[Federal Register: August 22, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 162)]
[Notices]
[Page 48917]
[DOCID:fr22au06-43]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-157-016]

Kern River Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Negotiated Rate

August 16, 2006.
    Take notice that on August 14, 2006, Kern River Gas Transmission
Company (Kern River) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas
Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to be
effective August 17, 2006:

Tenth Revised Sheet No. 495
Fifth Revised Sheet No. 496

    Kern River states that the purpose of this filing is to reflect an
amendment to the negotiated rate transaction between Kern River and
Eagle Mountain City currently referenced in Kern River's tariff, in
accordance with the Commission's Policy Statement on alternatives to
Traditional Cost of Service Ratemaking for Natural Gas Pipelines.
    Kern River states that it has served a copy of this filing upon its
customers and interested state regulatory commissions.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-13886 Filed 8-21-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 147 (Wednesday, July 31, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 37330]
[FR Doc No: 2019-16305]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2019-0477]

Draft Policy Letter on the Coast Guard's Process To Accept
Proposed Type-Approval Testing Protocols for Ballast Water Management
Systems (BWMS) That Render Organisms in Ballast Water Nonviable

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS

ACTION: Notice of availability; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces the availability of a draft policy
letter that establishes the Coast Guard's proposed acceptance of type-
approval testing protocols for BWMS that render nonviable (meaning
``permanently incapable of reproduction'') organisms in ballast water
and may be used in addition to the methods established under existing
regulations; the process for accepting type-approval testing protocols
for BWMS, if any, that render nonviable organisms in ballast water and
may be used in addition to the methods established under existing
regulations which includes: The process for incorporating accepted
protocols into the type-approval procedures established under existing
regulations; the acceptance of laboratories to evaluate applicable
treatment technologies; and the certification of BWMS that render
nonviable organisms in ballast water. This notice solicits public
comments on the draft policy letter that is entitled TYPE APROVAL
METHODS FOR BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS THAT RENDER NONVIABLE
ORGANISMS IN BALLAST WATER, hereinafter referred to in this notice as
the ``draft policy letter.''

DATES: Comments must reach the United States Coast Guard (USCG) by
September 30, 2019.

ADDRESSES: To view the draft policy letter, as well as documents
mentioned in this notice, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type
``USCG-2019-0477'', and click ``Search.'' Then click the ``Open Docket
Folder.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Matthew Reudelhuber, Environmental
Standards Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Abbreviations

BWMS Ballast Water Management System
CATEX Categorical Exclusion
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
U.S.C. United States Code
USCG U. S. Coast Guard
VIDA Vessel Incident Discharge Act of 2018

II. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments on the draft policy letter
which is available in the docket. The draft policy letter is also
available on the USCG website: http://www.dco.uscg.mil/OES/Viability-Policy-Letter/. We accept anonymous comments. All comments received
will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will
include any personal information you have provided. For more about
privacy and the docket, visit http://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If you cannot submit your
material by using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for alternate instructions.
Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public comments, will be
available in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov, and can
be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally, if
you visit the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be
notified when comments are posted or if a final rule is published.

III. Background

    The Vessel Incident Discharge Act of 2018 (VIDA) found at Title IX
of the Frank LoBiondo Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2018, Public Law
115-282, amended Section 312(p) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (33 U.S.C.1322). Pursuant to VIDA, the Coast Guard \1\ is required
to publish for review and comment a draft policy letter, based on the
best available science, describing type-approval testing methods and
protocols for BWMS, if any, that--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In DHS delegation 0170.1, the Commandant of the Coast Guard
was delegated the authority to carry out the functions in section
312 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1321 et
seq.) as amended by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (I) Render nonviable organisms in ballast water; and
    (II) May be used in addition to the methods established under
subpart 162.060 of Title 46, Code of Federal Regulations (or successor
regulations)--
    (aa) To measure the concentration of organisms in ballast water
that are capable of reproduction;
    (bb) To certify the performance of each BWMS under this subsection;
and
    (cc) To certify laboratories to evaluate applicable treatment
technologies.

IV. Environmental Aspect and Impact Considerations

    a. The development of this draft policy letter and the general
policies contained within it have been thoroughly reviewed by the
originating office in conjunction with the Office of Environmental
Management, Commandant (CG-47). This draft policy letter is
categorically excluded under current Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) categorical exclusion (CATEX) A3 from further environmental
analysis in accordance with the U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning
Policy, COMDTINST 5090.1 and the Environmental Planning (EP)
Implementing Procedures (IP).
    b. This draft policy letter will not have any of the following:
Significant cumulative impacts on the human environment; substantial
controversy or substantial change to existing environmental conditions;
or inconsistencies with any Federal, State, or local laws or
administrative determinations relating to the environment. All future
specific actions resulting from the general policy in this draft policy
letter must be individually evaluated for compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Environmental Effects Abroad of
Major Federal Actions, Executive Order 12114, Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) NEPA policy, Coast Guard Environmental Planning Policy,
and compliance with all other applicable environmental mandates.

V. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Before issuing a final policy letter, the Coast Guard will
determine if the final policy calls for a new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501.

VI. Public Availability of the Draft Policy Letter

    The Coast Guard developed this draft policy letter in coordination
with the EPA pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1322(p)(6)(D)(ii). The draft policy
letter may be amended by the USCG, in coordination with the EPA, based
upon public comment on this Federal Register notice.

    Dated: July 26, 2019.
Sean. T. Brady,
Captain, Environmental Standards Division.
[FR Doc. 2019-16305 Filed 7-30-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 77 (Monday, April 24, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18967-18968]
[FR Doc No: 2017-05614]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2016-0078; Notice No. 2016-14]

Hazardous Materials: Use of DOT Specification 39 Cylinders for
Liquefied Flammable Compressed Gas

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: Safety advisory notice, revised.

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

SUMMARY: PHMSA is issuing this revised safety advisory notice to
address concerns of offerors and users of DOT Specification 39 (DOT-39)
cylinders that exceed 75 cubic inches (in\3\) (1.23 L) and to provide
clarification of the initial safety advisory notice we issued on this
subject on December 13, 2016 (Notice No. 2016-14). DOT-39 cylinders
exceeding 75 in\3\ (1.23 L) should not contain liquefied flammable
compressed

cyclopropane, ethane, or ethylene, or liquefied petroleum gases. PHMSA
advises against the filling or transporting of these gases in DOT-39
cylinders when the cylinder's internal volume exceeds 75 in\3\ (1.23
L).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Refaat Shafkey, General Engineer,
Engineering and Research Division, Office of Hazardous Materials
Safety, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Public Action Requested

    PHMSA advises that DOT-39 cylinders having an internal volume
exceeding 75 cubic inches (in\3\) (1.23 L) should not contain liquefied
flammable compressed cyclopropane, ethane, or ethylene, or liquefied
petroleum gases. These gases were historically restricted to this
volume for shipment in specification cylinders (currently Sec.
173.304a). This limitation was based on extensive experience under
special permits and the consideration that, in transportation and
without the limitation, non-reusable cylinders of larger sizes (and
lower integrity) would be used in place of authorized higher-integrity
reusable cylinders. Use of these DOT-39 non-reusable cylinders in
larger sizes would lower the level of transportation safety previously
established through use of higher-integrity reusable cylinders for the
shipment of flammable gases. See the Background section for additional
information on this issue.

B. Safety Concern

    The release of a liquefied flammable compressed gas as result of
the failure of a cylinder having an internal volume exceeding 75 in\3\
(1.23 L) is a safety concern with potential to cause property damage,
serious personal injury, or even death. A DOT-39 cylinder, without
further size restriction, can have a volume of up to 1,526 in\3\ (25 L)
at a service pressure of 500 psig or less and, as such, can have up to
20 times the stored energy of a DOT-39 cylinder limited to 75 in\3\
(1.23 L). This increased stored energy presents a greater safety risk
in the event of a release. Additionally, because of the design
specifications that allow for thinner walls when used at lower
pressure, these cylinders may be at greater risk from corrosion or
puncture. Given the known risks associated with cylinders that are
filled with liquefied flammable compressed gases, PHMSA is issuing this
revised safety advisory notice to advise offerors and transporters of
DOT-39 cylinders that those with an internal volume greater than 75
in\3\ (1.23 L) should not be filled and/or transported with liquefied
compressed cyclopropane, ethane, or ethylene, or with liquefied
petroleum gases.

C. Background

    This revised safety advisory notice is being issued in part because
of safety concerns stemming from a past rulemaking action impacting
DOT-39 cylinders used for certain liquefied flammable compressed gases.
In an October 30, 1998 notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM),\1\ the
Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA)--the predecessor
administration to PHMSA--proposed to extend the 75 in\3\ (1.23 L)
volume limitation of DOT-39 cylinders to all liquefied flammable
compressed gases by revising Sec.  173.304 to delete Note 9 from the
table at Sec.  173.304(a)(2) and adding new sections 173.304a and
173.304b.\2\ RSPA received several comments in opposition to this
proposal. RSPA published a final rule on August 8, 2002 and, based on
the opposing comments, decided not to extend the 75 in\3\ (1.23 L)
limitation to all liquefied flammable compressed gases in a DOT-39
cylinder at that time. However, in the process of publishing the final
rule, the administration inadvertently omitted the 75 in\3\ (1.23 L)
limitation from the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts
171-180) for cyclopropane, ethane, ethylene, or liquefied petroleum
gas.\3\ Thus, historically, the HMR limited the internal volume of a
DOT-39 cylinder to 75 in\3\ (1.23 L) when used for these gases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ NPRM--Hazardous Materials: Requirements for DOT
Specification Cylinders (HM-220D) [63 FR 58460].
    \2\ The respective additional requirements for liquefied
compressed gases have since been redesignated at Sec.  173.304a).
    \3\ Final Rule--Hazardous Materials: Requirements for
Maintenance, Requalification, Repair and Use of DOT Specification
Cylinders (HM-220D) [67 FR 51625].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 13, 2014, PHMSA accepted a petition for rulemaking (P-
1622) from Worthington Cylinders to address this error. On July 26,
2016, PHMSA published in the Federal Register an NPRM titled,
``Hazardous Materials: Miscellaneous Amendments Pertaining to DOT
Specification Cylinders (RRR),'' [81 FR 48977; Docket No. PHMSA-2011-
0140 (HM-234)] \4\ that proposed to extend the limit on the internal
volume of DOT-39 cylinders to use with all liquefied flammable
compressed gases, thus correcting the inadvertent omission and seeking
comment regarding the possibility of expanding the applicability to
capture those liquefied flammable compressed gases (e.g.,
difluoromethane (Refrigerant gas R 32)) either not reflected in the
Sec.  173.304a(a)(2) table or not considered a liquefied petroleum gas.
Additionally, the NPRM further sought input on past experience with the
transport of liquefied flammable compressed gases in DOT-39 cylinders
larger than 75 in\3\ (1.23 L) since implementation of the 2002 final
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Hazardous Materials: Miscellaneous Amendments Pertaining to
DOT Specification Cylinders (RRR) (HM-234) [81 FR 48977], available
at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-07-26/pdf/2016-16689.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the known risks associated with cylinders that are filled
with liquefied flammable compressed gases, PHMSA is issuing this
revised safety advisory notice to advise offerors and transporters of
DOT-39 cylinders that those with an internal volume greater than 75
in\3\ (1.23 L) should not be filled and/or transported with liquefied
compressed cyclopropane, ethane, or ethylene, or with liquefied
petroleum gases.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 16, 2017.
William S. Schoonover,
Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 2017-05614 Filed 4-21-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 180 (Tuesday, September 17, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 57146]
[FR Doc No: 2013-22524]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER10-1257-003; ER10-1258-003.
    Applicants: Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc., Wabash Valley
Energy Marketing, Inc.
    Description: Notice of Non Material Change in Status of Wabash
Valley Power Association, Inc., et al.
    Filed Date: 9/9/13.
    Accession Number: 20130909-5422.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/30/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2193-001.
    Applicants: H.Q. Energy Services (U.S.) Inc.
    Description: Informational Filing Related to Regulatory Proceedings
in Quebec.
    Filed Date: 6/25/12.
    Accession Number: 20120625-5193.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/1/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2193-002.
    Applicants: H.Q. Energy Services (U.S.) Inc.
    Description: Supplement to June 25, 2012 Informational Filing
Related to Regulatory Proceedings in Quebec.
    Filed Date: 1/17/2013.
    Accession Number: 20130117-5200.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/1/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2780-015.
    Applicants: Safe Harbor Water Power Corporation.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Safe Harbor Water Power
Corporation.
    Filed Date: 9/9/13.
    Accession Number: 20130909-5420.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/30/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1265-005.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. submits
09-09-2013 Order 719 Compliance Filing to be effective 6/12/2012.
    Filed Date: 9/9/13.
    Accession Number: 20130909-5375.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/30/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1657-000.
    Applicants: New England Power Company.
    Description: New England Power Company submits Refund Report
Regarding Interconnection Agreements with Wheelabrator Saugus to be
effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 9/9/13.
    Accession Number: 20130909-5294.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/30/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2157-001.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: 09-09-2013 SA 2289 Ameren-Hoopeston Wind Errata to be
effective 8/15/2013.
    Filed Date: 9/9/13.
    Accession Number: 20130909-5061.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/30/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2358-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc. submits Removal of
Exception to Provisions of Attachment L, Section VI to be effective 11/
8/2013.
    Filed Date: 9/9/13.
    Accession Number: 20130909-5282.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/30/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2359-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc. submits 1637R1 Kansas
Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. NITSA and NOA to be effective 6/1/
2013.
    Filed Date: 9/9/13.
    Accession Number: 20130909-5311.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/30/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2360-000.
    Applicants: UGI Utilities Inc., PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: UGI Utilities Inc. submits UGI submits corrections to
formula rate template--PJM OATT Att H-8C & H-8E to be effective 11/9/
2013.
    Filed Date: 9/9/13.
    Accession Number: 20130909-5361.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/30/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2361-000.
    Applicants: NSTAR Electric Company.
    Description: NSTAR Electric Company submits MBTA Interconnection
Agreement to be effective 9/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 9/9/13.
    Accession Number: 20130909-5371.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/30/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2362-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Progress, Inc.
    Description: Duke Energy Progress, Inc. submits Cancellation of
Duke Energy Progress, Inc. Cost-Based Rates Tariff to be effective 11/
9/2013.
    Filed Date: 9/10/13.
    Accession Number: 20130910-5040.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/1/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2363-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Progress, Inc.
    Description: Duke Energy Progress, Inc. submits CBR Name Change to
be effective 11/9/2013.
    Filed Date: 9/10/13.
    Accession Number: 20130910-5041.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/1/13.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 10, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-22524 Filed 9-16-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 6, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 551-554]
[FR Doc No: 2015-33206]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76799; File No. SR-Phlx-2015-112]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Modify
the Fees for Managed Data Solutions

December 30, 2105.
    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 December 18, 2015, The NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule
change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have
been prepared by Phlx. 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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    Phlx proposes to modify the charges to be paid for Managed Data
Solutions (``MDS''). While the changes proposed herein are effective
upon filing, the Exchange has designated that the amendments be
operative on January 1, 2016.
    The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new
language is italicized; proposed deletions are bracketed.

NASDAQ OMX PHLX Rules

NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC Pricing Schedule

VIII. NASDAQ OMX PSX Fees

* * * * *

PSX Managed Data Solutions Fees.

    (a) Distributors and Subscribers of Managed Data Solutions
products containing PSX TotalView data (non-display use only) shall
pay the following fees:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fee schedule for managed data Solutions               Price
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Managed Data Solutions Administration    $[750]1,500/mo Per Distributor.
 Fee (for the right to offer Managed
 Data Solutions to client
 organizations).
PSX Depth Data Professional Managed      $1[0]50/mo Per Subscriber.
 Data Solutions Subscriber Fee.
(Internal Use Only and includes PSX
 TotalView).
PSX Depth Data Managed Data Solutions    $20/mo Per Subscriber.
 Non-Professional Subscriber Fee.
(Internal Use Only and includes PSX
 TotalView).
                                         Fees are per month for all or
                                          any portion of the month in
                                          which the MDS products are
                                          accessed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) No change.
* * * * *

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

    In its filing with the Commission, Phlx 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. Phlx 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 purpose of the proposed rule change is to increase the charges
to be paid by distributors and subscribers of Managed Data Solutions
products containing PSX TotalView data (non-display use only).
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to increase the fee charged to
distributors for the right to offer Managed Data Solutions to client
organizations to $1,500 per month per distributor (``MDS Administration
Fee''), and the fee charged to professional subscribers to $150 per
month per subscriber (``MDS Subscriber Fee''). This proposed rule
change will not affect the pricing for non-professional subscribers.
    MDS is a data delivery option available to distributors of PSX
TotalView. Under the MDS fee structure, distributors may provide data
feeds, Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) or similar automated
delivery solutions to client organizations with only limited
entitlement controls. Through this program, Phlx offers a much simpler
administration process for MDS distributors and subscribers, reducing
the burden and cost of administration.
    Subscribers of MDS may use the information for internal purposes
only and may not distribute the information outside of their
organization. MDS presents opportunities for small and mid-size firms
to achieve significant cost savings over the cost of data feeds.
    Both the MDS Administration Fee and MDS Subscriber Fee have not
changed since their introduction in 2013. Nevertheless, both
distributors and subscribers reap the benefits of Phlx's constant focus
on the performance and enhancements to these offerings. As such, Phlx
recently completed a technology refresh to ensure that its data feeds
continue to achieve a high level of performance and resiliency. The
Exchange has also upgraded and refreshed its disaster recovery
capabilities, adding to the increased focus on redundancy and
resiliency.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\3\ in general, and with
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\4\ in particular, in that it
provides an equitable allocation of reasonable fees among Subscribers
and recipients of Phlx data and is not designed to permit unfair
discrimination between them. Phlx's proposal to increase the MDS
Administration Fee and MDS Subscriber Fee is also consistent with the
Act in that it reflects an equitable allocation of reasonable fees. The
Commission has long recognized the fair and equitable and not
unreasonably discriminatory nature of assessing different fees for
distributors and professional and non-professional users of the same
data. Phlx also believes it is equitable to assess a higher fee per
professional user than to an ordinary non-professional user due to the
enhanced flexibility, lower

overall costs and value that it offers distributors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted self-regulatory
organizations and broker-dealers increased authority and flexibility to
offer new and unique market data to the public.
    The Commission concluded that Regulation NMS--by deregulating the
market in proprietary data--would itself further the Act's goals of
facilitating efficiency and competition:

    [E]fficiency is promoted when broker-dealers who do not need the
data beyond the prices, sizes, market center identifications of the
NBBO and consolidated last sale information are not required to
receive (and pay for) such data. The Commission also believes that
efficiency is promoted when broker-dealers may choose to receive
(and pay for) additional market data based on their own internal
analysis of the need for such data.\5\

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

By removing ``unnecessary regulatory restrictions'' on the ability of
exchanges to sell their own data, Regulation NMS advanced the goals of
the Act and the principles reflected in its legislative history. If the
free market should determine whether proprietary data is sold to
broker-dealers at all, it follows that the price at which such data is
sold should be set by the market as well. PSX TotalView is precisely
the sort of market data product that the Commission envisioned when it
adopted Regulation NMS.
    The decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit in NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir.
2010) (``NetCoalition I''), upheld the Commission's reliance upon
competitive markets to set reasonable and equitably allocated fees for
market data. ``In fact, the legislative history indicates that the
Congress intended that the market system `evolve through the interplay
of competitive forces as unnecessary regulatory restrictions are
removed' and that the SEC wield its regulatory power `in those
situations where competition may not be sufficient,' such as in the
creation of a `consolidated transactional reporting system.'
NetCoalition I, at 535 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 94-229, at 92 (1975), as
reprinted in 1975 U.S.C.C.A.N. 321, 323). The court agreed with the
Commission's conclusion that ``Congress intended that `competitive
forces should dictate the services and practices that constitute the
U.S. national market system for trading equity securities.' '' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ NetCoalition I, at 535.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Court in NetCoalition I, while upholding the Commission's
conclusion that competitive forces may be relied upon to establish the
fairness of prices, nevertheless concluded that the record in that case
did not adequately support the Commission's conclusions as to the
competitive nature of the market for NYSE Arca's data product at issue
in that case. As explained below in Phlx's Statement on Burden on
Competition, however, Phlx believes that there is substantial evidence
of competition in the marketplace for data that was not in the record
in the NetCoalition I case, and that the Commission is entitled to rely
upon such evidence in concluding fees are the product of competition,
and therefore in accordance with the relevant statutory standards.\7\
Accordingly, any findings of the court with respect to that product may
not be relevant to the product at issue in this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ It should also be noted that Section 916 of the Dodd-Frank
Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (``Dodd-Frank
Act'') has amended paragraph (A) of Section 19(b)(3) of the Act, 15
U.S.C. 78s(b)(3), to make it clear that all exchange fees, including
fees for market data, may be filed by exchanges on an immediately
effective basis. See also NetCoalition v. SEC, 715 F.3d 342 (D.C.
Cir. 2013) (``NetCoalition II'') (finding no jurisdiction to review
Commission's non-suspension of immediately effective fee changes).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Phlx believes that the allocation of the proposed fee is fair and
equitable in accordance with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, and not
unreasonably discriminatory in accordance with Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act. As described above, the proposed fee is based on pricing
conventions and distinctions that exist in Phlx's current fee schedule.
These distinctions are each based on principles of fairness and equity
that have helped for many years to maintain fair, equitable, and not
unreasonably discriminatory fees, and that apply with equal or greater
force to the current proposal.
    As described in greater detail below, if Phlx has calculated
improperly and the market deems the proposed fees to be unfair,
inequitable, or unreasonably discriminatory, firms can discontinue the
use of their data because the proposed product is entirely optional to
all parties. Firms are not required to purchase data and Phlx is not
required to make data available or to offer specific pricing
alternatives for potential purchases. Phlx can discontinue offering a
pricing alternative (as it has in the past) and firms can discontinue
their use at any time and for any reason (as they often do), including
due to their assessment of the reasonableness of fees charged. Phlx
continues to establish and revise pricing policies aimed at increasing
fairness and equitable allocation of fees among Subscribers.
    Phlx believes that periodically it must adjust the Subscriber fees
to reflect market forces. Phlx believes it is an appropriate time to
adjust this fee to more accurately reflect the investments made to
enhance this product through capacity upgrades. This also reflects that
the market for this information is highly competitive and continually
evolves as products develop and change.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.
Notwithstanding its determination that the Commission may rely upon
competition to establish fair and equitably allocated fees for market
data, the NetCoalition court found that the Commission had not, in that
case, compiled a record that adequately supported its conclusion that
the market for the data at issue in the case was competitive. Phlx
believes that a record may readily be established to demonstrate the
competitive nature of the market in question.
    There is intense competition between trading platforms that provide
transaction execution and routing services and proprietary data
products. Transaction execution and proprietary data products are
complementary in that market data is both an input and a byproduct of
the execution service. In fact, market data and trade execution are a
paradigmatic example of joint products with joint costs. Data products
are valuable to many end Subscribers only insofar as they provide
information that end Subscribers expect will assist them or their
customers in making trading decisions.
    The costs of producing market data include not only the costs of
the data distribution infrastructure, but also the costs of designing,
maintaining, and operating the exchange's transaction execution
platform and the cost of regulating the exchange to ensure its fair
operation and maintain investor confidence. The total return that a
trading platform earns reflects the revenues it receives from both
products and the joint costs it incurs. Moreover, an exchange's
customers view the costs of transaction executions and of data as a
unified cost of doing business with the exchange. A broker-dealer
(``BD'') will direct orders to a particular exchange only if the
expected revenues from executing trades on the exchange exceed net
transaction execution costs and the

cost of data that the BD chooses to buy to support its trading
decisions (or those of its customers). The choice of data products is,
in turn, a product of the value of the products in making profitable
trading decisions. If the cost of the product exceeds its expected
value, the BD will choose not to buy it. Moreover, as a BD chooses to
direct fewer orders to a particular exchange, the value of the product
to that BD decreases, for two reasons. First, the product will contain
less information, because executions of the BD's orders will not be
reflected in it. Second, and perhaps more important, the product will
be less valuable to that BD because it does not provide information
about the venue to which it is directing its orders. Data from the
competing venue to which the BD is directing orders will become
correspondingly more valuable.
    Thus, an increase in the fees charged for either transactions or
data has the potential to impair revenues from both products. ``No one
disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce'.'' NetCoalition at
24. However, the existence of fierce competition for order flow implies
a high degree of price sensitivity on the part of BDs with order flow,
since they may readily reduce costs by directing orders toward the
lowest-cost trading venues. A BD that shifted its order flow from one
platform to another in response to order execution price differentials
would both reduce the value of that platform's market data and reduce
its own need to consume data from the disfavored platform. Similarly,
if a platform increases its market data fees, the change will affect
the overall cost of doing business with the platform, and affected BDs
will assess whether they can lower their trading costs by directing
orders elsewhere and thereby lessening the need for the more expensive
data.
    Analyzing the cost of market data distribution in isolation from
the cost of all of the inputs supporting the creation of market data
will inevitably underestimate the cost of the data. Thus, because it is
impossible to create data without a fast, technologically robust, and
well-regulated execution system, system costs and regulatory costs
affect the price of market data. It would be equally misleading,
however, to attribute all of the exchange's costs to the market data
portion of an exchange's joint product. Rather, all of the exchange's
costs are incurred for the unified purposes of attracting order flow,
executing and/or routing orders, and generating and selling data about
market activity. The total return that an exchange earns reflects the
revenues it receives from the joint products and the total costs of the
joint products.
    Competition among trading platforms can be expected to constrain
the aggregate return each platform earns from the sale of its joint
products, but different platforms may choose from a range of possible,
and equally reasonable, pricing strategies as the means of recovering
total costs. Phlx pays rebates to attract orders, charges relatively
low prices for market information and charges relatively high prices
for accessing posted liquidity. Other platforms may choose a strategy
of paying lower liquidity rebates to attract orders, setting relatively
low prices for accessing posted liquidity, and setting relatively high
prices for market information. Still others may provide most data free
of charge and rely exclusively on transaction fees to recover their
costs. Finally, some platforms may incentivize use by providing
opportunities for equity ownership, which may allow them to charge
lower direct fees for executions and data.
    In this environment, there is no economic basis for regulating
maximum prices for one of the joint products in an industry in which
suppliers face competitive constraints with regard to the joint
offering. Such regulation is unnecessary because an ``excessive'' price
for one of the joint products will ultimately have to be reflected in
lower prices for other products sold by the firm, or otherwise the firm
will experience a loss in the volume of its sales that will be adverse
to its overall profitability. In other words, an increase in the price
of data will ultimately have to be accompanied by a decrease in the
cost of executions, or the volume of both data and executions will
fall.
    The level of competition and contestability in the market is
evident in the numerous alternative venues that compete for order flow,
including eleven SRO markets, as well as internalizing BDs and various
forms of alternative trading systems (``ATSs''), including dark pools
and electronic communication networks (``ECNs''). Each SRO market
competes to produce transaction reports via trade executions, and two
FINRA-regulated TRFs compete to attract internalized transaction
reports. It is common for BDs to further and exploit this competition
by sending their order flow and transaction reports to multiple
markets, rather than providing them all to a single market. Competitive
markets for order flow, executions, and transaction reports provide
pricing discipline for the inputs of proprietary data products.
    The large number of SROs, TRFs, BDs, and ATSs that currently
produce proprietary data or are currently capable of producing it
provides further pricing discipline for proprietary data products. Each
SRO, TRF, ATS, and BD is currently permitted to produce proprietary
data products, and many currently do or have announced plans to do so,
including Phlx, NYSE, NYSE MKT, NYSE Arca, and BATS/Direct Edge.
    Any ATS or BD can combine with any other ATS, BD, or multiple ATSs
or BDs to produce joint proprietary data products. Additionally, order
routers and market data vendors can facilitate single or multiple BDs'
production of proprietary data products. The potential sources of
proprietary products are virtually limitless. Notably, the potential
sources of data include the BDs that submit trade reports to TRFs and
that have the ability to consolidate and distribute their data without
the involvement of FINRA or an exchange-operated TRF.
    The fact that proprietary data from ATSs, BDs, and vendors can by-
pass SROs is significant in two respects. First, non-SROs can compete
directly with SROs for the production and sale of proprietary data
products, as BATS and NYSE Arca did before registering as exchanges by
publishing proprietary book data on the internet. Second, because a
single order or transaction report can appear in a core data product,
an SRO proprietary product, and/or a non-SRO proprietary product, the
data available in proprietary products is exponentially greater than
the actual number of orders and transaction reports that exist in the
marketplace.
    In addition to the competition and price discipline described
above, the market for proprietary data products is also highly
contestable because market entry is rapid, inexpensive, and profitable.
The history of electronic trading is replete with examples of entrants
that swiftly grew into some of the largest electronic trading platforms
and proprietary data producers: Archipelago, Bloomberg Tradebook,
Island, RediBook, Attain, TracECN, BATS Trading and BATS/Direct Edge. A
proliferation of dark pools and other ATSs operate profitably with
fragmentary shares of consolidated market volume.
    Regulation NMS, by deregulating the market for proprietary data,
has increased the contestability of that market. While BDs have
previously published their proprietary data individually, Regulation
NMS encourages market data vendors and BDs to produce proprietary
products

cooperatively in a manner never before possible. Multiple market data
vendors already have the capability to aggregate data and disseminate
it on a profitable scale, including Bloomberg and Thomson Reuters. In
Europe, Cinnober aggregates and disseminates data from over 40 brokers
and multilateral trading facilities.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See http://www.cinnober.com/boat-trade-reporting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this environment, a super-competitive increase in the fees
charged for either transactions or data has the potential to impair
revenues from both products. ``No one disputes that competition for
order flow is `fierce'.'' NetCoalition I at 539. The existence of
fierce competition for order flow implies a high degree of price
sensitivity on the part of BDs with order flow, since they may readily
reduce costs by directing orders toward the lowest-cost trading venues.
A BD that shifted its order flow from one platform to another in
response to order execution price differentials would both reduce the
value of that platform's market data and reduce its own need to consume
data from the disfavored platform. If a platform increases its market
data fees, the change will affect the overall cost of doing business
with the platform, and affected BDs will assess whether they can lower
their trading costs by directing orders elsewhere and thereby lessening
the need for the more expensive data.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\9\ At any time within 60 days of the filing
of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily
suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such
action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the
protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be
approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2015-112 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2015-112. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room on official business
days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal offices of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-Phlx-2015-112, and should be submitted on or before
January 27, 2016.

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

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-33206 Filed 1-5-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 127 (Thursday, July 2, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38245-38247]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16274]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75316; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2015-064]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Modify Recent Changes to Rules 4751(h) and 4754(b)

June 26, 2015.
    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 June 19, 2015, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, 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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to modify recent changes to Rules 4751(h) and
4754(b), which are effective but not yet implemented.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal office of
the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    NASDAQ is proposing to modify certain recent changes made to Rules
4751(h) and 4754(b), which are effective but not yet implemented. On
December 16, 2014, the Exchange filed an immediately effective filing
\3\ to amend the processing of the Closing Cross under Rule 4754(b) to
adopt a ``Lockdown Period,'' the point at which NASDAQ would close the
order book for participation in the Closing Cross and the continuous
market, and which would represent the close of the Regular Market
Session.\4\ The Exchange also amended Rule 4751(h) to harmonize the
processing of Market Hours Day orders \5\ and Good-til-market close
orders \6\ upon initiation of the Lockdown Period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73943 (December 24,
2014), 80 FR 69 (January 2, 2015) (SR-NASDAQ-2014-123).
    \4\ As defined by Rule 4120(b)(4)(D).
    \5\ See Rule 4751(h)(6).
    \6\ See Rule 4751(h)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange had originally anticipated implementing the changes in
mid-February 2015, after the expiration of the 30-day operative delay
provided by Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) under the Act.\7\ The Exchange
subsequently

extended the period for implementation to Monday, April 13, 2015,\8\
and then again until successful completion of a User Acceptance Test to
ensure the proper function of the proposed changes.\9\ Upon successful
completion of that test, the Exchange committed to announce a new
implementation date and provide notice of that date to the industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \8\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74342 (February 20,
2015), 80 FR 10562 (February 26, 2015) (SR-NASDAQ-2015-014).
    \9\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74795 (April 23, 2015),
80 FR 23839 (April 29, 2015) (SR-NASDAQ-2015-038).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange originally proposed to adopt the Lockdown Period so
that there would be a time at which no further orders would be accepted
for participation in the regular hours market including the Closing
Cross.\10\ The Closing Cross is the process by which NASDAQ determines
the price at which orders will be executed at market close. Each
trading day, NASDAQ accepts orders designated to participate in the
Closing Cross.\11\ Beginning at 3:50 p.m. Eastern Time, NASDAQ
disseminates an Order Imbalance Indicator \12\ every five seconds until
market close, which allows market participants to see the nature of
interest in a security and make investment decisions accordingly. The
NASDAQ closing process is initiated at 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time, after
which individual Closing Crosses are conducted for each security traded
on NASDAQ.\13\ During the brief period between the initiation of the
closing process and the conclusion of the last Closing Cross,\14\ the
continuous order book is open to accept orders and cancellations in a
security until the Closing Cross for that security is complete. These
orders can affect the ultimate closing price of the security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Rule 4754.
    \11\ See Rule 4754(a)(1) for a description of quotes and orders
eligible for participation in the Closing Cross.
    \12\ The Order Imbalance Indicator provides information about
orders eligible to participate in the Closing Cross and the price at
which those orders would execute at the time of dissemination.
    \13\ Once the closing process is initiated, the System will
execute crosses in each individual security traded on NASDAQ one by
one. The order in which each security is processed is random and
differs day by day.
    \14\ This brief period is normally well under one second.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposed adopting the Lockdown Period in an effort to
avoid a potential risk, albeit slight, that the closing price of a
security may be significantly altered by an aberrant order in a
security due to an error.\15\ The Exchange had balanced the benefits of
allowing orders up to the completion of the cross in an individual
security against the potential risk of an aberrant order affecting the
closing price of a security, and determined that setting a time after
which orders for participation in the cross would no longer be accepted
was the best approach to minimize risk. As the Exchange prepared to
implement the new process, a further review from technological and
broader market impact perspectives was conducted. This additional in-
depth review raised concerns regarding the challenges with maintaining
a lockdown state on the Exchange. In particular, the Exchange
reevaluated whether market participants, including other exchanges,
would react negatively to the brief Lockdown Period during which the
Exchange would not accept orders. Additionally, the Lockdown Period
introduced technological challenges that the Exchange believes were
addressed successfully. Nonetheless even successful solutions to
difficult challenges can create unforeseen risks. As such, the Exchange
has determined that the risk associated with making a broad change such
as the Lockdown Period outweighs the risk associated with isolated
events in which an order may have an undesirable impact on a particular
security. As a consequence, the Exchange is eliminating from Rule
4754(b) text stating that, beginning at 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time, no
further orders will be accepted for participation in the Closing Cross
or the continuous market, and is replacing it with new rule text which
makes it clear that the Exchange will accept orders for participation
in the Closing Cross or the continuous market after 4:00 p.m. Eastern
Time up to the conclusion of the Closing Cross in the individual
security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For example, a member firm that enters an order that is
erroneous in price and/or size may cause significant order
imbalances, which may cause the closing price of the security to be
significantly different from what is anticipated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a consequence of the proposed changes to Rule 4754(b), the
Exchange is proposing to modify rule text in Rules 4751(h)(6) and (8),
which note that the Exchange will not accept MDAY and GTMC Orders,
respectively, after 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The Exchange is amending
this language to make it clear that the System will accept such orders
up to the conclusion of the Closing Cross in the individual security,
which will occur sometime after 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time. A MDAY or GTMC
order entered after completion of the Closing Cross in the security for
which the order was designated will not be accepted.
    The Exchange will begin implementation of the proposed changes the
week of August 17, 2015 and will complete the implementation the week
of August 31, 2015. The Exchange will issue an Equity Trader Alert
notifying Exchange member firms of the changes.
2. Statutory Basis
    NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of section 6 of the Act,\16\ in general, and with
section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\17\ in particular, because 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 regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest; and is not designed to
permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to Rules 4751(h)
and 4754(b) further perfect the NASDAQ market and serve to protect
investors because they are designed to minimize risk and promote
consistency in the closing process. Although the Exchange had
originally adopted the Lockdown Period to address a potential and
slight risk that an aberrant trade could affect the closing price of a
security, it has since determined that instituting such a change would
introduce new risks to the closing process, which would outweigh the
benefit of adopting the Lockdown Period. As such, the Exchange believes
the proposed changes protect investors and the public interest because
they will serve to minimize risk in the closing process while also
promoting both consistency in how MDAY and GTMC orders are handled in
the closing process and transparency in the process for handling orders
at the close.

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

    NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.\18\ The Exchange
believes that the proposal is irrelevant to competition because it is
not driven by, and will have no impact on, competition. Specifically,
the proposal is

representative of the Exchange's efforts to minimize risk in its market
during the closing process, and to harmonize and simplify the
processing of MDAY and GTMC orders during the closing process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \19\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\20\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(iii).
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2015-064 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2015-064. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal offices of the Exchange.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2015-
064, and should be submitted on or before July 23, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-16274 Filed 7-1-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P