, the Interim NMFN contains the freight
rail systems of the Class I railroads as designated by the Surface
Transportation Board (STB), totaling more than 95,000 route miles.
Compared to the draft MFN released by DOT in October 2015, the rail
network provided for in the FAST Act is much more expansive.
Additionally, the statute specifically references other strategic
freight assets, including other intermodal facilities and freight rail
lines of Class II and Class III railroads, designated by the Under
Secretary as critical to interstate commerce.
    DOT has included (as strategic freight assets) routes critical to
interstate commerce which encompassed any rail connections to ports
that are included on the Interim NMFN. In addition, those routes
critical to national defense, which are designated by the U.S.
Department of Defense's (DOD) Strategic Rail Corridor Network
(STRACNET), are included in the Interim NMFN. These additional
designations, which draw extensively from the Class II and Class III
railroads, are necessary to promote network connectivity, which is
vital for interstate commerce and national defense. The designation of
the Interim NMFN consists of 104,296 rail route miles, which includes
the entire Class I network of 95,200 route miles and 9,096 route miles
of Class II and Class III railroad.\4\ Of these, the Class II and Class
III rail lines account for 9 percent of the rail network by mileage in
the Interim NMFN. Class IIs comprise 1,235 route miles while Class IIIs
are represented by 7,861 route miles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Note that the entire combined network of Class II and Class
III railroad route miles is slightly over 43,200.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the 116 ports listed for the Interim NMFN exceed the 78
ports identified in the October 2015 draft MFN proposed by DOT. Using
the latest available data obtained from the USACE's Waterborne Commerce
Statistics Center (calendar year 2014), DOT has determined that 113
U.S. ports satisfy the 2,000,000 short ton threshold criterion
specified in the FAST Act.\5\ DOT also included (as strategic freight
assets) three additional ports (Portsmouth, VA, San Diego, CA, and Apra
Harbor, Guam) in the Interim NMFN that did not satisfy the 2,000,000
short ton threshold but which were strategic ports as of April 1, 2016
as designated by the DOD, bringing the total ports included in the
Interim NMFN to 116 ports.\6\ The 116 ports included in the Interim
NMFN collectively handled more than 95 percent of the nation's domestic
and foreign cargo in 2014. The total national waterborne traffic for
2014 was more than 2.3 billion short tons, of which 937 million were
domestic traffic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The 2014 calendar year tonnage by port for calendar year
2014 published by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterborne
Commerce Statistics Center can be found at http://www.navigationdatacenter.us/wcsc/porttons14.html.
    \6\ The U.S. Army Military Surface Deployment and Distribution
Command (SDDC) of the DOD currently has 17 commercial seaports
designated as strategic ports, 14 of which handle more than
2,000,000 short tons and are included in the 113 ports described
above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The maritime component of the Interim NMFN also includes navigable
waterways that are used to transport domestic and international
freight. The locations and dimensions of these waterways are based on
data contained in the published USACE Waterway Network files (Waterway
Network).\7\ As required by the FAST Act, the Interim NMFN includes
U.S. inland and intracoastal waterways specified in section 206 of the
Inland Waterways Revenue Act of 1978 (codified at 33 U.S.C. 1804),
which provides explicit descriptions of the portions of waterways that
are covered under it. DOT used these descriptions to spatially identify
those inland and intracoastal waterway links on the Waterway Network
that are shown on the NMFN map. As further directed by the FAST Act,
other maritime routes on the Waterway Network commonly used for the
transport of domestic freight are also depicted in the Interim NMFN,

including routes on the Great Lakes, U.S. components of the St.
Lawrence Seaway, and coastal and open ocean areas.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterway Network can be
found at http://www.navigationdatacenter.us/data/datanwn.htm.
    \8\ See 49 U.S.C. 70103(b)(2)(E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In all cases, links between designated Interim NMFN ports and the
Waterway Network are provided to show continuity. In total, the Interim
NMFN includes approximately 26,000 miles of inland, intracoastal, Great
Lakes, St. Lawrence Seaway, coastal, and open-ocean waterways. This
total does not include the waterway mileage in international waters or
foreign waters from the U.S. Mainland to our nation's non-contiguous
states (Alaska and Hawaii) or to the territories of Puerto Rico, Guam,
and other locations, although waterway routes at and around these
locations are included where significant domestic trade takes place.
    Collectively, the routes described above also encompass the entire
America's Marine Highways route system as designated by the Secretary
of Transportation (46 U.S.C. 55601).\9\ Marine Highways are available
to provide additional freight transportation capacity between U.S.
ports, supplementing highway and rail systems. Routes on the inland
waterways, intracoastal waterways, Great Lakes, St. Lawrence Seaway,
coastal, and open-ocean that are officially designated as Marine
Highways are labeled as such in the Interim NMFN map.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The short sea transportation routes authorized by 46 U.S.C.
55601 are implemented under the America's Marine Highways program,
with specific routes referred to as Marine Highways or Connectors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, DOT notes that the section 70103 of the FAST Act
requires the Interim NMFN to include the top 50 airports by landed
weight as identified by the FAA. The FAA identified the top 50 airports
by landed weight using the Air Carrier Activity Information System
(ACAIS), an FAA database that reflects the certificated maximum gross
landed weight of all-cargo aircraft as required by 49 U.S.C. 47102(10)
and 49 U.S.C. 47114(2). The ACAIS data, however, do not reflect the
actual weight of the cargo being transported on all-cargo aircraft and
do not account for other manner of cargo operations, such as belly
cargo on passenger operations.
    Because the FAA's ACAIS database excludes belly cargo, which is a
significant source of freight movement, DOT also considered Bureau of
Transportation Statistics (BTS) data that capture cargo weight reported
on DOT Form 41, Schedules T-100 [U.S. carriers] and T-100(f) [foreign
carriers], which reflects the weight of cargo being transported on both
passenger and cargo aircraft.
    When considering the top 50 airports in the BTS' Form 41 market
data for 2014 (excluding mail and attributing weight by destination to
be consistent with the cargo data in ACAIS), there are a total of six
airports that are not in the top 50 using the FAA's ACAIS database for
2014, presumably because these airports receive a large amount of belly
cargo activity that is not captured by the FAA's ACAIS database.

1. Charlotte Douglas International Airport (CLT)--Charlotte, NC
2. McCarran International Airport (LAS)--Las Vegas, NV
3. Huntsville International Airport (HSV)--Huntsville, AL
4. Spokane International Airport (GEG)--Spokane, WA
5. Tampa International Airport (TPA)--Tampa, FL
6. Pittsburgh International Airport (PIT)--Pittsburgh, PA

    DOT has included these six additional airports on the Interim NMFN
as ``other strategic freight assets'' that are critical to the movement
of interstate commerce. Including these six airports on the Interim
NMFN provides a more complete picture of how air freight (including
belly cargo) is moving through the airports in the United States.
    Final National Multimodal Freight Network Designation: Not later
than 1 year after the enactment of the FAST Act, the Under Secretary is
directed, after soliciting input from stakeholders (listed in 49 U.S.C.
70103(c)) \10\ through a public process and providing notice and an
opportunity for comment on a draft NMFN, to designate a Final NMFN with
the goal of: (1) Improving network and intermodal connectivity; and (2)
using measurable data as part of the assessment of the significance of
freight movement, including consideration of points of origin,
destinations, and linking components of domestic and international
supply chains. The Interim NMFN will serve as the draft NMFN. In
designating the route miles and facilities on the Final NMFN, the Under
Secretary shall have considered the following factors:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Stakeholders listed in 49 U.S.C. 70103(c)(1) include
multimodal freight system users, transportation providers, MPOs,
local governments, ports, airports, railroads, and States. States
are assigned additional requirements described in 49 U.S.C.
70103(c)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Origins and destinations of freight movement within, to, and
from the United States;
    2. Volume, value, tonnage, and the strategic importance of freight;
    3. Access to border crossings, airports, seaports, and pipelines;
    4. Economic factors, including balance of trade;
    5. Access to major areas for manufacturing, agriculture, or natural
resources;
    6. Access to energy exploration, development, installation, and
production areas;
    7. Intermodal links and intersections that promote connectivity;
    8. Freight choke points and other impediments contributing to
significant measurable congestion, delay in freight movement, or
inefficient modal connections;
    9. Impacts on all freight transportation modes and modes that share
significant freight infrastructure;
    10. Facilities and transportation corridors identified by a multi-
State coalition, a State, a State freight advisory committee, or an
MPO, using national or local data, as having critical freight
importance to the region;
    11. Major distribution centers, inland intermodal facilities, and
first- and last-mile facilities; \11\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ DOT proposes that the definition for major distribution
centers, inland intermodal facilities, and first- and last-mile
facilities include both those specific points, such as
manufacturers, distribution points, rail intermodal, and port
facilities, that handle high volumes of freight, and specific
transportation assets, such as roadways, rail lines, or inland
waterways, that provide the primary means of transport in the case
of first mile, or to the final delivery point in the case of last
mile.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. The significance of goods movement, including consideration of
global and domestic supply chains.
    During this designation process, the Under Secretary shall: (1)
Use, to the extent practicable, measurable data to assess the
significance of goods movement, including the consideration of points
of origin, destinations, and linking components of the United States
global and domestic supply chains; (2) consider the 12 factors listed
above and any changes in the economy that affect freight transportation
network demand; and (3) provide the States with an opportunity to
submit proposed designations.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See 49 70103(c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOT seeks comments on corridors or facilities (across all modes)
not included in the Interim NMFN that address one or more of the 12
factors noted above, including a discussion of why additional
components should be considered for inclusion on the Final NMFN. In
particular, DOT seeks public comment on intermodal facilities and
border crossings that are not included on the Interim NMFN. DOT
requests that any proposed corridors or facilities be supported with
data from the most

recent year available that demonstrate one or more of the above
factors. DOT also requests that any proposed corridors or facilities be
submitted with shapefiles, to the extent possible. Below, there is a
list of specific questions or data requests pertaining to each mode of
transportation reflected on the Interim NMFN.
    Highway: DOT seeks input on both the size and composition of the
highway portion of the Final NMFN. DOT is also looking for input on
what should be the relevant factors for including a land border
crossing and roads at that crossing; on whether to include the entire
Strategic Highway Network (STRAHNET) \13\ or some subset of its routes,
such as STRAHNET connectors; and which specific roadway segments
(including intermodal connectors and border crossings) should be added
to or deleted from the Interim NMFN, with a fact-based or data-driven
rationale. State-proposed additions should follow the statutory
requirements identified below, under ``State Input.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Note that the 63,000 mile STRAHNET includes the 47,000 mile
Interstate routes and an additional 16,000 non-Interstate routes.
The bulk of the STRAHNET (the Interstate Routes) is already included
in the Interim NMFN.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOT also seeks input on whether the 65,000-mile highway network
included in the draft MFN released in October 2015 (as part of the
draft NFSP)--with or without additional modification for STRAHNET,
border crossings, urban or rural connectors, etc.--should be designated
as the Final highway portion of the NMFN instead of the highway portion
of the Interim NMFN. When proposed last fall, the draft MFN was
uncapped and data-driven, featured a lower threshold for truck volumes
to capture last and first mile connectors and reflected improved
linkages to intermodal facilities compared to the PHFS in the NHFN. The
additional continuity and connectivity of the 65,000-miles of the
highway portion of the draft MFN provides a more complete
representation of the multimodal system that is required to efficiently
and effectively move freight in the U.S. For more information on the
characteristics and methodology of the larger draft MFN, see the
following links to maps, draft MFN, and Federal Register notice:

https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/DRAFT_NFSP_for_Public_Comment_508_10%2015%2015%20v1.pdf (See discussion
of methodology in Appendix D beginning on p.138).
https://www.transportation.gov/freight/NationalMFN
https://www.transportation.gov/freight/StateMFNs
https://www.transportation.gov/freight/MFN
https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/FHWA-151002-013_F%20PFN.pdf

    Rail: DOT specifically requests comments relating to the proposed
rail network. By statute, the Interim NMFN requires all Class I rail
lines to be included. This type of designation does not consider the
traffic density and volume across the Class I network, and that some
Class II and III systems and segments can handle more traffic than
lighter density Class I branch lines. Prior to the implementation of
the FAST Act, DOT proposed a draft MFN and defined the rail network
using traffic density and volume, among other factors.
    In this approach, FRA used the 2013 Carload Waybill Sample and the
designated STRACNET coded within the FRA network to determine the rail
components of the draft MFN map. Based on the Waybill Sample, FRA
developed the following three categories of rail service for potential
inclusion in the draft MFN:
     Intermodal rail traffic, which includes trailer on
flatcar, container on flatcar, and rail double stack;
     Bulk shipments, which FRA defined to include all non-
intermodal moves that consisted of 50 cars or more of the same
commodity on the same waybill;
     General merchandise shipments, which include moves that
are not intermodal and did not meet the bulk traffic criteria.
    All intermodal rail routes are included in the draft MFN. For bulk
and general merchandise shipments, FRA allocated the waybill data into
three volume tiers and relied on the natural breaks in the volume data
to determine those parts of the network that had the greatest volumes,
removing those lines on the network with the lowest tier of tons for
bulk and general merchandise. All STRACNET lines were included in the
draft rail MFN map.
    The rail component of the draft MFN map consists of 49,900 route
miles, representing 35 percent of the nation's rail route miles. Of
this, approximately 94 percent belong to Class I railroads, with the
balance belonging to Class II and Class III railroads. Collectively,
the rail routes on the draft MFN map account for 60 percent of all rail
freight traffic as measured by tons of freight.
    FRA also used the 2013 Surface Transportation Board Carload Waybill
Sample to determine which rail connectors (interchange points with
other modes) should be identified within the draft MFN map. FRA
selected the top 50 bulk origination/destination markets (100
locations) and the top 25 intermodal origination/destination markets
(50 locations). Since there are duplicates in the 150 total locations,
FRA consolidated these to 53 unique locations. This process gave FRA a
narrow accounting of the rail connectors, since the waybill sample is
not totally structured to identify multimodal connectors. DOT is
seeking public comment on any other key factors that should be
considered to better capture and identify freight moving on multiple
modes. DOT seeks public input on FRA's methodology to structure the
rail component of the Final NMFN. This approach would designate routes
based primarily on traffic density and volume. Commenters should also
address what density levels should be used to determine those lines
which should be included in the network. Commenters should also
consider Class II and Class III lines with particular attention focused
on the statutory language identifying those lines that are critical to
interstate commerce. Commenters should also note what criteria are used
for determining critical to interstate commerce. Finally, DOT requests
alternative methodologies and/or datasets to identify rail lines and
the rail connection locations to construct a more robust rail component
of the NMFN.
    Maritime: DOT requests public comment on the maritime component of
the Interim NMFN. As specified by the FAST Act, the Interim NMFN
depicts public ports that handle at least 2,000,000 short tons of
domestic and foreign trade, annually.
    DOT seeks public input regarding the 2,000,000 short ton and
strategic port standards that DOT was required to use as the selection
criteria for U.S. ports in the Interim NMFN. Specifically, DOT requests
comment on whether this standard should be maintained in the Final NMFN
or if there are other selection criteria that would more appropriately
identify commercial ports that are critical to the NMFN. DOT notes that
special considerations (such as status as strategic ports or other
ports critical to moving strategic freight assets efficiently by water,
such as fuel or energy commodities) will be considered. For instance,
DOT requests assistance in identifying any ports that are unique in
handling specialty cargoes critical to economic competitiveness and
resilience. DOT recognizes that some ports that fall below the 2
million short ton threshold may become critical to movement of goods in
times of national emergency and, in those times, could

become the cornerstone for large scale movement of goods. Further, DOT
requests public input as to whether the navigable waterways included in
the Interim NMFN sufficiently depict routes along which domestic
waterborne freight is commonly transported.
    Aviation: DOT requests feedback regarding the most appropriate data
to use when determining which airports to include in the Final NMFN. As
noted above, the FAST Act directed that the Interim NMFN include the
top 50 airports by landed all-cargo weight as identified by the FAA.
However, this dataset does not account for the amount of cargo moved in
the bellies of passenger aircraft. Further, this dataset captures
maximum ``landed weight'' of all-cargo aircraft, which is based on the
weight determined by aircraft type, regardless of actual cargo carried.
DOT supplemented the Interim NMFN by considering additional candidates
selected from the top 50 airports using cargo data reported to BTS.
These BTS data reflect the weight of cargo being transported on both
passenger and cargo aircraft.
    For determining how to supplement the interim network, several
choices were made regarding the BTS data:
     DOT selected market data rather than segment data. We
believe that market data provide a better sense of cargo moving on and
off airports, which is appropriate for an intermodal network.
     DOT selected destination (landed) weight rather than
origin weight, in order to be consistent with the type of data required
in the interim network.
     DOT selected cargo weight only, excluding mail.
    Considering the data sources used to determine the interim network,
DOT seeks public input regarding what data specifically should be
considered for the Final NMFN. Should DOT use only the BTS data? Should
DOT continue to combine the BTS data with the ACAIS data? DOT also
requests comment on additional methodologies and data sources that have
not been considered for the Interim NMFN.
    State Input: 49 U.S.C. 70103(c)(1) and 49 U.S.C. 70103(c)(3)(C)
direct the Under Secretary to provide the States with an opportunity to
submit proposed designations to the NMFN during the process of
designating the Final NMFN. 49 U.S.C. 70103(c)(4)(A) requires each
State that proposes additional designations to consider nominations for
additional designations from a wide range of stakeholders, including
MPOs, State Freight Advisory Committees (if applicable), and owners and
operators of port, rail, pipeline, and airport facilities.
Additionally, each State proposing additional designations is required
to ensure that all additional designations are consistent with the
State transportation improvement program (STIP) or freight plan. States
may designate a freight facility or corridor within the borders of the
State as a critical rural freight facility or corridor for the Final
NMFN designation. Importantly, please note that this authority and
process is unrelated to the highway-specific designation of critical
rural freight corridors by States and critical urban freight corridors
by States and MPOs for inclusion in the NHFN.\14\ In order to qualify
as a critical rural freight facility or corridor for the NMFN, the
facility or corridor must meet at least one of the following
conditions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For more information on the designation of critical rural
freight corridors under the NHFP program, please see FHWA's guidance
located at http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/crfc/sec_1116_gdnce.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Is a rural principal arterial;
    2. Provides access or service to energy exploration, development,
installation, or production areas;
    3. Provides access or service to--
    a. A grain elevator;
    b. An agricultural facility;
    c. A mining facility;
    d. A forestry facility; or
    e. An intermodal facility;
    4. Connects to an international port of entry;
    5. Provides access to a significant air, rail, water, or other
freight facility in the State; or
    6. Has been determined by the State to be vital to improving the
efficient movement of freight of importance to the economy of the
State.
    There is no limitation that such critical rural freight facilities
or corridors must be highways. Each State may propose additional
designations that are up to 20 percent of the total mileage of modal
routes designated by the Under Secretary for the State. For the
purposes of this first designation, the ``total mileage'' will be the
total mileage in each State on the Interim NMFN. If a State wishes to
propose a designation of a future Interstate or NHS route, it should
provide information sufficient to demonstrate that the route is
critical to the future efficient movement of goods and that the State
will make such designation before the end of this year (when the Final
NMFN is due). States should submit a list of additional designations to
the Under Secretary as part of the public comment process described
below. Each State submitting additional designations should also
certify that the State has satisfied the requirements of 49 U.S.C.
70103(c)(4) and that each proposed designation addresses one or more of
the factors listed in 49 U.S.C. 70103(c)(2) (also listed above).
    Public Comment: The DOT invites comments by all those interested in
the NMFN. Comments on the Interim NMFN may be submitted and viewed at
Docket Number DOT-OST-2016-0053. Comments must be received on or before
September 6, 2016 to receive full consideration by DOT with respect to
the final designation of the NMFN. After September 6, 2016, comments
will continue to be available for viewing by the public.
    The Final NMFN will be designated not later than December 4, 2016
by the Under Secretary per the statutory requirement.

    Dated: May 27, 2016.
Carlos Monje Jr.,
Acting Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-13261 Filed 6-3-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register: December 21, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 245)]
[Notices]
[Page 72703-72704]
[DOCID:fr21de07-72]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13057-000]

BPUS Generation Development, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted
for Filing and Soliciting Motions To Intervene, Protests, and Comments

December 14, 2007.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Preliminary Permit.
    b. Project No.: 13057-000.
    c. Date Filed: November 5, 2007.
    d. Applicant: BPUS Generation Development, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Taylorsville Lake Dam Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project would be located on the Salt River in
Spencer County, Kentucky. It would use the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers' Taylorsville Lake Dam.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)--825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Jeffrey M. Auser, P.E., BPUS Generation
Development LLC, 225 Greenfield Parkway, Suite 201, Liverpool, NY
13088,<PHONE_NUMBER>, and Mr. John A. Whittaker, IV, Winston & Strawn,
LLP, 1700 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Kelly Houff,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to
intervene: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. Comments, protests, and interventions may be
filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper; see 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings. Please include the project number (P-13057-000) on
any comments or motions filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person in the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Project: The proposed project would use the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers' Taylorsville Lake Dam and would consist of:
(1) A proposed forebay and intake structure located upstream of the
eastern abutment of the dam; (2) a proposed steel lined power tunnel;
(3) a proposed powerhouse, containing two turbine/generator units with
a total installed capacity of 16.9 megawatts; (4) a tailrace channel;
(5) a new 2.26-mile-long 12.5 to 230 kV transmission line and, (6)
appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would have an average
annual generation of 23.3 gigawatt-hours, which would be sold to a
local utility.
    l. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket

number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy
is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in
item h above.
    m. Competing Preliminary Permit: Anyone desiring to file a
competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project
must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to
file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application (see 18 CFR 4.36).
Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to
file the competing preliminary permit application no later than 30 days
after the specified comment date for the particular application. A
competing preliminary permit application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30
and 4.36.
    n. Competing Development Application: Any qualified development
applicant desiring to file a competing development application must
submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the
particular application, either a competing development application or a
notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely
notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested
person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after
the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing
license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30 and 4.36.
    o. Notice of Intent: A notice of intent must specify the exact
name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective
applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to
submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary
permit application or a development application (specify which type of
application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s)
named in this public notice.
    p. Proposed Scope of Studies Under Permit: A preliminary permit, if
issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed
preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the
preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of
preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts.
Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide
whether to proceed with the preparation

of a development application to construct and operate the project.
    q. Comments, Protests, or Motions To Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210,
385.211, 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    r. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``NOTICE OF INTENT
TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION'', ``COMPETING APPLICATION'',
``PROTEST'', and ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the
Project Number of the particular application to which the filing
refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing the
original and the number of copies provided by the Commission's
regulations to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. An additional copy must be
sent to Director, Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, at the above-mentioned address. A
copy of any notice of intent, competing application or motion to
intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant
specified in the particular application.
    s. Agency Comments: Federal, State, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-24765 Filed 12-20-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 188 (Wednesday, September 28, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66657-66658]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23384]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0688; FRL-9947-01-OEI]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Information Collection
Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request;
Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for Allegations of Significant
Adverse Reactions to Human Health or the Environment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted the
following information collection request (ICR) to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with
the Paperwork Reduction Act: ``Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
for Allegations of Significant Adverse Reactions to Human Health or the
Environment'' (EPA ICR No. 1031.11, OMB Control No. 2070-0017). This is
a request to renew the approval of an existing ICR, which is currently
approved through September 30, 2016. EPA did not receive any comments
in response to the previously provided public review opportunity issued
in the Federal Register of March 10, 2016 (81 FR 12730). With this
submission, EPA is providing an additional 30 days for public review.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 28, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OPPT-2015-0688, to both EPA and OMB as follows:
    [ssquf] To EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method) or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, and
    [ssquf] To OMB via email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address
comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
docket without change including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to
be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Lintner, Environmental
Assistance Division (7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington,

DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Docket: Supporting documents, including the ICR that explains in
detail the information collection activities and the related burden and
cost estimates that are summarized in this document, are available in
the docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, West William
Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is (202)
566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit
http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on September
30, 2016. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or
sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending
at OMB.
    Under PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., an agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of
information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The OMB control numbers are displayed either by publication in the
Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related
collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB
control numbers for certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR
part 9.
    Abstract: TSCA section 8(c) requires companies that manufacture,
process, or distribute chemicals to maintain records of significant
adverse reactions to health or the environment alleged to have been
caused by such chemicals. Since section 8(c) includes no automatic
reporting provision, EPA can obtain and use the information contained
in company files only by inspecting those files or requiring reporting
of records that relate to specific substances of concern. Therefore,
under certain conditions, and using the provisions found in 40 CFR part
717, EPA may require companies to report such allegations to the
Agency.
    EPA uses such information on a case-specific basis to corroborate
suspected adverse health or environmental effects of chemicals already
under review by EPA. The information is also useful to identify trends
of adverse effects across the industry that may not be apparent to any
one chemical company. This ICR addresses the information reporting and
recordkeeping requirements found in 40 CFR part 717.
    Respondents may claim all or part of a notice as CBI. EPA will
disclose information that is covered by a CBI claim only to the extent
permitted by, and in accordance with, the procedures in 40 CFR part 2.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Entities potentially affected by
this ICR are companies that manufacture, process, import, or distribute
in commerce chemical substances or mixtures.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory; see 40 CFR part 717.
    Estimated number of respondents: 13,160 (total).
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Total estimated burden: 25,527 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $1,911,471 (per year), includes $0 annualized
capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 1,405 hours in the
total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This decrease is due to EPA's estimate of fewer
potential respondents affected by the reporting requirement.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2016-23384 Filed 9-27-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 189 (Thursday, September 29, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60566-60567]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25071]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65389; File No. SR-Phlx-2011-101]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change Regarding Streaming Quote Traders and
Remote Streaming Quote Traders Entering Certain Option Day Limit Orders

September 23, 2011.

I. Introduction

    On July 17, 2011, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to
allow Streaming Quote Traders (``SQTs'') and Remote Streaming Quote
Traders (``RSQTs'') to enter day limit orders. The proposed rule change
was published for comment in the Federal Register on August 11,
2011.\3\ The Commission received no comments on the proposal. This
order approves the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65050 (August 5,
2011), 76 FR 49816.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The purpose of the proposal is to amend two subsections of Exchange
Rule 1080 to allow entry of day limit orders for the proprietary
accounts of SQTs and RSQTs.
    Current Rule 1080 (Phlx XL and XL II) discusses the Exchange's
enhanced electronic order, trading, and execution system (the
``electronic interface''). The current iteration of the Exchange's
electronic interface is known as Phlx XL II.\4\ Rule 1080 states that
it governs the orders, execution reports and administrative order
messages transmitted between the offices of member organizations and
the trading floors of the Exchange. Rule 1080 also discusses what
agency and proprietary orders are eligible for entry into the
Exchange's electronic interface.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59995 (May 28,
2009), 74 FR 26750 (June 3, 2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-32) (order approving
Phlx XL II). Phlx XL II is the Exchange's electronic order delivery
and reporting system, which provides for the automatic entry and
routing of Exchange-listed equity options, index options and U.S.
dollar-settled foreign currency options orders to the Exchange
trading floor. Rule 1080(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsection (b)(i)(B)(2) states that the following types of orders
for the proprietary account(s) of SQTs and RSQTs are eligible for entry
via electronic interface: limit on opening, IOC, and ISO. Currently,
there is no ability for SQTs and RSQTs to enter day limit orders in
their proprietary accounts. The proposal allows day limit orders for
the proprietary account(s) of SQTs and RSQTs to be entered pursuant to
subsection (b)(i)(B)(2). The proposed change will promote consistency
among ROTs by allowing SQTs and RSQTs to do what Rule 1080 and
Commentary .04 now allow non-SQT ROTs to do: enter certain day limit
orders (10 or more contracts) in their proprietary accounts.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For example, subsection (b)(i)(B)(1) allows non-SQTs and
specialists to enter certain day limit orders (10 or more contracts)
in their proprietary accounts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commentary .04 of Rule 1080 states that orders for the proprietary
accounts of SQTs, RSQTs and non-SQT ROTs may be entered for delivery
via electronic interface through the use of Exchange approved
proprietary systems of members that interface with the Exchange's
electronic interface.\6\ Currently, proprietary non-SQT ROT orders with
a size of less than 10 contracts have to be submitted as IOC and larger
orders may be submitted as day limit and other order types; while
proprietary SQT and RSQT orders may only be submitted as IOC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Such orders have to be for a minimum of one (1) contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to put all the ROTs (SQTs, RSQTs and non-
SQT ROTs) on an equal footing. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to
state in Commentary .04 that orders for the proprietary account(s) of
SQTs, RSQTs, and non-SQT ROTs with a size of less than 10 contracts
shall be submitted as IOC only. Thus, where SQT and RSQT orders under
the current rule could only be submitted as IOC, the proposed change to
Commentary .04 would allow these SQTs and RSQTs to enter non IOC orders
(e.g. day orders) in proprietary accounts if they are for 10 or more
contracts.

III. Discussion

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange \7\
and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6 of the Act.\8\
Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ in that the proposal has been designed
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and to protect
investors and the public interest. The Commission believes that it is
consistent with the Act for SQTs and RSQTs to enter non IOC orders
(e.g. day orders) in proprietary accounts if they are for 10 or more
contracts. The Commission believes that allowing these order types
should help to enhance liquidity on the Exchange. The Commission notes
that SQTs and RSQTs would still be required to comply with their
electronic quoting obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Commission has considered the proposed rule change's
impact on efficiency, competition and capital formation. 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It Is Therefore Ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\10\ that the proposed rule change (SR-PHLX-20011-101) is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-25071 Filed 9-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P