[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 198 (Friday, October 12, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62303-62308]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25087]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68001; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2012-112]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Commentary
.06 to NYSE Arca Rule 6.8 Adopting a Pilot Program Eliminating Position
Limits for Options on the SPDR[supreg] S&P 500[supreg] Exchange-Traded
Fund,\1\ Which List and Trade Under the Symbol SPY October 5, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``SPDR[supreg],'' ``Standard & Poor's[supreg],''
``S&P[supreg],'' ``S&P 500[supreg],'' and ``Standard & Poor's 500''
are registered trademarks of Standard & Poor's Financial Services
LLC. The SPY ETF represents ownership in the SPDR S&P 500 Trust, a
unit investment trust that generally corresponds to the price and
yield performance of the SPDR S&P 500 Index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that, on October 1, 2012, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Commentary .06 to NYSE Arca Rule 6.8
to adopt a pilot program eliminating position limits for options on the
SPDR[supreg] S&P 500[supreg] exchange-traded fund (``SPY ETF''),\4\
which list and trade under the symbol SPY. The text of the proposed
rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at
the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``SPDR[supreg],'' ``Standard & Poor's[supreg],''
``S&P[supreg],'' ``S&P 500[supreg],'' and ``Standard & Poor's 500''
are registered trademarks of Standard & Poor's Financial Services
LLC. The SPY ETF represents ownership in the SPDR S&P 500 Trust, a
unit investment trust that generally corresponds to the price and
yield performance of the SPDR S&P 500 Index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those 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 purpose of the proposal is to amend Commentary .06 to NYSE Arca
Rule 6.8 to adopt a pilot program eliminating position limits for SPY
options. The Exchange is basing this proposal on a recently approved
rule change by NYSE MKT LLC, on behalf of NYSE Amex Options LLC (``NYSE
Amex Options''), to adopt a pilot program to eliminate position limits
for SPY options.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67672 (August 15,
2012), 77 FR 50750 (August 22, 2012) (Order approving NYSEAmex-2012-
29). NYSE Amex Options is the options trading facility of NYSE MKT,
LLC, f/n/a NYSE Amex LLC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    Position limits serve as a regulatory tool designed to address
potential manipulative schemes and adverse market impact surrounding
the use of options. The Exchange understands that the Commission, when
considering the appropriate level at which to set option position and
exercise limits, has considered the concern that the limits be
sufficient to prevent investors from disrupting the market in the
security underlying the option.\6\ This consideration has been balanced
by the concern that the limits ``not be established at levels that are
so low as to discourage participation in the options market by
institutions and other investors with substantial hedging needs or to
prevent specialists and market-makers from adequately meeting their
obligations to maintain a fair and orderly market.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 40969 (January 22,
1999), 64 FR 4911, 4912-4913 (February 1, 1999) (SR-CBOE-98-23)
(citing H.R. No. IFC-3, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. at 189-91 (Comm. Print
1978)).
    \7\ Id. at 4913.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SPY options are currently the most actively traded option class in
terms of average daily volume (``ADV'').\8\ The Exchange believes that,
despite the popularity of SPY options as evidenced by their significant
volume, the current position limits on SPY options could be a deterrent
to the optimal use of this product as a hedging tool. The Exchange
further believes that position limits on SPY options may inhibit the
ability of certain large market participants, such as mutual funds and
other institutional investors with substantial hedging needs, to
utilize SPY options and gain meaningful exposure to the hedging
function they provide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ SPY ADV was 2,156,482 contracts in April 2012. ADV for the
same period for the next four most actively traded options was:
Apple Inc. (option symbol AAPL)--1,074,351; S&P 500 Index (option
symbol SPX)--656,250; PowerShares QQQ Trust\SM\, Series 1 (option
symbol QQQ)--573,790; and iShares[supreg] Russell 2000[supreg] Index
Fund (option symbol IWM)--550,316.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that current experience with the trading of
SPY options, as well as the Exchange's surveillance capabilities, has
made it appropriate to consider other, less prophylactic alternatives
to regulating SPY options, while still seeking to ensure that large
positions in SPY options will not unduly disrupt the options or
underlying cash markets. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to
eliminate the position limits on SPY options--currently 900,000
contracts on the same side of the market.\9\ In proposing the
elimination of position limits on SPY options, the Exchange has
considered several factors, including (1) the availability of
economically equivalent products and their respective position limits,
(2) the liquidity of the option and the underlying security, (3) the
market capitalization of the underlying security and the related index,
(4) the reporting of large positions and requirements surrounding
margin, and (5) the potential for market on close volatility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Commentary .06 to NYSE Arca Rule 6.8. See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64945 (July 21, 2011), 76 FR
44969 (July 27, 2011) (SR-NYSEArca-2011-47).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Economically Equivalent Products
    The Exchange has considered the existence of economically
equivalent or similar products, and their respective position limits,
if any, in assessing the appropriateness of proposing an elimination of
position limits for SPY options.
    For example, AM-settled options on the S&P 500 Index, which list
and trade exclusively on the Chicago Board Options Exchange (``CBOE'')
under the symbol SPX, are currently not subject to position limits.\10\
Moreover, SPX options are 10 times the size of SPY options, so that a
position of only

90,000 SPX options is the equivalent of a position of 900,000 SPY
options, which is the current position limit for SPY options.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44994 (October 26,
2001), 66 FR 55722 (November 2, 2001) (SR-CBOE-2001-22). Position
limits were also eliminated for options on the S&P 100 Index (option
symbol OEX) and the Dow Jones Industrial Average (option symbol
DJX).
    \11\ The Exchange notes that the reduced-value option on the S&P
500 Index (option symbol XSP) is the equivalent size of SPY options
and, similar to SPX options, is not subject to position limits. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56350 (September 4, 2007), 72 FR
51878 (September 11, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2007-79).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the C2 Options Exchange (``C2'') has recently introduced
a PM-settled S&P 500 cash settled contract (``SPXPM''), which also is
not subject to position limits.\12\ This contract, unlike the existing
SPX contract, is cash-settled based on the closing value of the S&P 500
Index. In this respect, SPXPM is very much like SPY options in that it
is settled at the close, albeit into cash as opposed to shares of the
underlying like SPY options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65256 (September 2,
2011), 76 FR 55969 (September 9, 2011) (SR-C2-2011-008) (``SPXPM
Approval'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that, because SPX, SPXPM, and SPY options are
ultimately derivative of the same benchmark--the S&P 500 Index--they
should be treated equally from a position limit perspective. As a
practical matter, investors utilize SPX, SPXPM, and SPY options and
their respective underlying instruments and futures to gain exposure to
the same benchmark index: The S&P 500. Further, because the creation
and redemption process for the underlying SPY ETF allows large
investors to transfer positions from a basket of stocks comprising the
S&P 500 index to an equivalent number of ETF shares (and the reverse)
with relative ease, there is no reason to disadvantage options
overlying the one versus the other. The Exchange believes that this
view is supported by the recent expansion of various exemptions from
position limits, such as the Delta-Based Equity Hedge Exemption \13\
for positions of a member, member organization or non-member affiliate
that are delta neutral, which allows SPY option positions to be delta-
hedged by positions in SPX options. Given that SPX options are not
subject to position limits, a member or member organization (or non-
member affiliate thereof) could theoretically establish a position in
SPY options far in excess of the current 900,000 contract limit,
provided that the position is hedged with SPX options. The Exchange
believes that this situation accurately reflects the economic
equivalence of SPX and SPY options, supporting the Exchange's proposal
to further acknowledge this equivalence by eliminating position limits
in SPY options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Commentary .07(iii) to NYSE Arca Rule 6.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that Commission findings in approving
the SPXPM options further support treating SPY options in the same
manner as SPX and SPXPM options for purposes of position limits. In
particular, the Commission noted in approving SPXPM options that ``C2's
proposal will offer investors another investment option through which
they could obtain and hedge exposure to the S&P 500 stocks,'' and that
``C2's proposal will provide investors with the ability to trade an
option on the S&P 500 index in an all-electronic market, which may
better meet the needs of investors who may prefer to trade
electronically.'' \14\ The Commission also noted that ``C2's proposal
will provide investors with added flexibility through an additional
product that may be better tailored to meet their particular
investment, hedging, and trading needs.'' \15\ The Exchange believes
that these Commission findings apply equally to SPY options. In this
respect, SPY options with no position limit will (1) offer investors
another investment option through which they could obtain and hedge
significant levels of exposure to the S&P 500 stocks, (2) be available
to trade on the Exchange (and presumably all other U.S. options
exchanges) electronically, and (3) provide investors with added
flexibility through an additional product that may be better tailored
to meet their particular investment, hedging, and trading needs,
because, among other things, they are PM-settled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See SPXPM Approval at 55975.
    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that, with respect to competition amongst
economically equivalent products, a 2005 paper by Hans Dutt and
Lawrence Harris that set forth a model to determine appropriate
position limits for cash-settled index derivatives observed that
``markets and their regulators should take a closer look at the
underlying economic rationale for the levels at which they currently
set their position limits to ensure that the limits adequately protect
markets from manipulation and that inconsistent position limits do not
produce competitive advantages and disadvantages among contracts.''
\16\ On this point, the Exchange believes that if no position limits
have been found to be warranted on both SPX and SPXPM options, then
such treatment should be extended to SPY options so that inconsistent
position limits do not produce competitive advantages and disadvantages
among contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Journal of Futures Markets, Vol. 25, no. 10, 945-965,
949 (2005) (``Position Limits for Cash-Settled Derivative
Contracts,'' by Hans R. Dutt and Lawrence E. Harris) (``Dutt-Harris
Paper''). In the paper, the authors examined existing position
limits to determine whether they were consistent with the model the
authors developed, and found that the results indicated that
existing limits were not correlated with the limits suggested by
their model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange notes that the Dutt-Harris Paper focuses
its attention on the concerns relating to manipulation of cash-settled
derivatives, stating that ``[a]lthough several scholars have argued
that cash settlement may increase the risk of market manipulation,
until recently, the theoretical problems arising from potential cash
settlement manipulation has been considered minor, as evidenced by the
lack of academic interest in this area.'' \17\ The paper further noted
that ``[t]he reason for this may arise from the fact that most
exchange-traded derivative index contracts that are cash settled are
broad-based, and each of the underlying components typically possesses
ample liquidity,'' and that ``manipulation of the underlying components
would likely be extremely costly to the would-be manipulator.'' \18\
This suggests that whatever manipulation risk does exist in a cash-
settled, broad-based product such as SPXPM, the corresponding
manipulation risk in a physically-settled, but equally broad-based
product such as SPY, is likely to be equally low, if not lower.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id. at 946.
    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the Exchange notes that in the Dutt-Harris Paper the
authors observed that the lack of scholarly interest in the cash-
settlement manipulation problem may have been ``due to the fact that,
until recently, most U.S. exchange-traded cash-settled derivative
contracts were based on broad indices of very liquid stocks,'' and that
``[m]anipulation of such instruments require very large trades that are
costly to make and easy to detect through conventional surveillance.''
\19\ This observation applies equally to SPY options, which are based
on a broad index of very liquid stocks and can easily be created by
submitting a position in the underlying securities. Moreover, it
provides additional support for the Exchange's view that the enhanced
reporting and surveillance for SPY options discussed below adequately
address concerns about manipulation.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Id. at 948.
    \20\ The authors of the Dutt-Harris Paper further posited that
``position limits need only apply during the period when cash
settlement takes place.'' Id. at 964. The Exchange notes that no
such period exists with respect to SPY options, which are physically
settled.

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

Liquidity in the Option and the Underlying Security
    The Exchange has also considered the liquidity of SPY options and
the underlying SPY ETF in assessing the appropriateness of proposing an
elimination of position limits for SPY options.
    In approving the elimination of position and exercise limits on SPX
options, the Commission noted that the deep, liquid markets for the
securities underlying the S&P 500 Index reduced concerns regarding
market manipulation or disruption in the underlying markets.\21\ The
Commission further noted that removing position limits for SPX options
could also bring additional depth and liquidity, in terms of both
volume and open interest, without increasing concerns regarding
intermarket manipulations or disruptions of the options or the
underlying securities.\22\ The Exchange similarly believes that this
would be the case if position limits for SPY options were eliminated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See supra note 6 at 4913.
    \22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this regard, both the SPY ETF and SPY options similarly exhibit
deep, liquid markets. However, SPY options are not as active as SPX
options when adjusted for the difference in their notional size.\23\ As
described below, the Exchange believes that this is partly due to the
existence of position limits for SPY options. The table below compares
the ADV in both SPX and SPY options, and includes an ``implied SPY
volume'' figure that reflects theoretical SPY ADV without the
constraint of position limits:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ SPX options have a notional value 10 times greater than SPY
options (i.e., one SPX contract equals 10 SPY contracts).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Implied SPY
                        Date range                             Trade days       SPX option ADV     SPY option ADV      Implied SPY         option ADV
                                                                                option ADV         shortfall
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan 1, 2011 to Dec 31, 2011..............................                252          1,567,535          5,789,511         15,675,353          9,885,842
Jan 1, 2012 to Apr 19, 2012..............................                 75          1,343,735          4,525,709         13,437,353          8,911,644
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that certain factors may result in SPX
options--adjusted for their larger notional size--currently trading
with greater volume than SPY options.\24\ In this regard, the Exchange
believes that, based on input from various market participants, the
existence of position limits in SPY options is reason in itself to
instead utilize SPX options. Anecdotally, market participants perceive
value in avoiding the regulatory risk of exceeding the SPY option
position limit by instead using SPX options for their hedging needs.
The Exchange also believes that, while exemptions are available with
respect to position limits for SPY options, such exemptions, and the
regulatory burden attendant therewith, may dissuade investors from
using SPY options when they can instead use an SPX option without the
need for such an exemption. Because SPY and SPX options are
economically equivalent products, an investor deciding between the two
would generally trade the product with the least barriers or
requirements to engage in such activity. In this respect, SPX options
are currently the easier product to trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The Exchange notes that the ``Implied SPY Option ADV
Shortfall'' has narrowed over time and at an accelerated rate, which
the Exchange believes is a direct result of the implementation of
the Delta-Based Equity Hedge Exemption that allows SPY options to be
hedged via SPX options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a further comparison, the following table sets forth certain
data for both the SPY ETF and the combined volume for the component
securities upon which the S&P 500 Index is based:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The data considers the aggregate volume for all component
stocks of the S&P 500 Index.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  S&P 500 Index         S&P 500 Index
                                    underlying       underlying component                       SPY ETF average
          Date range              component ADV      average daily value       SPY ETF ADV        daily value
                                       \25\                 traded                                   traded
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan. 1, 2011 to Dec. 31, 2011.      3,289,595,675       $4,149,726,217,456        218,227,747    $27,297,097,993
Jan. 1, 2012 to Apr. 19, 2012.      2,851,457,600        3,860,704,307,080        145,164,527     19,684,577,239
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This data shows that there is tremendous liquidity in both SPY ETF
shares and the component securities upon which the S&P 500 Index is
based. While the ADV for the components underlying the S&P 500 Index is
greater than the ADV for the SPY ETF, the Exchange believes that SPY
ETF volume has been, is currently and will likely continue to be within
a range that the Commission has previously determined to be a deep,
liquid market.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See supra note 6 at n. 13. The ADV for the components of
the indexes underlying the options for which position limits were
eliminated were 94.77 million shares (DJX), 244.3 million shares
(OEX), and 757.5 million shares (SPX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Market Capitalization of the Underlying Security and the Related Index
    The Exchange has also considered the market capitalization of the
SPY ETF and the S&P 500 Index in assessing the appropriateness of
proposing an elimination of position limits for SPY options.
    The Exchange understands that the Commission similarly considered
the market capitalization of the underlying index when it approved the
elimination of position limits in SPX options. Accordingly, the
Exchange believes that the capitalization of and the deep, liquid
markets for the underlying SPY ETF reduces concerns regarding market
manipulation or disruption in the underlying market. The table below
shows the market capitalization of the SPY ETF and the S&P 500 Index:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Average S&P 500 Index   Average SPY ETF  market
                          Date range                                   market cap                  cap
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan. 1, 2011 to Dec. 31, 2011.................................      $11,818,270,341,270          $89,533,777,897
Jan. 1, 2012 to Apr. 19, 2012.................................       12,547,946,920,000           99,752,986,022
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This data shows the enormous capitalization of both the SPY ETF and
the component securities upon which the S&P 500 Index is based. While
the capitalization for the components underlying the S&P 500 Index is
greater than that for the SPY ETF, the Exchange believes that the SPY
ETF capitalization has nonetheless been, is currently and will likely
continue to be at a level consistent with that which the Commission has
previously determined to be enormously capitalized.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See supra note 11 at 51879. Specifically, the market
capitalization of the component securities of the Russell 2000 Index
(``RUT'') of $1.73 trillion was determined to be enormously
capitalized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the theoretical limit on one's ability to
hedge both SPX and SPY options is the full market capitalization of the
S&P 500 Index itself. This similarly contributes to the Exchange's
determination that it is appropriate for position limits on SPY options
to be eliminated.
Large Position Reporting and Margin Requirements
    The Exchange has also considered the reporting of large option
positions and related margin requirements in assessing the
appropriateness of proposing an elimination of position limits for SPY
options.
    The Exchange notes that the Large Option Position Reporting
(``LOPR'') requirement in NYSE Arca Rule 6.6 would continue to apply.
Rule 6.6 requires members and member organizations to file a report
with the Exchange with respect to each account in which the member or
member organization has an interest; each account of a partner,
officer, director, trustee or employee of such member organization; and
each customer account that has established an aggregate position
(whether long or short) that meets certain determined thresholds (e.g.,
200 or more option contracts if the underlying security is a stock or
Exchange-Traded Fund Share). Rule 6.6 also permits the Exchange to
impose a higher margin requirement upon the account of a member or
member organization when it determines that the account maintains an
under-hedged position.
    Additionally, Rule 6.6 provides:
    In addition to the requirements under Rule 6.6(a), each OTP Holder
or OTP Firm (other than an Exchange Market Maker), that maintains a
position in excess of 10,000 Non-FLEX equity option contracts on the
same side of the market on behalf of its own account or for the account
of a customer, must report information, in a manner and form prescribed
by the Exchange, as to whether such positions are hedged and provide
documentation as to how such contracts are hedged. In addition,
whenever the Exchange determines, based on a report to the Exchange or
otherwise, that a higher margin requirement is necessary in light of
the risks associated with an under-hedged Non-FLEX equity option
position in excess of 10,000 contracts on the same side of the market,
the Exchange may, pursuant to its authority under Exchange Rule 4.16,
consider imposing additional margin upon the account maintaining such
under-hedged position. It should be noted that the clearing firm
carrying the account will be subject to capital charges under SEC Rule
15c3-1 to the extent of any margin deficiency from the higher margin
requirements.
    Monitoring accounts maintaining large positions provides the
Exchange with the information necessary to determine whether to impose
additional margin and/or whether to assess capital charges upon a
member organization carrying the account. In addition, the Commission's
net capital rule, Rule 15c3-1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\28\ imposes a capital charge on members to the extent of
any margin deficiency resulting from the higher margin requirement,
which should serve as an additional form of protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 17 CFR 240.15c3-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In approving SPXPM, the Commission addressed concerns about the
lack of a position limit by noting that CBOE will rely on its enhanced
surveillance requirements and procedures for SPX options to monitor
trading activity in SPXPM options.\29\ Similarly, the Exchange notes
that certain option products are currently traded on the Exchange
without position limits (e.g., the NASDAQ[supreg] 100 Index option
(option symbol NDX) and the Russell 2000[supreg] Index option (option
symbol RUT)), and believes that the reporting, surveillance and
monitoring mechanisms in place for these products are effective and
could easily accommodate SPY options if position limits thereon are
eliminated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See SPXPM Approval at 55972.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Market on Close Volatility
    The Exchange has also considered the potential for resulting or
increased market on close volatility in assessing the appropriateness
of proposing an elimination of position limits for SPY options.
    SPY options are American-style, physically settled options that can
be exercised at any time and settle into shares of the underlying SPY
ETF. A key characteristic of the SPY ETF is that the number of shares
outstanding is limited only by the number of shares available in the
component securities of the S&P 500 Index, which can be used to create
additional SPY ETF shares as needed. This in-kind creation and
redemption mechanism has proven to be quite robust, as evidenced by the
SPY ETF's close tracking of its benchmark index and the relatively
small premiums or discounts to Net Asset Value (``NAV'') that it has
historically exhibited.\30\ Additionally, the ability to hedge with SPX
options against the stocks underlying the S&P 500 is limited to the
shares outstanding for those stocks--the same limit that applies to
hedging with SPY options. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the
risk of distortions to the market resulting from the elimination of
position limits in SPY options is no greater than the risk presented by
SPX options not being subject to position limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See SPDR[supreg] S&P 500[supreg] ETF Trust, Annual Report
(September 30, 2011), available at https://www.spdrs.com/library-content/public/SPY%20Annual%20Report%2009.30.11.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a physically-settled option, SPY options can be easily hedged
via long or short positions in SPY ETF shares, which, as noted above,
can be easily created or redeemed as needed. With a physically-settled
contract such as SPY options, once a hedge in the form of a long or
short position is obtained, that hedge can only be lost if the
underlying security becomes hard to borrow and the short position is
bought in.\31\ The Exchange believes that this ability to hedge with
shares of the SPY ETF is very important, and reduces the likelihood of
market on close volatility in the component securities underlying the
S&P 500 Index (i.e., a market participant can remain fully hedged
through expiration via shares of the SPY ETF), which should also be the
case if position limits for SPY options are eliminated. At the same
time, the Exchange believes that the elimination of position limits for
SPY options would not increase market volatility or facilitate the
ability to manipulate the market. The Exchange believes that any
potential concern regarding volatility at the closing that could result
from an elimination in the position limits for

SPY options is further alleviated by the current trading environment,
including that there are markets for individual securities on more than
one exchange, via unlisted trading privileges, that there is wide
dispersion of trading across multiple exchanges, and that exchange
procedures and systems are designed to facilitate orderly closings,
even when there is volatility.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ As noted, the in-kind creation and redemption process
allows for short term imbalances in supply and demand to be resolved
readily, which in turn reduces the likelihood of getting ``bought
in'' on a short position in SPY. Since the implementation of
Regulation SHO, SPY has never been on the threshold security list,
which further evidences the efficacy of the in-kind creation and
redemption process in resolving imbalances in supply and demand.
    \32\ See, e.g., Rule 123C--NYSE Amex Equities (The Closing
Procedures).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation
    The implementation of this proposed rule change will be contingent
on other factors, including the completion of any changes that may be
necessary to the Exchange's regulatory and surveillance program. Once
this rule filing is effective, the Exchange will announce the
implementation of the elimination of position limits on SPY options
through a notice to OTP Holders.
Pilot Program
    NYSE Arca proposes that this rule change be adopted pursuant to a
pilot program, set to expire December 5, 2013. The Exchange will
perform an analysis of the initial pilot program to eliminate position
limits in SPY after the first twelve (12) months of the pilot program
(the ``Pilot Report''). NYSE Arca represents that the Pilot Report will
be submitted within thirty (30) days of the end of such twelve (12)
month time period. The Pilot Report will detail the size and different
types of strategies employed with respect to positions established as a
result of the elimination of position limits in SPY. In addition, the
Pilot Report will note whether any problems resulted due to the no
limit approach and any other information that may be useful in
evaluating the effectiveness of the pilot program. The Pilot Report
will compare the impact of the pilot program, if any, on the volumes of
SPY options and the volatility in the price of the underlying SPY
shares, particularly at expiration. In preparing the report the
Exchange will utilize various data elements such as volume and open
interest. In addition, the Exchange has represented that it will make
available to Commission staff data elements relating to the
effectiveness of the pilot.
    Depending on the findings in the Pilot Report, NYSE Arca will file
with the Commission a proposal to either extend the pilot program,
adopt the pilot program on a permanent basis, or terminate the pilot
program. If the pilot program is not extended or adopted on a permanent
basis by December 5, 2013, the position limits for SPY would revert to
limits in effect at the commencement of the pilot program.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)\33\ of the
Act, in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\34\ in
particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
would be beneficial to market participants, including market makers,
institutional investors and retail investors, by permitting them to
establish greater positions when pursuing their investment goals and
needs. The Exchange also believes that economically equivalent products
should be treated in an equivalent manner so as to avoid regulatory
arbitrage, especially with respect to position limits. Treating SPY and
SPX options differently by virtue of imposing different position limits
is inconsistent with the notion of promoting just and equitable
principles of trade and removing impediments to perfect the mechanisms
of a free and open market. At the same time, the Exchange believes that
the elimination of position limits for SPY options would not increase
market volatility or facilitate the ability to manipulate the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \34\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further notes that the rule proposal will remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market
because it will harmonize how position limits are treated for SPY
options across options markets. As noted above, the Commission has
already approved the elimination of position limits for SPY options for
NYSE Amex Options, and the Exchange believes that harmonizing the
standard across options markets will enable market participants to
handle trading in SPY options similarly regardless of which options
market in which they are trading.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

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

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \35\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\36\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \37\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \36\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \37\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \38\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \39\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \40\ permits the Commission to
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay, noting that doing
so will allow participants on the Exchange to benefit from the
opportunity to establish greater positions when pursuing their
investment goals and needs without undue delay and will allow dual
members of NYSE Amex Options and the Exchange to harmonize how they
establish position limits for SPY options when trading at both markets.
The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of

investors and the public interest.\41\ Therefore, the Commission hereby
waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the proposal operative
as of October 5, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \40\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \41\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2012-112 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-NYSEArca-2012-112. 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, 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-NYSEArca-2012-112
and should be submitted on or before November 2, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-25087 Filed 10-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 226 (Friday, November 23, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 59378]
[FR Doc No: 2018-25552]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0692, FRL-9986-86-OLEM]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Generator Standards Applicable to Laboratories Owned
by Eligible Academic Entities.

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to
submit the information collection request (ICR), Generator Standards
Applicable to Laboratories Owned by Eligible Academic Entities (EPA ICR
No. 2317.04, OMB Control No. 2050-0204) to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Before doing so, the EPA
is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed
information collection as described below. This is a proposed extension
of the ICR, which is currently approved through April 30, 2019. An
Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before January 22, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OLEM-2018-0692, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method), by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket
Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristen Fitzgerald, (mail code 5304P),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of
the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. The
EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval. At that time, the EPA will issue another Federal
Register notice to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the
opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.
    Abstract: Subpart K within 40 CFR Part 262 provides a flexible and
protective set of regulations that address the specific nature of
hazardous waste generation and accumulation in laboratories owned by
colleges and universities, including teaching hospitals and non-profit
research institutes that are either owned by or formally affiliated
with a college or university. In addition, eligible academic entities
have the discretion to determine the most appropriate and effective
method of compliance with these requirements--by allowing them the
choice of either managing their hazardous wastes in accordance with the
alternative regulations as set forth in Subpart K, or remaining subject
to the existing generator regulations.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Business and other for-profit, as
well as State, Local, and Tribal governments.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Required to obtain or retain a
benefit (Sections 2002, 3001, 3002, 3004 of RCRA).
    Estimated number of respondents: 132.
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Total estimated burden: 35,813 hours per year. Burden is defined at
5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $1,806,663 (per year), which includes
$1,667,976 in annualized labor and $138,687 in annualized capital or
operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in estimates: The burden hours are likely to stay
substantially the same.

    Dated: November 12, 2018.
Barnes Johnson,
Director, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery.
[FR Doc. 2018-25552 Filed 11-21-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 116 (Friday, June 15, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 35958]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14617]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP12-469-000]

Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on May 30, 2012, Northern Natural Gas Company
(Northern), 1111 South 103rd Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68124, filed in
Docket No. CP12-469-000, a request for authority, pursuant to Part 157
of the Commission's regulations and section 7(b) of the Natural Gas
Act, to abandon by sale to DKM Enterprises, LLC (DKM) certain pipeline
facilities (A-line) in Ochiltree, Hansford, Hutchinson, and Carson
Counties in Texas, Beaver County in Oklahoma, and Kiowa and Clark
Counties in Kansas, all as more fully set forth in the application,
which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
Specifically, Northern Natural Proposes to sell to DKM approximately
126 miles of 24-inch pipeline. Upon transfer of the facilities, DKM
intends to dig up and reclaim most of the pipeline for salvage.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Michael T. Loeffler, Senior Director of Certificates and Exteernal
Affairs for Northern, P.O. Box 3330, Omaha, Nebraska 68124, at
telephone no.<PHONE_NUMBER>, and email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 7 copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission
and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
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 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>.
    Comment Date: June 29, 2012.

    Dated: June 8, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-14617 Filed 6-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: December 14, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 239)]
[Notices]
[Page 73993]
[DOCID:fr14de05-42]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-133-000]

Blue Lake Gas Storage Company; Notice of Tariff Filing

December 8, 2005.
    Take notice that on December 2, 2005, Blue Lake Gas Storage Company
(Blue Lake) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First
Revised Volume No. 1, Second Revised Sheet No. 142, to become effective
on January 2, 2006.
    Blue Lake states that the purpose of this filing is to change the
existing billing and payment provisions currently reflected in the
general terms and conditions of its tariff.
    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 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>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-7314 Filed 12-13-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


SRC TR-10-063

HPV1 TEST Rule STUDY – DATA Adequacy assessment

1,3-Propanediol, 2,2-bis[(nitrooxy)methyl]-, dinitrate (ester), CAS No.
78-11-5

Toxicity to Plants (Algae)

Prepared by:

Ashlee Aldridge, Teresa Manyin, and Joan D. Garey

Environmental Science Center

SRC, Inc.

7502 Round Pond Road

North Syracuse, NY 13212

Contract No. EP-W-09-027

Task FG<IP_ADDRESS>

Submitted to:

OPPT/RAD/HPVCB (7403M)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue

Washington, D.C. 20460

Elizabeth Margosches, Project Officer

Meena Sonawane, Work Assignment Manager

David Brooks, Alternate Work Assignment Manager

March 5, 2010

HPV1 Test Rule – Data Adequacy Assessment

1,3-Propanediol, 2,2-bis[(nitrooxy)methyl]-, dinitrate (ester), CAS No.
78-11-5

Toxicity to Plants (Algae)

March 2010

Submitted to:

High Production Volume Chemicals Branch
                                             Risk Assessment Division

                                 Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics
     Environmental Protection Agency

WAM:  Meena Sonawane

Alternate WAM: David Brooks

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
                                              Washington, DC 20460-0001

Prepared By:

SRC, Inc.

Environmental Science Center
                                                            2451 Crystal
Drive, Suite 804
                                          Arlington, VA 22202

PREPARATION OF THE DATA ADEQUACY ASSESSMENT

This document contains the review of a toxicity study conducted in
response to the first HPV TSCA Section 4 Test Rule (71 FR 13708, March
16, 2006).  Using the applicable test guideline and professional
judgment as guides, the study was reviewed for adequacy and evaluated
for compliance with the test guideline.  (The applicable test guideline
is not always the test guideline required by the test rule, because some
test sponsors requested and received approval from EPA to use a
different guideline.)  The study was summarized according to a standard
format, assessed for adequacy, and assigned a Klimisch reliability code.
 If the study was determined to be inadequate, a basis for that
conclusion is supplied.  For studies already assigned Klimisch codes, an
explanation is provided if the reviewer’s assessment of data adequacy
differed from the pre-assigned Klimisch code.

A detailed evaluation of the test report and study conduct is provided
at the end of the summary document in a section entitled “Review of
TSCA Section 4 Final Study Report”.  Any deviations from the
applicable test guideline are described.  The study is also evaluated
for compliance with Standard Operating Procedures, Good Laboratory
Practice Standards, and Quality Assurance procedures, as well as the use
of appropriate controls and test substances.  Any deficiencies in the
descriptions of the study method, test system, animals studied, physical
conditions, dosage information, individual animal data, calculations,
and statistical analyses are described, and internal inconsistencies
within the study report are identified.  An overall assessment is
provided for each of the following: study conduct, data reliability, and
data utility.

TOXICITY TO PLANTS (ALGAE)

Title: Toxicity of Pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN) to the
Unicellular Green Alga (Selenastrum capricornutum) under Static Test
Conditions

This study is:	  FORMCHECKBOX   Adequate		  FORMCHECKBOX   Not Adequate

TEST SUBSTANCE

Identity:  Pentaerythritol tetranitrate (1,3-Propanediol,
2,2-bis[(nitrooxy)methyl]-, dinitrate (ester); PETN), CAS No. 78-11-5

Remarks: Test substance was received as a solution of PETN (> 99%
purity) dissolved in water (approximately 2100 µg/L); clear, colorless
liquid; specific gravity: 1.77 g/cc; received from the United States
Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventative Medicine

METHOD

Method/guideline followed: ASTM E 1218-04 (ASTM 2006) and where
applicable OPPTS 850.5400 (USEPA 1996)

Test type: Toxicity to Algae

GLP compliant?: Yes

Year study was performed: 2008

Test species: Unicellular green algae (Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata,
formerly Selenastrum capricornutum); source: 4-day old in-house stock
cultures; starter culture obtained from Carolina Biological Supply
Company

Analytical monitoring: Yes

Exposure duration: 96 hours

Concentrations tested: Nominal: 0, 0.1, 1.0, 10, and 100% PETN (as
received), equivalent to 0, 2, 20, 200 and 2000 µg/L; Mean measured:
1.4, 3.2, 30, 310 and 2850 µg/L

Test method/conditions remarks:

The dilution/control water used in this study (algal medium batch
#121807) was ASTM algal growth medium with EDTA, prepared with sterile,
deionized (Milli-Q®) water (ASTM type I) according to ASTM guidelines
(ASTM 2006).  Milli-Q® water generated at the testing lab is
periodically analyzed for contaminants.  Additionally, the medium was
sterilized by filtration through a pre-washed 0.45 µm cellulose
membrane filter prior to mixing test solutions.

Macro- and micro-nutrients were added to the 100% test solution prior to
preparing test concentrations.  The test substance, with added
nutrients, was assumed to be 100% for purposes of test concentration
preparation.  Test concentrations are expressed as percent of PETN as
received; statistical endpoints are expressed as µg/L PETN, per the
analytical chemistry data.

S. capricornutum were exposed to PETN according to a 96-hour static test
design; test solutions were not renewed.  S. capricornutum were exposed
to four concentrations of PETN (using a dilution factor of 10), and a
dilution water control.  Nominal test concentrations were 100, 10, 1,
0.1, and 0% PETN.  Test solutions were prepared on test Day 0
immediately prior to test initiation.

Test chambers were 250-mL (nominal volume) glass flasks containing
approximately 100 mL of test solution and capped with a plastic cup with
three small holes.  Test chambers were held in an environmental chamber
in a five by five pattern.  Test chambers were placed within the pattern
according to a computer-generated random design.

The test chambers were housed in an environmental chamber under
continuous illumination at 400 ± 10% ft-c (4.3 K lux), which was
provided by a combination of incandescent and cool-white fluorescent
lamps to provide light output in the spectral range of 400-700 nm.
Light intensity was monitored at the beginning of the test at the level
of the test solutions and averaged 398 ft-c.  Flasks were oscillated
continuously at approximately 78 rpm on a mechanical shaker table to
keep the algal cells in suspension.  Test temperature was monitored
using a minimum/maximum thermometer in the environmental chamber and was
25 °C throughout the test duration.

The inoculum was prepared approximately 3 hours prior to test
initiation.  The cell density of the inoculum was 1.14 x 106 cells/mL.
The inoculum was added to the test solution at a rate of 1 mL of
inoculum per 100 mL of test solution.  The initial cell density in the
test chambers was nominally 1.14 x 104 cells/mL.  This initial cell
density was verified in three control blanks that were preserved with
Lugol's solution at the rate of 1% of the blank volume within 2 hours of
test initiation.  Five replicates were tested per treatment; one
replicate was used to monitor pH during the test and was discarded at
test termination.

On the day of test initiation, temperature, pH, and conductivity were
measured and recorded for each test treatment.  Hardness (mg/L CaCO3),
alkalinity (mg/L CaCO3), total ammonia (mg/L as N), and total residual
chlorine (mg/L) were also measured in the control and 100% PETN
treatments at test initiation.  Temperature and pH were measured in each
concentration daily and at test termination.  Temperature within the
environmental chamber was measured daily using a digital thermometer,
and recorded.

At test termination, test solutions destined for cell density
determination were preserved with Lugol's solution at a rate of 1% of
the final volume within 2 hours of test termination, and after
collection of analytical samples. Algal cell density in the test
solutions was later determined by direct microscopic counts (using a
hemocytometer and compound light microscope) and recorded.

Samples for PETN analysis were collected at test initiation, prior to
distributing the test solutions to the test chambers, from each freshly
prepared test treatment and the dilution water.  At test termination,
samples of the old test solutions were collected after aliquots were
removed for algal growth-response determination, and the replicates for
each treatment were pooled into one sample.  The pooled sample was
divided into two equal volumes.  One of these samples was filtered
through a pre-washed 0.45 µm cellulose membrane to remove algal cells.
Both samples were collected for each treatment (one with cells and one
without) by pouring the composite test solution into 250-mL clear glass
bottles, wrapped in aluminum foil.  The samples were refrigerated until
shipped (on ice) to TestAmerica, an independent laboratory, located in
Knoxville, Tennessee.  Method 8330 was used following USEPA (1986)
guidelines to analyze for nitroaromatics and nitramines by HPLC.
Analytical data from TestAmerica were reviewed by ENSR. All data were
determined to be valid and usable.

Statistical Analysis

Because cell density in any test concentration (including 100%) was not
reduced by more than 8% from the control, a 96-hour EC50 or IC50 value
(experimentally derived concentration of a test substance in dilution
water that is calculated to affect 50% of a test population over 96
hours) could not be statistically derived.

RESULTS

Endpoint value(s): 96 hr EC50 > 2850 µg/L PETN

Results remarks:

At the time of test initiation, water quality measurements in dilution
water were: hardness = 18 mg/L CaCO3, alkalinity = 10 mg/L CaCO3, pH =
7.5, conductivity = 95 µS/cm, total ammonia < 1.0 mg N/L, and total
residual chlorine < 0.02 mg/L.  Water quality measurements of 100% PETN
(with algal nutrients) were: hardness = 16 mg/L CaCO3, alkalinity = 11
mg/L CaCO3, pH = 7.7, conductivity = 82 µS/cm, total ammonia < 1.0 mg
N/L, and total residual chlorine < 0.03 mg/L.  The physical test
conditions monitored during the test were: pH = 7.5-9.4, conductivity
(measured only at test initiation) = 82-95 µS/cm, and temperature =
24-26 °C.  The conditions were within acceptable ranges for the
survival of S. capricornutum and were in compliance with the protocol
and ASTM requirements.

The average cell densities after 96 hours of exposure were 25.63, 29.42,
31.71, 26.39, and 23.81 x 105 cells/mL for the control, 3.2, 30, 310,
and 2850 µg/L concentrations, respectively.  The EC50 value, based on
cell density and measured PETN concentrations, was > 2850 µg/L; cell
density in any test concentration did not decrease more than 8% relative
to the control.

CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of this study was to determine the short-term chronic
toxicity of PETN to S. capricornutum under static test conditions.  The
biological endpoint for this study was cell density (cells/ml).  A
96-hour EC50 was determined based on mean measured PETN concentration
(µg/L) and cell density. The EC50 was > 2850 µg/L PETN.  Because the
highest concentration tested (2850 µg/L of PETN) did not result in a
50% or greater reduction in growth, a definitive test is not required.

STUDY RELIABILITY

[1] Reliable without restrictions.

REFERENCE

Pillard, D.A.  2008.  Toxicity of Pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN) to
the Unicellular Green Alga (Selenastrum capricornutum) under Static Test
Conditions.  ENSR Project ID 08503-131-073-002, Study
#08503-131-073-002.  Study completed 13 March 2008.

Review of TSCA Section 4 Final Study Report

CITB Project Manager: Catherine Roman

Chemical Name:	1,3-Propanediol, 2,2-bis[(nitrooxy)methyl]-, dinitrate
(ester)

CAS Registry Number: 78-11-5

Report Title: Toxicity of Pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN) to the
Unicellular Green Alga (Selenastrum capricornutum) under Static Test
Conditions

Test Sponsor: Dyno Nobel Inc., Salt Lake City, UT

Testing Lab: ENSR Fort Collins Environmental Toxicology Laboratory	,
Fort Collins, CO

Test Standard: ASTM E 1218

Date Study Received by EPA: N/A, posted to   HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov"  http://www.regulations.gov  on 5/19/08

Date Study Due to EPA: 5/17/07

Special Instructions (e.g., regarding approved protocol modifications,
etc.):

Part I.  Test Report and Study Conduct

Enter one of the following codes into each of the checkboxes 1 through
13:  Agree [A], Disagree [D], Not Applicable [NA], or Cannot Determine
[C], and add comment, below, as needed

 [D]    1. The final study report indicates evidence of gross,
unauthorized or undocumented deviation from

	the EPA test standard requirements, including “shall,” “must,”
or “will” violations.  List

	significant test standard deviations and “shall,” “must,” or
“will” violations in comments below.

 [D]    2. The final study report indicates evidence of deviations from
the “should” statements in the study protocol that may have a
bearing on the study conclusions.  List these in comments below.

 [D]    3. Approved modifications of test standard or testing protocol
(CITB PM describe or attach) were not followed or are inadequately
documented.

 [D]    4. There is evidence that laboratory Standard Operating
Procedures (SOPs) were inadequately followed.

 [D]    5. The Statement of Quality Assurance (QA) inspections, their
dates, and findings were missing or not signed.  There is evidence that
QA procedures may be inadequate.

 [D]    6. There is evidence that Good Laboratory Practice Standards
(GLPS) were inadequately followed.

 [D]    7. The test, control, or reference substances are different from
that specified in the section 4 test rule or Enforceable Consent
Agreement (ECA).

 [D]    8. Animal identification is inadequate or unclear; use of
unhealthy animals or other factors (e.g., deviations from temperature,
lighting, dosing) are apparent.

 [D]    9. The final study report inadequately describes the study
method.

 [D]   10. The final study report inadequately describes the test
system.

 [D]   11. The final study report inadequately describes the dosage
information.

 [D]   12. The final study report does not accurately reflect the
individual animal data (or that of other discrete observations pertinent
to the type of study conducted), or individual data were not provided.

 [NA] 13. The final study report inadequately describes the
calculations, interpolations, data transformations, statistical
analyses, or modeling parameters used.

Part II.  Conclusions

Place a check mark beside the summary statement(s) that apply to this
review and add comments below as appropriate

Part A.  To be filled out by Reviewer

Study Conduct		1. The study was well-conducted.					[X]					2. The study
was generally well-conducted, with some minor 		[  ]

    deficiencies (list in notes below).

			3. The study conduct was significantly deficient or questionable,
(give 	[  ]

    reasons in notes below).

Data Reliability		4. The study results are precise and accurate.				[X]
			5. Appropriate methods were used to determine 			[NA]

    statistical significance.

			6. If repeated, the test results would be expected to be the 		[X]

    same.

Data Utility		7. The data are useful for risk assessment for the
endpoint tested.	[X]

			8. The data are useful for some other purpose (e.g., dose-setting).
[  ]					9. The data are not useful for any purpose (describe in notes
below).	[  ]

Reviewer Comments (continue on separate page, if needed):

Although the test guideline states that each test chamber should be
inoculated at the rate of 2 x 104 cells/mL, the initial cell density in
this study was only 1.14 x 104 cells/mL.  It is unlikely that this
violation has bearing on the study conclusion.  Cell density in control
cultures increased by 225x during the 96-hour exposure period, which
exceeds the minimum acceptable growth rate.  Because cell densities in
test article-treated cultures were similar to controls, the EC50 value
exceeded the highest concentration tested; therefore, no statistics were
necessary.

Reviewer Name/Title/Branch/Division/Office: Ashlee Aldridge/SRC, Inc.

Reviewer Signature: David Brooks/HPVCB/RAD/OPPTS

Part B.  To be filled out by CITB PM

Tiered Testing Decision	1. The tiered testing trigger was met,
additional testing is indicated.	      [  ]

(when applicable)		2. The trigger for additional (tiered) testing was
not met.		      [  ]

Study Acceptability	3. The study is acceptable.						      [  ]

			4. The study may not be acceptable            				      [  ]

 			     (provide rationale in memo to CITB chief).

Draft HPV1 Test Rule  – Data Adequacy – Toxicity to Plants (Algae)
CAS No. 78-11-5

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  5


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 61 (Wednesday, March 30, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18419-18422]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06637]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-94515; File No. SR-LTSE-2022-02]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Long-Term Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Related to Continuing Education Requirements

March 24, 2022.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on March 15, 2022, Long-Term Stock Exchange, Inc.

(``LTSE'' or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change
to adopt new LTSE Rule 2.154 and amend LTSE Rule 2.160. The proposed
rule change is based on recent changes made by the Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'') to its Continuing Education
Program \3\ (the ``CE Transformation Initiative''), which includes a
change to provide a path through continuing education for individuals
to maintain their qualification following the termination of a
registration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 93097 (September 21,
2021), 86 FR 53358 (September 27, 2021) (Order Approving File No.
SR-FINRA-2021-015) (the ``Approval Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
website at https://longtermstockexchange.com/, at the principal office
of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange sets forth certain continuing education requirements
for persons associated with a Member which are based on certain FINRA
rules.\4\ The proposed rule change seeks to amend certain LTSE rules to
more closely mirror FINRA rules, as amended as part of the CE
Transformation Initiative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the proposed rule change would (i) adopt new LTSE
Rule 2.154 to incorporate by reference FINRA Rule 1240(c) and
Supplementary Material .01 and .02, which addresses how an associated
person of a member can maintain their qualifications following the
termination of a registration category, (ii) delete LTSE Rule 2.160(o)
(Lapse of Registration and Expiration of SIE) because its substance is
being replaced by new Rule 2.154, and (iii) amend Supplementary
Material .01 to LTSE Rule 2.160(g) to state that effective March 15,
2022, LTSE will not accept any new initial designations for waiver for
persons working for a financial services industry affiliate of a Member
as specified therein. Each of these proposed changes align with changes
to FINRA's Continuing Education Program,\5\ which are scheduled to
become effective on March 15, 2022.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id.
    \6\ See FINRA Rules 1210 and 1240. In FINRA Regulatory Notice
21-41 (November 17, 2021), FINRA announced the amendment of Rules
1210 and 1240, noting effective dates, March 15, 2022 (with respect
to paragraph (c) of Rule 1240 and Supplementary Material .09 to Rule
1210)); January 1, 2023 (all other rule changes).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change is part of a larger initiative in which
LTSE intends to align the structure of its registration, continuing
education and supervision rules with those of FINRA. As noted above,
however, the proposed rule change addresses only those changes that
become effective on March 15, 2022.
(i) Maintenance of Qualification After Termination of Registration
    Effective March 15, 2022, FINRA has established a program providing
eligible individuals who terminate any of their representative or
principal registrations with the option of maintaining their
qualification for certain terminated registrations by completing annual
continuing education (``Maintaining Qualifications Program'' or
``MQP''). The rule change provides individuals who elect this option a
maximum of five years in which to re-register with a member firm
without having to requalify by exam or having to obtain an exam waiver
by adopting paragraph (c) under FINRA Rule 1240 and related
Supplementary Material .01 and .02.The amended FINRA rule did not
eliminate the two-year qualification period.\7\ Rather, it provides
such individuals an alternative means of staying current on their
regulatory and securities knowledge following the termination of a
registration(s). Eligible individuals who elect not to participate in
the proposed continuing education program will continue to be subject
to the current two-year qualification period. This rule change is
generally aligned with other professional continuing education programs
that allow individuals to maintain their qualification to work in their
respective fields during a period of absence from their careers
(including an absence of more than two years) by satisfying continuing
education requirements for their credentials. FINRA's rule change would
impose the following conditions and limitations:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Approval Order, supra note 3 at 53360 (The ``two-year
qualification period'' is defined as, ``Currently, individuals whose
registrations as representatives or principals have been terminated
for two or more years may reregister as representatives or
principals only if they requalify by retaking and passing the
applicable representative- or principal-level examination or if they
obtain a waiver of such examination(s).'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Individuals would be required to be registered in the
terminated registration category for at least one year immediately
prior to the termination of that category; \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See FINRA Rule 1240(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     individuals could elect to participate when they terminate
a registration or within two years from the termination of a
registration; \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See FINRA Rule 1240(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     individuals would be required to complete annually all
prescribed continuing education;
     individuals would have a maximum of five years in which to
re-register; \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See FINRA Rule 1240(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     individuals who have been CE inactive for two consecutive
years, or who become CE inactive for two consecutive years during their
participation, would not be eligible to participate or continue; \11\
and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See FINRA Rules 1240(c)(4) and (c)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     individuals who are subject to a statutory
disqualification, or who become subject to a statutory disqualification
following the termination of their registration or during their
participation, would not be eligible to participate or continue.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See FINRA Rules 1240(c)(1) and (c)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA has included a look-back provision in the amended rules that
would, subject to specified conditions, extend the proposed option to
individuals who have been registered as a representative or principal
within two years immediately prior to the implementation date of the
rule change and individuals who have been Financial Services Affiliate
Waiver Program (``FSAWP'') participants \13\

immediately prior to the implementation date of the proposed rule
change.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Supplementary Material .09 to FINRA Rule 1210.
    \14\ See Supplementary Material .01 to FINRA Rule 1240.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the amended Supplementary Material .02 to FINRA Rule
1240 includes a re-eligibility provision that would allow individuals
to regain eligibility to participate each time they re-register with a
firm for a period of at least one year and subsequently terminate their
registration, provided that they satisfy the other participation
conditions and limitations.\15\ Eligible participating individuals
would be eligible to maintain their qualifications for up to five
years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Supplementary Material .02 to FINRA Rule 1240.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To align with the changes discussed above, proposed new LTSE Rule
2.154 would state that LTSE Members and associated persons of a Member
shall comply with FINRA Rule 1240(c) and Supplementary Material .01 and
.02, as if such Rule were part of the Exchange's Rules. Additionally,
for the purpose of LTSE Rule 2.154, cross-references in incorporated
FINRA Rule 1240(c) to FINRA Rule 1240(a)(2) shall refer to LTSE Rule
2.160(p)(1) (Regulatory Element). The proposed rule change would delete
LTSE Rule 2.160(o) as the approach to a lapse in registration would be
covered by new LTSE Rule 2.154.
(ii) Waiver of Examinations for Individuals Working for a Financial
Services Industry Affiliate of a Member
    In connection with this new continuing education regime, FINRA
amended Supplementary Material .09 to its Rule 1210 to state that it
will not accept any new participants for the FSAWP beginning on March
15, 2022. To mirror changes to its FSAWP, LTSE has added new language
to Supplementary Material .01 in LTSE Rule 2.160(g) to note that
effective March 15, 2022, LTSE will not accept any new initial
designations for individuals under its identical FSAWP.
2. Statutory Basis
    LTSE believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of
the Act \16\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5)
of the Act,\17\ in particular, in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the proposed rule change seeks to align the
Exchange's Rules with certain recent changes to FINRA rules which have
been approved by the Commission.\18\ The Exchange believes the proposed
rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act,\19\ which requires, among other things, that Exchange Rules must
be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest, and Section 6(c)(3) of the
Act,\20\ which authorizes the Exchange to prescribe standards of
training, experience and competence for persons associated with the
Exchange. The proposed changes are based on the changes approved by the
Commission in the Approval Order,\21\ and the Exchange is proposing to
adopt such changes substantially in the same form proposed by FINRA
with respect to the MQP and FSAWP provisions. The Exchange believes the
proposal is consistent with the Act for the reasons described above and
for those reasons cited in the Approval Order.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Approval Order, supra note 3.
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(c)(3).
    \21\ See Approval Order, supra note 3.
    \22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that establishing a path for individuals to
maintain their qualification following the termination of a
registration will reduce unnecessary impediments to requalification and
promote greater diversity and inclusion in the securities industry
without diminishing investor protection.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that
the proposed rule change, which harmonizes its rules with recent rule
changes adopted by FINRA, will reduce the regulatory burden placed on
market participants engaged in trading activities across different
markets.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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) of the Act \23\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) \24\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3).
    \24\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing. However,
pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), the Commission may designate a
shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked the
Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that this proposed
rule change may become operative immediately upon filing. Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) \25\ requires a self-regulatory organization to give the
Commission written notice of its intent to file a proposed rule change
under that subsection at least five business days prior to the date of
filing, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has provided such notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Waiver of the 30-day operative delay would allow the Exchange to
implement proposed changes to the Maintaining Qualifications Program by
March 15, 2022 to coincide with FINRA's announced implementation date,
thereby eliminating the possibility of a significant regulatory gap
between the FINRA and LTSE rules, providing more uniform standards
across the securities industry, and helping to avoid confusion for
registered persons of the Exchange that are also FINRA members. For
these reasons, the Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day
operative delay for this proposal is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. Accordingly, the Commission hereby
waives the 30-day operative delay and

designates the proposal operative upon filing.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule change's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-LTSE-2022-02 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-LTSE-2022-02. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of LTSE and on its internet website
at https://longtermstockexchange.com/.
    All comments received will be posted without change. Persons
submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit
personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-LTSE-2022-02 and should be
submitted on or before April 20, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-06637 Filed 3-29-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P