September 15, 2004 MEMORANDUM From: Michael Galbraith, USEPA/ OSW To: Hazardous Waste Combustor MACT Rule Docket, OAR 2004 0022 Subject: July 1, 2004 Meeting with Environmental Technology Council On July 1, 2004, the Environmental Technology Council ( ETC), represented by Dave Case and Bill Ziegler, met with USEPA staff ( Michael Galbraith, Hugh Davis, Bob Holloway, Frank Behan, Scott Rauenzahn and Steve Silverman) to discuss the hazardous waste combustor MACT proposal.

The discussion focused on ETC's comments on the proposal, and included topics such as achievability of the chlorine standard for incinerators, MACT floor methodologies, the cement kiln chlorine standard, and the thermal emissions standard format that applies to some of the source categories covered by the proposal.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 237 (Friday, December 9, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 89092]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29559]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Procedures for Submitting Reactive Power Filings

    Take notice that the Commission established procedures in Armstrong
Power, LLC, 156 FERC ] 61,009, at PP 21-23 (2016) \1\ to be followed in
making reactive power rate filings, including required informational
filings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Available at http://elibrary.ferc.gov/IDMWS/common/opennat.asp?fileID=14297574.

    Dated: December 5, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-29559 Filed 12-8-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


RFG 8 HOUR INSERT   WHAT IT DOES ORIGINAL 9 MANDATORY RFG AREAS Under the CAA, the RFG requirements apply in certain areas of the country. The first sentence of section 211( k)( 10)( D) identifies certain covered areas by reference to their 1980 population and their 1987 1989 ozone design value. The nine areas that meet these criteria are Los Angeles, San Diego, Hartford, New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Baltimore, Houston, and Milwaukee. It is clear that transition to the 8 hour NAAQS does not change the historical facts that define these areas. In addition, all of these areas are designated as nonattainment areas under the 8 hour NAAQS. ° Today's rule specifies that the nine original RFG mandatory areas must continue to use RFG at least until they are redesignated to attainment for the 8 hour standard.

BUMP UP RFG AREAS Similarly, the second sentence of section 211( k)( 10)( D) identifies areas that become covered areas because they have been reclassified as a severe area under CAA section 181( b). These are called " bump up" areas. To date, five areas have been reclassified to severe for the 1 hour NAAQS. They became RFG covered areas one year after their reclassification  Baton Rouge, Atlanta, Sacramento, San Joaquin Valley, and Washington, DC which was already an opt in area.

° EPA has determined that areas that have been reclassified as severe areas under section 181( b) of the Act for the 1 hour NAAQS, and which were not redesignated to attainment for the 1 hour NAAQS prior to its revocation, must continue to use RFG at least until they are redesignated to attainment for the 8 hour standard. ° EPA is reserving for future consideration what RFG requirements apply to areas that were reclassified as severe under the 1 hour standard, but were redesignated to attainment for that standard before its revocation. At this time the only such area that has been redesignated to attainment for the 1 hour standard is Atlanta, Georgia.

OPT IN RFG AREAS Under section 211( k)( 6) of the CAA, certain ozone nonattainment areas may opt in to the RFG program. That provision limits opt ins to areas " classified under subpart 2 of part D of title I as a marginal, moderate, serious, or severe Area." ° Finally, EPA clarifies that the current opt in rules will remain in place after the 1 hour standard is revoked. The RFG areas that opted into the program will continue to be RFG areas unless they opt out pursuant to EPA's opt out regulations. ° Likewise, EPA's current rules on opting in to RFG will apply in the same manner under the 8 hour NAAQS as under the 1 hour NAAQS  ie., 8 hour nonattainment areas that are classified as marginal or above under Subpart 2 will be able to opt in to the RFG program.

WHEN AN RFG MANDATORY OR BUMP UP AREA IS REDESIGNATED ATTAINMENT FOR THE 8 HOUR NAAQS ° EPA is today reserving for future consideration what RFG requirements, if any, should apply to the nine mandatory areas and the bump up areas covered by this final rule when they are redesignated as attainment for the 8 hour NAAQS. ° As noted above, EPA is not deciding at this time what RFG requirements apply for any bump up areas that are redesignated to attainment for the 1 hour NAAQS before the 1 hour NAAQS is revoked. At this time the only such area that has been redesignated to attainment for the 1 hour NAAQS is Atlanta, Georgia. That issue will be addressed in an action separate from this final rule.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 229 (Wednesday, November 27, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70906-70907]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28239]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0638; FRL-9902-87]

Receipt of a Pesticide Petition Filed for Residues of Pesticide
Chemicals in or on Various Commodities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of filing of petition and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces the Agency's receipt of a revision to
an initial filing of a pesticide petition requesting the establishment
or modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in
or on various commodities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 27, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0638, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Olga Odiott, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that

you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you
mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then
identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific
information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version
of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the
comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be
submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked
will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides
discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

II. What action is the agency taking?

    EPA is announcing receipt of a revised pesticide petition filed
under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),
(21 U.S.C. 346a), requesting the establishment or modification of
regulations in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in
or on various food commodities. The Agency is taking public comment on
the request before responding to the petitioner. EPA is not proposing
any particular action at this time. EPA has determined that the
pesticide petition described in this document contains data or
information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not
fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or
whether the data supports granting of the pesticide petition. After
considering the public comments, EPA intends to evaluate whether and
what action may be warranted. Additional data may be needed before EPA
can make a final determination on this pesticide petition.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of the petition that is the
subject of this document, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a
docket EPA has created for this rulemaking. The docket for this
petition is available online at http://www.regulations.gov.
    As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), (21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3)),
EPA is publishing notice of the petition so that the public has an
opportunity to comment on this request for the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food
commodities.
    PP 2F8053 (Revised) (EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0638). BASF Corporation, 26
Davis Drive, P.O. Box 13528, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3528
submitted revisions to their initial pesticide petition 2F8053 to
establish tolerances in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the fungicide
fluxapyroxad, (BAS 700 F); 1H-Pyrazole-4-carboxamide,3-
(difluoromethyl)-1-methyl-N-(3',4',5'-trifluoro 1,1'-biphenyl-2-yl)-,
its metabolites, and degradates, in or on various commodities. Based on
EPA's evaluation of the data supporting the original petition, BASF
Corporation revised the petition by proposing tolerances for fish-
freshwater finfish; fish-shellfish, crustacean; and hog, meat
byproducts at 0.01 parts per million (ppm); and by decreasing,
increasing, or deleting previously proposed tolerances for various
commodities.
    Further information on the revised petition may be obtained through
the petition summary referenced in this unit.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives,
Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: November 14, 2013.
G. Jeffery Herndon,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2013-28239 Filed 11-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 15, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 2984]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00628]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER13-734-000]

Atlantic Coast Energy Corporation; Supplemental Notice That
Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section
204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding,
of Atlantic Coast Energy Corporation's application for market-based
rate authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability is January 29, 2013.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also 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 email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 9, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-00628 Filed 1-14-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 210 (Wednesday, October 30, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58150-58152]
[FR Doc No: 2019-23664]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0326; FRL-9997-28]

Anthraquinone; Pesticide Registration Review; Docket Opened for
Review and Comment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: With this document, EPA is opening the public comment period
for review of anthraquinone. Registration review is EPA's periodic
review of pesticide registrations to ensure that each pesticide
continues to satisfy the statutory standard for registration, that is,
the pesticide can perform its intended function without unreasonable
adverse effects on human health or the environment. Registration review
dockets contain information that will assist the public in
understanding the types of information and issues that the Agency may
consider during the course of registration reviews. Through this
program, EPA is ensuring that each pesticide's registration is based on
current scientific and other knowledge, including its effects on human
health and the environment.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 30, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0326, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For anthraquinone information contact: Rachel Fletcher, Pesticide
Re-evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460-0001;

telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: Melanie Biscoe, Pesticide Re-
evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: (703) 308-
8090; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, farmworker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry;
pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale,
distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be
interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities that may be affected by this action.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the
pesticide(s) discussed in this document, compared to the general
population.

II. Authority

    EPA is initiating its reviews of the pesticide identified in this
document pursuant to section 3(g) of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136a(g)) and the
Procedural Regulations for Registration Review at 40 CFR part 155,
subpart C. FIFRA section 3(g) provides, among other things, that the
registrations of pesticides are to be reviewed every 15 years. Under
FIFRA, a pesticide product may be registered or remain registered only
if it meets the statutory standard for registration given in FIFRA
section 3(c)(5) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(5)). When used in accordance with
widespread and commonly recognized practice, the pesticide product must
perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on
the environment; that is, without any unreasonable risk to man or the
environment, or a human dietary risk from residues that result from the
use of a pesticide in or on food.

III. Registration Reviews

A. What action is the Agency taking?

    As directed by FIFRA section 3(g), EPA is reviewing the pesticide
registration for anthraquinone to assure that it continues to satisfy
the FIFRA standard for registration--that is, it can still be used
without unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the
environment. A pesticide's registration review begins when the Agency
establishes a docket for the pesticide's registration review case and
opens the docket for public review and comment. The registration review
docket for anthraquinone was opened in 2017 and included a Preliminary
Work Plan reflecting anthraquinone's status as a biopesticide.
Anthraquinone is currently classified as a conventional pesticide. As
such, EPA has drafted an amended Preliminary Work Plan reflecting
anthraquinone's conventional pesticide status. This amended Preliminary
Work Plan is being made available for public comment in docket EPA-HQ-
OPP-2017-0326 (Case Number 6054).

B. Docket Content

    1. Review docket. The registration review docket contains
information that the Agency may consider in the course of the
registration review. The Agency may include information from its files
including, but not limited to, the following information:
     An overview of the registration review case status.
     A list of current product registrations and registrants.
     Federal Register notices regarding any pending
registration actions.
     Federal Register notices regarding current or pending
tolerances.
     Risk assessments.
     Bibliographies concerning current registrations.
     Summaries of incident data.
     Any other pertinent data or information.
    Each docket contains a document summarizing what the Agency
currently knows about the pesticide case and a preliminary work plan
for anticipated data and assessment needs. Additional documents provide
more detailed information. During this public comment period, the
Agency is asking that interested persons identify any additional
information they believe the Agency should consider during the
registration reviews of these pesticides. The Agency identifies in each
docket the areas where public comment is specifically requested, though
comment in any area is welcome.
    2. Other related information. More information on this case,
including the active ingredient, may be located in the registration
review schedule on the Agency's website at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-reevaluation/registration-review-schedules. Information on
the Agency's registration review program and its implementing
regulation may be seen at http://www.epa.gov/pesticide-reevaluation.
    3. Information submission requirements. Anyone may submit data or
information in response to this document. To be considered during a
pesticide's registration review, the submitted data or information must
meet the following requirements:
     To ensure that EPA will consider data or information
submitted, interested persons must submit the data or information
during the comment period. The Agency may, at its discretion, consider
data or information submitted at a later date.
     The data or information submitted must be presented in a
legible and useable form. For example, an English translation must
accompany any material that is not in English and a written transcript
must accompany any information submitted as an audiographic or
videographic record. Written material may be submitted in paper or
electronic form.

     Submitters must clearly identify the source of any
submitted data or information.
     Submitters may request the Agency to reconsider data or
information that the Agency rejected in a previous review. However,
submitters must explain why they believe the Agency should reconsider
the data or information in the pesticide's registration review.
    As provided in 40 CFR 155.58, the registration review docket for
each pesticide case will remain publicly accessible through the
duration of the registration review process; that is, until all actions
required in the final decision on the registration review case have
been completed.

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: August 1, 2019.
Mary Reaves,
Acting Director, Pesticide Re-evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2019-23664 Filed 10-29-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 9, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37248-37253]
[FR Doc No: 2017-16743]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81311; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2017-074]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt the Midpoint Extended
Life Order

August 3, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on July 21, 2017, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to adopt the Midpoint Extended Life Order.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal office of
the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The U.S. equities markets are the envy of the world because they
are singularly effective at attracting and allocating capital to
innovative companies that create millions of jobs and trillions of
dollars of shareholder value, companies like Apple, Google, Facebook,
Amazon, Cisco Systems, Gilead, and thousands of other Nasdaq issuers.
As the listing venue and the steward of the market on which they are
listed, Nasdaq is compelled to make innovative changes to better the
quality of the market, to the benefit of issuers and the people that
invest in issuers' securities.
    As discussed in detail below, Nasdaq is proposing to adopt the
Midpoint Extended Life Order as a new Order Type \3\ available to all
members, and by extension to their customers, which will reward market
participants that commit to a minimum half-second period (``Holding
Period''), during which their order remains unchanged. Midpoint
Extended Life Orders provide a mechanism by which market participants
may receive a midpoint execution with other Midpoint Extended Life
Orders that have also met the same Holding Period requirement. Like
Nasdaq's Extended Life Order Attribute,\4\ Nasdaq is continuing its
drive to provide innovative solutions to increase participation on the
market by a broader array of investors. Nasdaq proposed the Extended
Life Order Attribute as a first step in broadening participation on the
market by providing priority to retail orders that often have longer
term investment horizons. The Extended Life Order Attribute provides
retail market participants a mechanism by which they have more
opportunity to participate effectively at the prevailing market price
when transactions occur. Nasdaq is now proposing a new Order Type that
will allow all market participants to more effectively execute longer
term investment strategies--the Midpoint Extended Life Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Order'' means an instruction to trade a specified
number of shares in a specified System Security submitted to the
Nasdaq Market Center by a Participant. An ``Order Type'' is a
standardized set of instructions associated with an Order that
define how it will behave with respect to pricing, execution, and/or
posting to the Nasdaq Book when submitted to Nasdaq. An ``Order
Attribute'' is a further set of variable instructions that may be
associated with an Order to further define how it will behave with
respect to pricing, execution, and/or posting to the Nasdaq Book
when submitted to Nasdaq. The available Order Types and Order
Attributes, and the Order Attributes that may be associated with
particular Order Types, are described in Rules 4702 and 4703. One or
more Order Attributes may be assigned to a single Order; provided,
however, that if the use of multiple Order Attributes would provide
contradictory instructions to an Order, the System will reject the
Order or remove non-conforming Order Attributes. See Rule 4701(e).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81097 (July 7,
2017), 82 FR 32386 (July 13, 2017) (SR-NASDAQ-2016-161).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    The Exchange operates based on a price/display/time priority
execution algorithm.\5\ Simply put, the first displayed order at a
price has priority over the next order and so on (this is also
sometimes referred to as ``First In First Out'' or ``FIFO''). All
displayed orders have priority over non-displayed orders at a price
level. Midpoint Orders are non-displayed \6\ and allow participants to
receive price improvement by executing against other non-displayed
liquidity at the midpoint of the National Best Bid and Offer
(``NBBO''). Nasdaq believes that some market participants that are
looking for executions at the midpoint often have a longer investment
horizon (i.e., long term investors), many of which are seeking both the
best execution possible at the midpoint of the NBBO and are not
necessarily measuring execution quality solely by each tick by tick
change in market price. Some of these market participants with large-
sized Orders are seeking to gain such an execution while minimizing
market impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Rule 4757.
    \6\ Display is an Order Attribute that allows the price and size
of an Order to be displayed to market participants via market data
feeds. Certain Order Types may be non-displayed if they are not
assigned a Display Order Attribute, and all non-displayed Orders may
be referred to as ``Non-Displayed Orders.'' In contrast, an Order
with a Display Order Attribute may be referred to as a ``Displayed
Order.'' See Rule 4703(k).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Over time, as order placement competition on Nasdaq has grown, the
time that it takes for market participants to react to changes in the
markets has decreased significantly. In addition, orders that access
resting liquidity on exchanges have decreased in size due to the
fragmented nature of the broader market and the adoption of algorithmic
trading. As a result of this decrease in reaction time and size of
orders, Nasdaq, and the equities markets in general, have become
incredibly efficient. The nature of today's equities markets, however,
have made it difficult for certain market participants that have longer
term investment horizons and that focus on minimizing market impact
rather than optimizing for queue placement. This is particularly true
for market participants that are attempting to trade large-sized
Orders.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Nasdaq notes that market participants with large-sized
Orders and that are not necessarily monitoring small changes in the
NBBO or time to execution, include ``Institutional'' investors.
Institutional investors are generally characterized as large
entities that make investments on behalf of their owners or
investors, such as pension funds and mutual funds. Nonetheless,
Nasdaq believes that Midpoint Extended Life Orders will provide
benefit to a wide array of market participants. As noted above,
Midpoint Extended Life Orders are available to all Nasdaq members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq weighed various ideas on how to augment the interaction on
Nasdaq to meet the needs of these underserved market participants.
Nasdaq believes that it is better to provide incentives that protect
midpoint Orders by improving execution quality without impacting the
ability to manage risk and to reduce the potential for order adjustment
and cancellation, rather than apply blanket artificial latency
mechanisms that apply to all Orders, which may distort or have
unintended consequences on market quality such as disadvantaging
displayed Orders. Nasdaq is proposing to address the needs of market
participants that focus their trading on receiving midpoint execution
where time to execution is less important when working to meet their
long term investment needs. As discussed in detail below, Nasdaq is
proposing to provide the Midpoint Extended Life Order as a voluntary
option by which these market participants may participate on Nasdaq in
return for allowing their orders to exist unchanged for a certain time.
Proposal
    The Exchange is proposing to adopt a new Order Type that will allow
all market participants that are less concerned with time to execution
to receive executions at the midpoint of the NBBO, while deemphasizing
speed as a factor in achieving the execution. Specifically, the
Midpoint Extended Life Order is an Order Type with a Non-

Display Order Attribute \8\ that is priced at the midpoint between the
NBBO and that will not be eligible to execute until the Holding Period
of one half of a second has passed after acceptance of the Order by the
System.\9\ The Holding Period represents a level of market risk that
the market participant has assumed in order to receive a midpoint
execution with other Midpoint Extended Life Orders, which have also met
the Holding Period requirement. Moreover, the Holding Period mitigates
risk that a market participant may attempt to access other Midpoint
Extended Life Orders just prior to a move in the NBBO, thereby
potentially negatively affecting the price at which the contra-side
Midpoint Extended Life Order would receive. In order to allow members
to effectively manage risk, a Midpoint Extended Life Order may be
cancelled at any time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See note 6, supra.
    \9\ As noted above, a Midpoint Extended Life Order must remained
[sic] unchanged for the Holding Period. If a Midpoint Extended Life
Order is modified by a member during the Holding Period, the System
will restart the Holding Period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Once a Midpoint Extended Life Order becomes eligible to execute by
existing unchanged for the Holding Period, the Order may only execute
against other eligible Midpoint Extended Life Orders. Like other
midpoint pegged Orders,\10\ once the Midpoint Extended Life Order is
eligible, a buy (sell) Midpoint Extended Life Order will be ranked in
time order at the midpoint among other buy (sell) Midpoint Extended
Life Orders. As discussed above, limiting interaction of Midpoint
Extended Life Orders to other Midpoint Extended Life Orders mitigates
the impact that these orders will have on the market and allows market
participants entering such orders an increased chance of receiving a
full execution at the midpoint of the NBBO at a given time.
Importantly, limiting interaction of Midpoint Extended Life Orders
ensures fairness because all Midpoint Extended Life Orders have met the
same Holding Period requirement, thereby ensuring that members with
Midpoint Extended Life Order are not disadvantaged by non-Midpoint
Extended Life Orders entered by participant that have the benefit of
knowing, and reacting to, the current state of the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See also Rule 4703(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A Midpoint Extended Life Order may be assigned a limit price. A
limit price restricts the price at which an order may execute such that
an order to sell may not execute below a certain price and an order to
buy may not execute above a certain price. If a market participant
assigns a limit price to its Midpoint Extended Life Order, the Order
will be: (1) Eligible for execution in time priority if upon acceptance
of the Order by the System and during the Holding Period thereafter,
the midpoint price is within the limit set by the participant; or (2)
held until the midpoint falls within the limit set by the participant
at which time the Holding Period will commence and thereafter the
System will make the Order eligible for execution in time priority if
the midpoint price remains within the limit set by the participant
during the Holding Period. For example, if the Best Bid was $11 and the
Best Offer was $11.06, the price of the Midpoint Extended Life Order
would be $11.03. If a participant enters a Midpoint Extended Life Order
to buy with a limit of $11.02, the Holding Period would not begin until
the midpoint price is executable at $11.02 (i.e., the midpoint of the
NBBO).\11\ If a member takes an action on the Order (e.g., amend,
revise) the System will re-start the clock based on the same criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ If a Midpoint Extended Life Order has met the Holding
Period requirement but the midpoint is no longer within its limit,
it will nonetheless be ranked in time priority among other Midpoint
Extended Life Orders if the NBBO later moves such that it is within
the Order's limit price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similar to other Orders with midpoint pegging,\12\ Midpoint
Extended Life Orders are only available for execution during Market
Hours \13\ and they may not be designated with a time-in-force of
Immediate or Cancel (IOC),\14\ since the IOC Time In Force, by its
nature, are [sic] inconsistent with the Holding Period requirement of
the proposal. If a Midpoint Extended Life Order is entered during Pre-
Market Hours,\15\ the System will hold the Order until completion of
the Opening Cross, ranked in the time that it was received. If a
Midpoint Extended Life Order is entered during Post-Market Hours,\16\
it will be rejected by the System. Midpoint Extended Life Orders are
not eligible for the Nasdaq Opening, Halt and Closing Crosses, and any
Midpoint Extended Life Orders that have not been executed by the end of
Market Hours will be cancelled.\17\ Midpoint Extended Life Orders in
existence at the time a Halt Cross is initiated will be ineligible to
execute and held by the System until trading has resumed and the NBBO
has been received by Nasdaq. Also, like other Orders with midpoint
pegging, a Midpoint Extended Life Order may be executed in sub-pennies
if necessary to obtain a midpoint price.\18\ Last, a Midpoint Extended
Life Order must be entered with a size of at least one round lot, which
will promote size in Midpoint Extended Life Orders and provide members
with the most efficient processing of Midpoint Extended Life Orders.
Any shares of a Midpoint Extended Life Order remaining after an
execution that are less than a round lot will be cancelled by the
System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See, e.g., Rule 4702(b)(5); see also Rule 4703(d).
    \13\ Market Hours begin after the completion of the Nasdaq
Opening Cross (or at 9:30 a.m. ET in the case of a security for
which no Nasdaq Opening Cross occurs). See Rule 4703(a). Nasdaq
limits midpoint orders to Market Hours because, among other things,
it believes that demand for such Orders is limited to Market Hours,
since the wider spreads generally prevail during Pre-Market and
Post-Market Hours trading sessions. See notes 15 and 16, infra.
Wider spreads would result in execution prices more at variance from
the NBBO than would be the case during Market Hours.
    \14\ See Rule 4703(a)(1).
    \15\ The term ``Pre-Market Hours'' means the period of time
beginning at 4:00 a.m. ET and ending immediately prior to the
commencement of Market Hours. See Rule 4701(g).
    \16\ The term ``Post-Market Hours'' means the period of time
beginning immediately after the end of Market Hours and ending at
8:00 p.m. ET. See Rule 4701(g).
    \17\ See Rule 4703(d).
    \18\ Id. A sub-penny limit price entered by a member would not
be accepted by the System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A Midpoint Extended Life Order may have a Minimum Quantity Order
Attribute.\19\ Like other Orders with a Minimum Quantity Order
Attribute, if an eligible Midpoint Extended Life Order has a Minimum
Quantity Order Attribute and an eligible contra-side Midpoint Extended
Life Order does not meet the quantity requirement, neither Order will
execute. If another Midpoint Extended Life Order is ranked in priority
behind the Midpoint Extended Life Order with a Minimum Quantity Order
Attribute, it will execute against the contra-interest instead, if it
is otherwise marketable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Minimum Quantity is an Order Attribute that allows a
Participant to provide that an Order will not execute unless a
specified minimum quantity of shares can be obtained. A Participant
may designate that the minimum quantity condition be satisfied by
execution against multiple Orders or a single Order. See Rule
4703(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, unlike certain delay mechanisms available on
other exchanges, use of the proposed Midpoint Extended Life Order is
wholly voluntary, and thus does not subject all members to the Holding
Period. As a consequence, there is no distortive impact on market data
as Midpoint Extended Life Order would be trade reported like any other
Order. Moreover, members will not need to take any special steps to
implement Midpoint Extended Life Orders, since it is an Order Type. In
this regard, members, Securities Information Processors and market data
consumers will not need to make any changes to their systems to account
for Midpoint Extended Life Orders in market data because they will

be reported the same as other midpoint Orders, without any new or
special indication. In sum, the Midpoint Extended Life Order is a
simple mechanism by which Nasdaq can broaden its ecosystem of
participants with little impact to the operation of the markets.
Implementation
    Nasdaq plans to implement Midpoint Extended Life Orders within
thirty days after Commission approval of the proposal. Nasdaq will make
the Midpoint Extended Life Order available to all members and to all
securities upon implementation. Nasdaq will announce the implementation
date by Equity Trader Alert.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\20\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\21\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public
interest. Nasdaq believes that the proposed change is consistent with
this provision of the Act because it is emblematic of a core function
of a national securities exchange, namely matching buyers and sellers
of securities on a transparent and well-regulated market, and helping
these buyers and sellers come together to receive the best execution
possible. Nasdaq is achieving this by permitting Midpoint Extended Life
Orders to execute solely against other Midpoint Extended Life Orders at
the midpoint of the NBBO in return for providing market-improving
behavior in the form of a longer-lived midpoint order. As noted above,
Nasdaq believes that programmatic or intentional delays for all
incoming Orders irrespective of trading objectives and regardless as to
whether it is displayed or non-displayed, insert complexity into the
market and are detrimental to overall market structure. By contrast,
Nasdaq's proposal seeks to provide a simple mechanism by which market
participants with longer investment horizons are able to source
liquidity at the midpoint of the NBBO. Importantly, Midpoint Extended
Life Orders will be available to all members, yet are wholly voluntary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed Midpoint Extended Life Order will provide members an
opportunity to execute at the midpoint, only interacting with other
Midpoint Extended Life Orders, in return for allowing their Orders to
remain unchanged for the Holding Period. As Nasdaq has noted before, a
great deal of the liquidity that is provided on exchanges is from
market makers and automated liquidity providers, who have invested in
technology and efficiency, which has resulted in many positive
developments such as deep and liquid markets. Nasdaq is implementing
Midpoint Extended Life Orders to increase access to, and participation
on, Nasdaq for investors that are less concerned with time to
execution, but rather are looking to source liquidity, often in greater
size, at the midpoint of the NBBO against a contra-party Order that has
met the same objectives. Currently, these market participants are
underweighted or do not represent these Orders on Nasdaq, and the
Midpoint Extended Life Order will provide additional tools to allow
them to more effectively implement their investment strategies.
Additionally, Midpoint Extended Life Orders will provide these
participants with the many benefits provided by a well-regulated
exchange, including transparency through publicly available rules,
certainty surrounding trade execution, and market surveillance.
Midpoint Extended Life Orders is wholly voluntary, available to all
members, and does not subject all members to the Holding Period
regardless of time horizon or investment objective, unlike certain
delay mechanisms available on other exchanges. The Midpoint Extended
Life Order is a simple mechanism by which Nasdaq can broaden its
ecosystem of participants with little impact to the operation of the
markets.
    The Exchange believes that markets and price discovery best
function through the interactions of a diverse set of market
participants. The Exchange also believes that the evolution of the
markets which have brought many beneficial efficiencies have also made
it difficult for some market participants to participate on the
Exchange. The differentiation proposed herein by Nasdaq is not designed
to permit unfair discrimination, but instead to promote increased
participation on the Exchange by market participants that find it
difficult to do so today and provide improved execution quality for
market participants that are less concerned with time to execution. The
Exchange believes that the transparency and competitiveness of offering
Midpoint Extended Life Orders on a registered national securities
exchange will result in a better execution experience for all
investors.
    The Exchange notes that other market participants that enter orders
that would otherwise be eligible to execute against a midpoint order
will not be able to execute against a Midpoint Extended Life Order. The
Exchange believes that this is not unfairly discriminatory because any
market participant may enter a Midpoint Extended Life Order, thereby
providing them access to other Midpoint Extended Life Orders. The
Exchange notes that the statutory standard under Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act is that the proposed change not discriminate unfairly. Nasdaq does
not believe that providing an Order Type available to all members
discriminates unfairly. To the contrary, Nasdaq believes that the
Midpoint Extended Life Order will provide members with choice and more
opportunities to interact on Nasdaq. Moreover, Nasdaq believes that
much of the Midpoint Extended Life Orders will be entered by
participants that typically do not enter Orders on Nasdaq for the
reasons noted above. As a consequence, the Exchange does not believe
that the current depth of liquidity on the Nasdaq will be impacted
negatively, but rather Midpoint Extended Life Orders will provide
members with the opportunity to interact in new ways on the Exchange.
Consequently, the Exchange does not believe the proposed change
discriminates unfairly.
    The Exchange also believes that the proposal will improve the
ecosystem of market participants on Nasdaq. Midpoint orders generally
provide price improvement to both sides to a trade, with each party
sharing the ``spread'' between the bid and ask. Midpoint Extended Life
Orders will also provide this benefit, but in a manner that will allow
the market participants to execute against other Midpoint Extended Life
Orders that have met the same Holding Period criteria. Since both sides
of a Midpoint Extended Life Order execution are subject to the Holding
Period, it does not discriminate or provide unfair advantages to either
side of the trade. This mechanism will ensure that the Midpoint
Extended Life Order is fair, by not allowing a side to the transaction
to have an advantage based on timing. Moreover, the Exchange believes
that Midpoint Extended Life Orders should draw new market participants
to Nasdaq's transparent and well-regulated market. Nasdaq, like other
national securities exchanges, is subject to the requirements of the
Exchange Act, is regulated by the Commission, is subject to inspection
by the Commission, and

must have transparent and fair rules applied to all of its members.
    Nasdaq believes that requiring Midpoint Extended Life Orders to
exist unaltered for at least one half a second is a meaningful time,
representing a significant level of risk taken by the market
participant in return for the ability to receive a midpoint execution
with other Midpoint Extended Life Orders, which have also met the
Holding Period requirement. Although, one could argue that every stock
is unique in the amount of time that represents a meaningful level of
risk, the Exchange believes that implementing a program with
individualized time requirements would be overly complex and would
ultimately be too cumbersome for the industry to adopt. The Exchange
came to the same conclusion in designing the requirements of the ELO
Order Attribute. As Nasdaq noted in its ELO Order Attribute proposal,
the concept of rewarding market participants that provide Orders that
live for a certain minimum time is currently used in Canada by the
Toronto Stock Exchange. Named the ``Long Life'' order type, it is
designed to enhance the quality of execution for natural investors and
their dealers by rewarding those willing to commit liquidity to the
book for a minimum period of time and by enabling participants to gain
priority in return for a longer resting time.\22\ Compliance with the
Holding Period will be enforced by the System, and transactions in
Midpoint Extended Life Orders will be reported to the Securities
Information Processor and will be provided in Nasdaq's proprietary data
feed in the same manner as all other transactions occurring on Nasdaq
are done currently, namely, without any new or special indication that
it is a Midpoint Extended Life Order execution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See https://www.tmx.com/newsroom/press-releases?id=352; see
also http://www.osc.gov.on.ca/documents/en/Marketplaces/xxr-tsx_20150818_amd-rule-book-policies.pdf (Notice of Approval).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated previously, the Exchange believes that the proposed
change will benefit market participants that have longer term
investment horizons and that often seek liquidity at the midpoint of
the NBBO. Moreover, Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed Midpoint
Extended Life Order will negatively affect the quality of the market
because the Exchange anticipates the Order Type will draw new market
participants to the Exchange, which are currently underserved. If the
Exchange is incorrect, there are many substitutes in the market where
market participants can send their orders. There are twelve other
exchanges, over thirty registered Alternative Trading Systems, and many
other non-registered off-exchange trading platforms, which a
participant may choose to use if the execution quality on Nasdaq
suffers due to the introduction of Midpoint Extended Life Orders.
    As the Commission noted in approving the exchange application of
Investors Exchange LLC, the Exchange Act does not foreclose reasonable
and not unfairly discriminatory innovations, including those that are
designed to protect investors who seek to reliably place passive, non-
displayed pegged orders on an exchange.\23\ For the reasons noted
above, Nasdaq believes that the proposed Midpoint Extended Life Order
further perfects the mechanism of a free and open market, promotes
competition, broadens participation on Nasdaq, and considers the cost/
benefit of implementation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78101 (June 17,
2016), 81 FR 41142, 41157 (June 23, 2016) (File No. 10-222).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Nasdaq recognizes that participants that invest in capabilities
that allow them to drive price formation by repeatedly improving the
NBBO on the Exchange bring tremendous value to the market by providing
efficient prices, lowering costs for individual investors, and
supporting price formation and stability for securities listed on
Nasdaq and other U.S. exchanges. Nasdaq believes that Midpoint Extended
Life Orders can coexist with existing participation strategies on
Nasdaq to the benefit of all Exchange participants. As discussed above,
the Exchange believes that the Midpoint Extended Life Order will draw
new market participants to Nasdaq, with which existing market
participants may interact by using the Midpoint Extended Life Order.
For this reason, Nasdaq 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. Rather, Nasdaq believes that
the proposed change increases competition and therefore improves
participation by allowing certain market participants that may
currently be underserved on regulated exchanges to compete based on
elements other than speed. Specifically, the proposed change will allow
market participants that have not invested in limit order queue
placement but rather take risk by allowing their midpoint Order to
exist unchanged for the Holding Period to have the ability to execute
against other such Orders that have rested unchanged for the same
duration. Although market participants that choose not to submit
Midpoint Extended Life Orders will not have the opportunity to interact
with such Orders, Nasdaq notes that this is solely the choice of the
member since the Midpoint Extended Life Order is available to all
members but its use is not compulsory. Additionally, adoption of
Midpoint Extended Life Orders will not burden any market participants,
including those that choose not to use these Orders, because no changes
need to be made to their systems to account for Midpoint Extended Life
Orders. As discussed above, Midpoint Extended Life Orders will be
reported the same as other midpoint Orders, without any new or special
indicator.
    The Exchange believes that increasing participation on Nasdaq will
always serve to improve the overall ecosystem on the Exchange. To the
extent that the proposal can bring additional order flow from different
segments of the market with different long term investment goals to the
Exchange, all market participants will benefit. Thus, the aim of the
Proposal is not to disadvantage any one set of market participant, but
rather to promote a healthy and inclusive market that will benefit all
market participants, including those that currently contribute
significant liquidity to the Exchange. Nasdaq believes Midpoint
Extended Life Orders will provide a mechanism by which certain market
participants that struggle to receive a midpoint execution at the NBBO
at any given moment the opportunity to receive such an execution, while
also providing existing participants an opportunity to interact with
these new participants through a Midpoint Extended Life Order.
    The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market
in which market participants can readily choose between competing
venues if they deem participation in Nasdaq's market is no longer
desirable. In such an environment, the Exchange must carefully consider
the impact that any change it proposes may have on its participants,
understanding that it will likely lose participants to the extent a
change is viewed as unfavorable by them. Because competitors are free
to modify the incentives and structure of their markets, the Exchange
believes that the degree to which modifying the market structure of an
individual market may impose any burden on competition is limited.
Last, to the extent the proposed change is successful in attracting
additional market

participants, Nasdaq also believes that the proposed change will
promote competition among trading venues by making Nasdaq a more
attractive trading venue for long-term investors and therefore capital
formation.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2017-074 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2017-074. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2017-074 and should
be submitted on or before August 30, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-16743 Filed 8-8-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 5 (Friday, January 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1205-1208]
[FR Doc No: 2011-93]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63632; File No. SR-BATS-2010-038]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Related to
Fees for Use of BATS Exchange, Inc.

January 3, 2011
    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 21, 2010, BATS Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BATS'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one establishing or
changing a member due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange
under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed rule change 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)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to modify its fee schedule applicable to
Members \5\ of the Exchange pursuant to BATS Rules 15.1(a) and (c).
While changes to the fee schedule pursuant to this proposal will be
effective upon filing, the changes will become operative on January 3,
2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A Member is any registered broker or dealer that has been
admitted to membership in the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.batstrading.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 parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to modify the ``Options Pricing'' section of
its fee schedule to: (i) Modify its pricing for Customer \6\ orders by
decreasing the fee for removing liquidity from the Exchange and
increasing the rebate for adding liquidity to the Exchange; (ii) add a
rebate specifically for orders that set either the national best bid
(the ``NBB'') or the national best offer (the ``NBO'') where the Member
meets certain

average daily volume requirements; (iii) modify its pricing for Firm
\7\ and Market Maker \8\ orders by increasing the fee for all orders
that remove liquidity while also increasing the rebate for orders that
add liquidity by either $0.05 or $0.15 per contract depending on the
capacity of the remover of the liquidity; (iv) modify its pricing for
Customer Directed ISO \9\ orders; and (v) establish fees that will
apply to all best execution routing strategies offered by the Exchange
\10\ and to Destination Specific Order \11\ routing strategies in order
to eliminate the disparate pricing between the two types of routing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ As defined on the Exchange's fee schedule, the term
``Customer'' applies to any transaction identified by a member for
clearing in the Customer range at the OCC.
    \7\ As defined on the Exchange's fee schedule, the term ``Firm''
applies to any transaction identified by a member for clearing in
the Firm range at the OCC.
    \8\ As defined on the Exchange's fee schedule, the term ``Market
Maker'' applies to any transaction identified by a member for
clearing in the Market Maker range at the OCC.
    \9\ As defined in BATS Rule 21.1(d)(12).
    \10\ The Exchange's routing strategies are defined in BATS Rule
21.9(a)(2).
    \11\ As defined in BATS Rule 21.1(d)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(i) Customer Pricing
    The Exchange currently charges $0.30 per contract for all orders
that remove liquidity from the BATS Exchange options market (``BATS
Options'') and pays $0.20 per contract for all orders that add
liquidity to BATS Options. The Exchange proposes to both lower the fee
for removing liquidity to $0.25 per contract and raise the rebate for
adding liquidity to $0.25 for Customer orders. The Exchange believes
that this change will generate an increase in Customer order flow and
will provide more liquidity on the Exchange.
(ii) NBBO Setter Rebate
    The Exchange proposes to adopt for its options platform a $0.50 per
contract rebate upon execution for all orders that add liquidity that
sets either the NBB or NBO (the ``NBBO Setter Rebate'') \12\ so long as
the Member submitting the order achieves an average daily volume of
20,000 contracts executed on the BATS Options book for the calendar
month. Average daily volume will be calculated by taking the total
number of contracts traded on the Exchange (which excludes routed
orders) during the calendar month by the Member divided by the number
of trading days in the month. For example, in January of 2011, a month
with twenty (20) trading days, a Member must trade at least 400,000
contracts (20 trading days multiplied by 20,000 contracts per day) in
the month to be eligible for the NBBO Setter Rebate. If a Member meets
this volume requirement, all of the Member's orders that set the NBB or
NBO that were executed in January would be eligible for the NBBO Setter
Rebate. The NBBO Setter Rebate supersedes any other applicable
liquidity rebates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ An order that is entered at the most aggressive price both
on the BATS Options book and according to then current OPRA data
will be determined to have set the NBB or NBO for purposes of the
NBBO Setter Rebate without regard to whether a more aggressive order
is entered prior to the original order being executed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed NBBO Setter Rebate is
analogous to similar proposals designed to encourage market
participants to submit aggressively priced orders previously
implemented at other options exchanges.\13\ The Exchange also believes
that its proposed use of a volume threshold to qualify for the rebate
is substantively identical to tiered pricing structures that are in
place at other exchanges.\14\ Additionally, the Exchange believes that
the proposed NBBO Setter Rebate will incentivize the entry of more
aggressive orders which will create tighter spreads, benefitting both
Members and public investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61869 (April 7,
2010), 75 FR 19449 (April 14, 2010) (SR-ISE-2010-25)(notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness to amend fees applicable to the
International Securities Exchange, including providing increased
rebates to market makers for being on the NBB or NBO for at least
80% during a given month); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61987
(April 27, 2010), 75 FR 24771 (May 5, 2010) (SR-C2-2010-001)(notice
of filing and immediate effectiveness to establish fees applicable
to C2 Options Exchange, including providing Preferred Market Makers
with participation entitlements when they are at the NBBO,
regardless of time priority). The Commission notes that Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 61987 did not establish any new fees.
    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57253 (February 1,
2008), 73 FR 7352 (February 7, 2008) (SR-Phlx-2008-08)(notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness to amend fees applicable to the
Philadelphia Stock Exchange, including adopting a tiered floor
broker options subsidy based on meeting specified trading volume
requirements).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(iii) Firm and Market Maker Pricing
    As mentioned above, the Exchange currently charges $0.30 per
contract for orders that remove liquidity and pays $0.20 per contract
for orders that add liquidity. The Exchange proposes to raise the fee
for removing liquidity to $0.35 for Firm and Market Maker orders. The
Exchange also proposes to increase the rebate for Firm and Market Maker
orders that are removed by Customer orders to $0.25 per contract and to
increase the rebate for orders that are removed by Firm or Market Maker
orders to $0.35 per contract. The removing Member's fee will be
determined without regard to the capacity of the adding party.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change to the Firm and
Market Maker pricing will encourage Firms and Market Makers to add more
liquidity to the Exchange. The Exchange also believes that, because
Members can neither see the capacity of orders in the Exchange's order
book nor determine the capacity of the Member that removes an
order,\15\ the proposal will not disadvantage public investors or
Members. Lastly, the Exchange believes that the proposed change to the
fee schedule is substantively similar to a pricing plan in place at
NASDAQ OMX PHLX.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The Exchange notes that its proposed amendment to Rule 21.1
from Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63403 (December 1, 2010)
(SR-BATS-2010-34) to add directed orders will not be subject to the
proposed Firm and Market Maker Pricing. The Exchange intends to file
a separate fee filing upon approval of the proposed amendment to
implement directed order pricing.
    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57253 (February 1,
2008), 73 FR 7352 (February 7, 2008) (SR-Phlx-2008-08)(notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness to amend fees applicable to the
Philadelphia Stock Exchange, including adopting a tiered subsidy
that does not apply to Customer-to-Customer transactions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(iv) Directed ISO Pricing
    The Exchange currently charges $0.50 per contract for a Customer
Directed ISO transaction and $0.60 per contract for Firm and Market
Maker Directed ISO transactions. The Exchange proposes to further
simplify its pricing for Directed ISOs by setting flat rates for
Directed ISOs that bypass the Exchange's order book and execute at away
venues, regardless of capacity. As proposed, the charge for all
Directed ISO transactions will be $0.60 per contract.
(v) Routing Pricing
    The Exchange proposes to adjust its fees for options order routing
and simplify its routing pricing by eliminating the different pricing
between Destination Specific Orders and Standard Best Execution
Routing. Currently, the Exchange charges a flat fee per contract for
standard routing and a fee based on the pricing model of the
destination exchange for Destination Specific Orders. In most
instances, the pricing for Destination Specific Orders results in
Members being charged lower execution fees than if the orders were
routed directly by the Member to an away venue. Rather than continuing
to subsidize its Members' routing strategies, the Exchange proposes to
adjust routing fees to more closely reflect the Exchange's cost of
executing those orders at the away markets. Specifically, the Exchange
proposes to assess a routing fee of $0.54 per contract for all Firm and
Market Maker orders that are routed to any away exchange pursuant to
Standard Best Execution Routing or Destination Specific Order

routing. The Exchange proposes to assess the following per contract
fees for Customer orders that are routed to the named away exchange:
$0.05 for all orders in non-``Make/Take'' issues,\17\ if applicable,
routed to NYSE Amex, NYSE Arca, the Boston Options Exchange, the
Chicago Board Options Exchange, the International Stock Exchange, or
NASDAQ OMX PHLX; $0.20 for all orders routed to the Chicago Board
Options Exchange 2; $0.25 for all orders routed to the International
Stock Exchange in Make/Take issues; $0.29 for all orders routed to
NASDAQ OMX PHLX in Make/Take issues; $0.48 for all orders routed to
NASDAQ Options Market; and $0.49 for all orders routed to NYSE Arca in
Make/Take issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ As defined on the fee schedule, Make/Take pricing refers to
executions at the identified Exchange under which ``Post Liquidity''
or ``Maker'' rebates (``Make'') are credited by that exchange and
``Take Liquidity'' or ``Taker'' fees (``Take'') are charged by that
exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed routing fees are
competitive, fair and reasonable, and non-discriminatory in that they
approximate the cost to the Exchange of executing routed orders at an
away market and are similar to those fees charged by other exchanges.
The Exchange also believes that Members will benefit from the
simplicity of the pricing structure.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and,
in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\18\
Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) \19\ of the Act, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and other persons using any facility or system which the
Exchange operates or controls. As described below, the Exchange
believes that its fees and credits are competitive with those charged
by other venues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The various changes to Exchange execution fees, execution rebates
and routing fees proposed by this filing are intended to attract order
flow to BATS Options by offering competitive pricing, especially for
those who add liquidity that sets the NBB or NBO. Most of the changes
the Exchange has proposed to its execution fees and rebates will result
in reduced fees or increased payments that will benefit Members due to
the obvious economic savings and increased revenue those Members will
receive and the potential of increased available liquidity at the
Exchange. The Exchange notes that it does not currently operate any
auctions through which orders are held and broadcast to its membership,
nor does the Exchange engage in any payment for order flow practices.
Rather, the Exchange is proposing to enhance its transparent market
structure with an easy to understand and transparent pricing structure
by adding incentives for aggressive quoting. The Exchange believes that
its proposed routing rates are, on average, better than or equal to the
fees a market participant would pay if routing through another market
center. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive. Also, although routing options are available to all Members,
Members are not required to use the Exchange's routing services, but
instead, the Exchange's routing services are completely optional.
Members can manage their own routing to different options exchanges or
can utilize a myriad of other routing solutions that are available to
market participants.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes
any 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.

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

    The foregoing proposed rule change has been designated as a fee
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \20\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\21\ because it establishes or changes a due,
fee or other charge imposed on members by the Exchange. Accordingly,
the proposal is effective upon filing with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

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-BATS-2010-038 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BATS-2010-038. 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 Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BATS-2010-038 and should be
submitted on or before January 28, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-93 Filed 1-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 11, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 62805]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26118]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[ Docket No. PR11-131-000]

Public Service Company of Colorado; Notice of Rate Election

    Take notice that on September 30, 2011, Public Service Company of
Colorado (PSCo) filed a Rate Election pursuant to section 284.123(b)(1)
of the Commission's regulations. PSCo proposes to utilize rates that
are the same as those contained in PSCo's transportation rate schedules
for comparable intrastate service on file with the Colorado Public
Utilities Commission, as more fully detailed in the petition.
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate filing must file in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered
by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken,
but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or
motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 7 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>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, October 17, 2011.

    Dated: October 3, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-26118 Filed 10-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P