[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 70 (Friday, April 11, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20287-20288]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08126]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71891; File No. SR-Phlx-2013-113]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Request for
Comment and Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission
Action on Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a
Proposed Rule Change To Offer a Customer Rebate

April 7, 2014.
    On October 31, 2013, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Exchange'' or ``Phlx'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to
amend the Customer Rebate Program in Section B of the Exchange's
Pricing Schedule to increase Customer rebates available to certain
market participants that transact Customer orders on Phlx. The proposed
rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on
November 19, 2013.\3\ On November 25, 2013, the Commission temporarily
suspended and initiated proceedings to determine whether to approve or
disapprove the proposed rule change.\4\ The Commission has received six
comment letters on the proposal \5\ and one rebuttal letter from
Phlx.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70866 (November 13,
2013), 78 FR 69472 (``Notice'').
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70940 (November 25,
2013), 78 FR 71700 (November 29, 2013) (``Order Instituting
Proceedings'').
    \5\ See letters to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
from: Michael J. Simon, Secretary, International Securities
Exchange, LLC, dated November 11, 2013; William O'Brien, Chief
Executive Officer, Direct Edge Holdings LLC, dated November 13,
2013; Brian O'Neill, Vice President and Senior Counsel, Miami
International Securities Exchange, LLC, dated November 27, 2013;
John C. Nagel, Managing Director and General Counsel, Citadel
Securities, dated December 18, 2013; Angelo Evangelou, Associate
General Counsel, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., dated
December 20, 2013; and Michael J. Simon, Secretary, International
Securities Exchange, LLC, dated December 20, 2013.
    \6\ See letter to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
from Joan C. Conley, Senior Vice President & Corporate Secretary,
NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, dated January 24, 2014 (``Phlx Response
Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \7\ provides that, after instituting
proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove a proposed
rule change, within 180 days of the publication of notice of the filing
of a proposed rule change, the Commission shall either approve the
proposed rule change or disapprove the proposed rule change. The
Commission may extend the period for issuing an order approving or
disapproving the proposed rule change, however, by not more than 60
days if the Commission determines that a longer period is appropriate
and publishes the reasons for such determination. The 180th day for
this filing is May 18, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer
period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that
it has sufficient time to review comment letters submitted in response
to the Order Instituting Proceedings, to review the Exchange's response
to such comments, and to consider and take action on the Exchange's
proposed rule change.
    The Commission also seeks additional comment to help further inform
its analysis of the proposed rule change. Specifically, the Commission
invites interested persons to submit data, views, and arguments
concerning the proposed rule change, including whether the proposed
rule change is consistent with the Act. In particular, the Commission
seeks comment on the following.
    Phlx states in its January 24, 2014 response to comments `` . . .
if an exchange believes that it would be attractive to customers to
have a choice between multiple affiliated exchanges, it may create such
exchanges as some self-regulatory exchanges--including commenters CBOE
and ISE--have already done.'' \8\ Phlx further states that ``[t]here
are no significant barriers to SROs creating additional options
exchanges.'' \9\ Phlx's response suggests that, if the proposal were
approved, there is a potential for entities to create new options
exchanges in order to compete with Phlx.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Phlx Response Letter, supra note 6, at 7.
    \9\ Id.
    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has previously stated that its task has been to
facilitate an appropriately balanced market structure that promotes
competition among markets, while minimizing the potentially adverse
effects of fragmentation on efficiency, price transparency, best
execution of investor orders, and order interaction.\11\ In that
Concept Release, the Commission discussed the impact of competition
among trading venues and market fragmentation.\12\ The Commission also
stated that when many trading centers compete for order flow in the
same security, however, such competition can lead to the fragmentation
of order flow in that security.\13\ The Commission further stated that
fragmentation can inhibit the interaction of investor orders and
thereby impair certain efficiencies and the best execution of
investors' orders.\14\ On the other hand, the Commission stated that
mandating the consolidation of order flow in a single venue would
create a monopoly and thereby lose the important benefits of completion
among markets.\15\ The Commission stated that the benefits of such
competition include incentives for trading centers to create new
products, provide high quality trading services that meet the needs of
investors, and keep trading fees low.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Exchange Act Release No. 61358 (Jan. 14, 2010), 75 FR
3593, 3597 (Jan. 21, 2010) (``Concept Release'').
    \12\ Id.
    \13\ Id.
    \14\ Id.
    \15\ Id.
    \16\ See Concept Release, supra note 11, at 3597.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result, the Commission has stated that such market
fragmentation concerns have presented challenges to the Commission's
objective to protect investors and maintain fair and orderly
markets.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id.

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

    1. What are commenters' views on the impact that Phlx's proposal
would have on the current options market structure? Please explain.
What would the impact be, if any, on the current equity market
structure? Please explain.
    2. What are commenters' views on the impact the proposal would
have, if any, on the trading of options orders across multiple options
exchanges? Please explain. Specifically, what are commenters' views as
to the impact, if any, on order interaction, quote competition,
liquidity (both top of book and depth of book) on each options exchange
or across all options exchanges, and/or short-term and long-term
volatility? Please explain. What are commenters' views on the impact
the proposal would have, if any, on the best execution of investor
orders, including the implicit costs of executing their orders (such as
spreads and price impact)? Please explain.
    3. What are commenters' views on the impact the proposal would
have, if any, on the current total number of options exchanges? Please
explain. Do commenters believe that the total number of exchanges that
list and trade standardized options would likely increase, decrease, or
remain unchanged? Please explain.
    4. What are commenters' views on how the proposal would impact the
incentives for existing exchanges or new entities to create multiple
exchanges under one group? What are commenters' views on how, if any,
the proposal would impact the incentives for: (1) Entities that
currently operate multiple options exchanges under common ownership
(``exchange group'') to create additional options exchanges under their
existing exchange group; (2) stand-alone options exchanges to create
new options exchanges under an exchange group; or (3) stand-alone
exchanges and/or exchange groups to consolidate and form new options
exchange groups. Please elaborate.
    5. What are commenters' views on the potential explicit costs
(e.g., connectivity costs, routing costs) or benefits of increasing or
decreasing the total number of options exchanges? Please identify such
potential costs or benefits and explain why they would change.
    6. Commenters are requested to provide empirical data and other
factual support for their views.
    Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2013-113 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2013-113. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2013-113 and should be
submitted on or before April 25, 2014. Any person who wishes to file a
rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by
May 9, 2014.
    Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act and
for the reasons stated above, the Commission designates July 17, 2014,
as the date by which the Commission should either approve or disapprove
the proposed rule change (File No. SR-Phlx-2013-113).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-08126 Filed 4-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR

AN INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST

1. 	IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

1(a).	Title of the Information Collection:

TITLE:  Notice of Supplemental Distribution of a Registered Pesticide
Product

OMB No.:  2070-0044		EPA No.:  0278.10

1(b).	Short Characterization/Abstract

This information collection request (ICR) is a proposed renewal of an
existing ICR currently approved by Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
and is due to expire on March 31, 2009.  The information collection
activity notifies the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of a
supplemental registration of distributors of pesticide products.  EPA is
responsible for the regulation of pesticides as mandated by the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended.  Section
3(e) of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136a(e)) allows pesticide registrants to
distribute or sell registered pesticide products under a different name
or in addition to the registered name (see Attachment A).  Additionally,
this statute allows the second company to distribute a registered
pesticide product under its own name.  Such distribution and sale is
termed “supplemental distribution” and the product is termed a
“distributor product.”  The EPA requires pesticide registrants who
enter into supplemental distribution agreements with other companies to
submit Form 8570-5, Notice of Supplemental Distribution of a Registered
Pesticide Product (see Attachment B).

2. 	NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

2(a).	Need/Authority for the Collection

This information is required to be submitted pursuant to section 3(e) of
FIFRA, as amended.  Regulations pertaining to supplemental distribution
are contained in Title 40 CFR Part 152.132 (see Attachments A and C,
respectively).

2(b).	Practical Utility/Users of the Data

Section 3(e) of FIFRA requires pesticide registrants to notify the
Agency when the registrant has entered into an agreement with a second
company to distribute the registrant's product under the second
company's name and product name.  The distributor is considered an agent
of the registrant for all intents and purposes under the Act, and both
the registrant and the distributor may be held liable for violations
pertaining to the distributor product.  EPA’s Office of Pesticide
Programs is responsible for maintaining information about supplemental
distribution agreements.

3.	NON DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA

3(a). 	Non duplication

This is the only information collection activity of its kind, and the
information collected under this program is collected only once per
receipt of a notice of distributor registration. Therefore, the
possibility of duplication does not exist.

3(b).	Public Notice Required Prior to ICR submission to OMB

In proposing to renew this ICR, EPA is publishing a Federal Register
Notice that provides a 60-day public notice and comment period.

3(c).	Consultations

During the development of this renewal ICR, EPA staff will contact
appropriate stakeholders and ask them for their assessment of the
regulatory burden estimates expressed by the Agency in this ICR.  A
summary of these consultations will be provided in the docket for this
action.

3(d).	Effects of Less Frequent Collection

This activity is only conducted once per "event" (one notification is
submitted per product), therefore, there is no way that the EPA can
reduce the frequency of the collection.  The EPA must maintain the
current frequency of this collection in order to avoid violating FIFRA
section 3(e).

3(e).	General Guidelines

The only PRA-imposed guideline in 5 CFR 1320.6 that may be exceeded in
this collection is the record-keeping retention period. We would expect
the registrant and the distributor to maintain copies of their
distribution agreement (EPA Form 8570-5) as long as the registration is
valid or until the parties notify EPA that they have voluntarily
dissolved the distribution agreement.  Registrations are valid unless
they are voluntarily canceled or withdrawn by the registrant or until
EPA has cause to suspend or cancel the registration as a result of the
Reregistration Program or an adverse finding by the Agency.  Since the
average period of marketability of a pesticide ranges from 15 to 30
years, the PRA-imposed guideline indicating that data, other than
health, medical, or tax records need not be retained for more than 3
years generally will be exceeded in this program.

This collection of information does not involve the use of automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology (e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses).  Additionally, is not practicable for the
Agency to implement electronic reporting at this time.

OPP is not yet able to make electronic reporting available for this
information collection.  Based on the Agency’s needs, and on the
Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) GPEA guidance (as updated by
OMB’s policy on E-Authentication), EPA would likely require that any
electronically submitted forms be signed with an e-signature technology
such as public key infrastructure (PKI).  As this information collection
request indicates, both the basic product registrant and the distributor
must sign the required notification.  EPA is currently unaware of how an
e-signature technology that offers both the Agency and the signatories
the level of document integrity and signature security such as that
offered by PKI can be successfully applied to a document that requires
multiple signatures.

3(f).	Confidentiality

Product distributorship data submitted by basic product registrants
under FIFRA section 3(e), are considered by the Office of Pesticide
Programs (OPP) to contain no confidential business information (CBI).

3(g).	Sensitive Questions

No information of a sensitive or private nature is requested in
conjunction with this information collection activity. Further, this
information collection activity complies with provisions of the Privacy
Act of 1974 and OMB Circular A-108.

4. 	THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

4(a).	Respondents/NAICS Codes

The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code for
businesses participating in this program is 325320 (Pesticide and other
Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing).

4(b).	Information Requested

   (i)	Data Items, Including Record Keeping Requirements

Any pesticide registrant may participate in this program by submitting a
completed EPA Form 8570-5, Notice of Supplemental Distribution of a
Registered Pesticide Product, to the Agency.  The registrant must
furnish the following information:

 •	EPA registration number of the product to be distributed;

 •	EPA-assigned distributor company number;

 •	name and address of the basic product registrant;

 •	name of the registered product to be distributed;

 •	name to be used on the distributed product;

 •	name and address of the distributor;

 •	signature and title of the distributor and date signed; and
signature and title of the basic product registrant and date signed.

(ii)	Respondent Activities

For each distributor product, the basic product registrant must send a
completed Form 8570-5, signed by both the basic product registrant and
the distributor, to EPA. Responsibility for regulatory compliance rests
primarily with the basic product registrant. However, both the basic
product registrant and the distributor may be held liable for any
violation of FIFRA.  A participant must undertake the following
activities in order to provide the requisite information to the EPA:

Read

Read form and instructions; and

Compile

review information for accuracy and appropriateness.

Submit

Submit EPA Form 8570-5 to the Agency; and

Store

file or maintain the information.

5.	The Information Collected - Agency Activities, Collection
Methodology, and Information Management

5(a).	Agency Activities

Notices of Supplemental Distribution of a Registered Pesticide Product
are pin-punched with the date of receipt. Subsequent processing steps
include:

Verify

Verify the regulatory status of the primary registration to be
supplementally distributed; and

Assign

If necessary, assign an EPA company number to the supplemental
distributor.

Acknowledge receipt

Provide a receipt of the notice by mailing a copy to the distributor
company.

Process

Process information from the form into the computerized "Distributor
File," a part of the Office of Pesticide Programs Integrated Network
(OPPIN).

File and maintain information

The original form is filed in the regulatory file of the parent Section
3 registration and kept in the Office of Pesticide Programs Information
Services Center.

5(b).	Collection Methodology and Management

Registrants voluntarily enter into agreements with distributors.  They
are required, under FIFRA, to notify the Agency of these agreements.
EPA maintains the original notifications in the regulatory file of the
parent Section 3 registration at the Office of Pesticide Programs
Information Services Center.

5(c).	Small Entity Flexibility

Most of the companies participating in this program would qualify as
small entities.  The Agency closely examined potential burdens to small
entities and instituted changes to this program in 1984.  At that time,
OMB approved the changes.  The Agency also re-evaluated the general
burden categories in 1986.  The Agency believes that the burden imposed
by this activity has been minimized to what is believed to be the
minimal level at which this program can effectively function under the
requirements specified in the FIFRA and the regulations for the
enforcement of FIFRA.

5(d).	Collection Schedule

Not applicable.  This activity is conducted only once per "event" when
the registrant submits a Notice of Supplemental Distribution of a
Registered Pesticide Product, to the Agency.  Therefore, there is no set
schedule for collection of this information.

6. 	ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

6(a).	Estimating Respondent Burden

The burden associated with this collection of information is estimated
to be about 15 minutes per response.  The Agency’s burden estimate on
the per-response basis has not changed over the last several years.
However, there has been a decrease in the number of notices submitted to
EPA over the last several years.  Whereas EPA had expected to receive
about 2,500 notice submissions annually over the past 3 years, based on
the actual number of submissions received annually over that period
(1,927 in FY2006, 2,117 in FY2007, and 1,596 in FY2008), the Agency now
expects to receive only 1,900 notice submissions annually over the next
3 years. Given this change, EPA estimates the total annual burden
associated with the notice of supplemental distribution of a registered
pesticide product to be 456 hours.

Consistent with recent ICR renewals, OPP is using labor cost estimates
from Agency economists with respect to wages, benefits and overhead for
all labor categories for affected industries, state government, and EPA
employees.  This approach uses a transparent and consistent methodology
and current publicly-available data to provide more accurate estimates
and allow easy replication of the estimates.

	Methodology:	The methodology uses data on each sector and labor type
for an Unloaded wage rate (hourly wage rate), and calculates the Loaded
wage rate (unloaded wage rate + benefits), and the Fully loaded wage
rate (loaded wage rate + overhead).  Fully loaded wage rates are used to
calculate respondent costs.  This renewal uses data from 2007, which is
the most recent.

	Unloaded Wage Rate:  Wages are estimated for occupations (management,
technical, and clerical) within applicable sectors. The Agency uses
average wage data for the relevant sectors available in the National
Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates from the
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm"
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm .

	Sectors: The specific North American Industry Classification System
(NAICS) code and website for each sector is included in that sector’s
wage rate table.  Within each sector, the wage data are provided by
Standard Occupational Classification (SOC).  The SOC system is used by
Federal statistical agencies to classify workers into occupational
categories for the purpose of collecting, calculating, or disseminating
data (see   HYPERLINK "http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_stru.htm"
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_stru.htm  ).

Loaded Wage Rate: Benefits represent 43% of unloaded wage rates, based
on benefits for all civilian non-farm workers, from   HYPERLINK
"http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t01.htm"
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t01.htm .

	Fully Loaded Wage Rate: The loaded wage rate is multiplied by 50% (EPA
guidelines 20-70%) to get overhead costs.

A copy of the formula work sheets used to estimate the labor rates and
to derive the fully loaded rates and overhead costs for this renewal are
listed in Attachment F.

Table 1.	Respondent Burden/Cost: Applicant Cost Estimate per
Supplemental Distribution Application

REGISTRANT

HOURS, RATES

TOTAL

Collection Activities

Mgmt

$104.41/hr

Tech

$57.88/hr.

Cler

$34.95/hr.

Hours

Costs

Read any Instructions

0.08

0.00

0.00

0.08

$8.35

Process, compile, review information for accuracy and appropriateness.

0.05

0.00

0.00

0.05

$5.22

Complete and submit EPA Form 8570-5

0.03

0.00

0.00

0.03

$3.13

Store, file, or maintain information.

0.00

0.00

0.08

0.08

$2.80

Total

0.16

0.00

0.08

0.24

$19.50

Data Source:  U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, May,
2007.

NAICS 325300 - Pesticide, Fertilizer, and Other Agricultural Chemical
Manufacturing

Notes: Fringe benefits/wage per hour is the average for non farm, non
federal civilian workers.

Totals may not sum due to rounding.

ANNUAL BURDEN: 0.24 Total Hours x 1,900 Respondents = 456 Hours

ANNUAL COSTS: $19.50 Total Costs x 1,900 Respondents = $37,050

6(c).	Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

The Agency devotes 0.33 hours, or 20 minutes, to process each of the
1,900 supplemental distribution submissions. Processing of supplemental
distribution submissions is conducted by clerical staff (SOC of office
and administrative support occupations).

To determine Agency costs, the Agency used the Bureau of Labor
Statistics estimates of labor rates for the North American Industry
Classification System code for the Federal Executive Branch (NAICS
999100). For clerical occupations, the fully loaded mean wage rate is
$41 (See Worksheet for NAICS 999100 EPA and Federal Government in
Attachment G).

The total annual Agency burden associated with the notice of
supplemental distribution of a registered pesticide product is 633
hours.  This estimate assumes the Agency devotes 0.33 hours to each of
the 1,900 respondents.  The Agency cost associated with this program is
$25,967 annually

ANNUAL BURDEN: 0.33 Total Hours x 1,900 Responses = 633

ANNUAL COSTS: $13.67 Total Costs x 1,900 Responses = $25,967

6(d).	Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables

	Total Annual Respondent and Agency Burden and Costs

	Total

	Hours

	Costs

Annual Respondent Burden/Cost Estimates

	456

$37,050

Annual Agency Burden/Cost  Estimates

	633

$25,967

6(e).	Reasons for Change in Burden

The total annual response burden associated with the notice of
supplemental distribution of a registered pesticide product is 456
hours, a decrease of 139 hours over the 595 hours estimated in the ICR
from 2006.  This decrease is an adjustment.  The average number of
supplemental registrations received by the EPA over the last three years
is approximately 1,900 responses per year (1,972 in FY2006, 2,117 in
FY2007, and 1,596 in FY2008).  We estimate, therefore, that we will
receive an average of 1,900 supplemental registrations annually for the
next three years.

6(f).	Burden Statement

The total estimated annual respondent paperwork burden to comply with
this information collection activity is 456 hours.   This estimate
includes the time needed to review instructions; utilize technology and
systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and
providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to
respond to a collection of information; search existing data sources;
complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or
otherwise disclose the information.  An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The OMB control numbers for EPA’s regulations in title 40 of the CFR,
after appearing in the Federal Register, are listed in 40 CFR part 9,
and included on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable
(see Attachment H).

The Agency has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0264, which is available for online viewing at
HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov , or in
person viewing at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One
Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA.
This docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The docket telephone number is (703)
305-5805.  You may submit comments regarding the Agency's need for this
information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any
suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of
automated collection techniques.

	Comments may be submitted to EPA electronically through
http://www.regulations.gov or by mail addressed to Director, Collection
Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T), 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460.  You can also send
comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503,
Attention: Desk Office for EPA.  Include docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0264 and OMB control number 2070-0044 in any
correspondence but do not submit information under this collection to
these addresses.

Attachments List

All of the attachments listed below can be found in the docket for this
ICR (unless otherwise noted), accessible electronically through
HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov/"  www.Regulations.gov  . On the
main page, select Advanced Search from the menu bar at the top and
select Docket Search. Enter the Docket ID Number, EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0264,
in the Docket ID field. Click on the Submit button. From the results
page, you will be able to link to the docket view or directly open
select documents found in the docket.

Attachment A	FIFRA Section 3 (7 U.S.C 136a)

FIFRA Section 3 (see page 16):   HYPERLINK
"http://agriculture.senate.gov/Legislation/Compilations/Fifra/FIFRA.pdf"
 http://agriculture.senate.gov/Legislation/Compilations/Fifra/FIFRA.pdf

7 U.S.C. 136a:

  HYPERLINK
"http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/7/usc_sec_07_00000136---a000-.html"
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/7/usc_sec_07_00000136---a000-.html

Attachment B	EPA Form 8570-5

Notice of Supplemental Distribution of a Registered Pesticide Product:

  HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/forms/8570-5.pdf"
http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/forms/8570-5.pdf

Attachment C	40 CFR part 152.132

  HYPERLINK
"http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=4a068ea9e8a458
c82e7ca38e646d8bf5&rgn=div8&view=text&node=40:<IP_ADDRESS>.<IP_ADDRESS>&idno=40"
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=4a068ea9e8a458c
82e7ca38e646d8bf5&rgn=div8&view=text&node=40:<IP_ADDRESS>.<IP_ADDRESS>&idno=40

Attachment D	Reserved (List of Standard Questions)

Attachment E		Reserved (Consultation Process:  Responses)

Attachment F		Work Sheets used to Calculate Registrant Labor Costs

Attachment G	Work Sheets used to Calculate EPA and Federal Government
Labor Costs

Attachment H	OMB Control #2070-0044

List of OMB Control numbers related to 40 CFR 9.1:   HYPERLINK
"http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=7598aa9097cc06
166e78fabfecb78a1e&rgn=div5&view=text&node=40:<IP_ADDRESS>.9&idno=40"
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=7598aa9097cc061
66e78fabfecb78a1e&rgn=div5&view=text&node=40:<IP_ADDRESS>.9&idno=40

Page   PAGE  1  of   NUMPAGES  9


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 33 (Thursday, February 19, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 8866]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03441]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OR15-14-000]

Panola Pipeline Company, LLC; Notice of Petition for Declaratory
Order

    Take notice that on February 10, 2015, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2)
of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2) (2014), Panola Pipeline
Company, LLC (Panola or Petitioner), filed a petition for declaratory
order seeking approval of priority service and the proposed tariff rate
structure and terms of service for a planned expansion of Panola's
pipeline system, as more fully explained in the petition.
    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, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Petitioner.
    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 5 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: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on March 10, 2015.

    Dated: February 12, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-03441 Filed 2-18-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Supporting Statement

for

Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers
(STCW),

1995, 1997, and 2010 Amendments to the International Convention

OMB No.:  1625-0079

COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS:  Instruction

A.  Justification

1)  Circumstances that make the collection of information necessary.

The collection of information is needed to ensure that mariners have
completed training and assessment necessary to receive STCW
certification or endorsement.  Collection of information is also needed
to demonstrate to the International Maritime Organization that the
United States has in place certain specific regulations that implement
the international requirements.  The requirements generally reflect
routine practices for U.S. ship operating companies and training
institutions.  The requirements are issued under the authority of Title
46 United Sates Code (U.S.C.) Chapter 71.

STCW requires seafarers serving on vessels affected by STCW to either
take training, or demonstrate competency, in skills necessary to perform
assigned duties.  The regulation contains collection of information
requirements for the following: documentation of curriculum for training
courses used to receive STCW certification or endorsement; documentation
of practical skills demonstration; documentation of training and
assessment; documentation of medical fitness; maintenance of
seafarers’ records by vessel owners or operators; and, documentary
evidence showing that the personnel serving on passenger ships on
international voyages meet appropriate training.

There are no forms associated with this COI.  Individuals/companies can
develop whatever works for them as long as the info content follows the
rules.  The CG has published guidance on STCW requirements.  Info can be
found at --   HYPERLINK "http://www.uscg.mil/STCW/stcw-help.htm"
http://www.uscg.mil/STCW/stcw-help.htm  .  There is no requirement to
share or upload info electronically.

The table below identifies which part of the CFR corresponds to the
subject.

Table 1

STCW requirements: CFR, Subject and Affected Population

46 CFR	Subject and Affected Population

10.404	a) Recording of training and assessment record books.

Candidates for an STCW certificate or endorsement as an officer in
charge of an engineering watch applying to substitute approved training
in place of required service.

Candidates for an STCW certificate or endorsement as an officer in
charge of an engineering watch, for service in a seagoing vessel.

10.408	b) Documentation of training courses and student’s performance.

c) Documentation and submission of skills demonstration to the National
Maritime Center (NMC).

Training and assessment providers.

11.1105,

12.905 and

15.1103 	d) Documentary evidence showing that the personnel serving on
passenger ships on international voyages meet appropriate training

All personnel serving on passenger ships

12.205, 10.301	e) Documentation of medical fitness.

All applicants for new merchant mariner credential w/ STCW endorsement

Medical examinations every 2 years for all mariners w/ STCW endorsement

15.1107, 12.625, 12.627, 11.1005	f) Maintenance of merchant mariners’
records by owner or operator.

Seagoing vessels subject to the STCW.

Documented evidence of training for personnel with security duties

Documented evidence of security awareness for all other personnel

Documented evidence of foreign sea service

15.1111	g) Posting of watch schedules.

Seagoing vessels subject to the STCW.

a)  Recording of training and assessment record books.  Candidates for
an STCW certificate or endorsement as an officer in charge of a
navigational watch or engineering watch may use a combination of
training and sea service to meet STCW requirements.  When seagoing
service is combined with training in order to qualify for STCW
certification, training must be documented in a Coast
Guard-accepted-training-record book.  Documentation of sea-service will
ensure that seafarers that opt to use sea-service as the basis for their
qualifications have the experience that will allow them to meet the
standards of competency outlined in STCW.

b)  Documentation of training courses and student’s performance.
Where courses are required, objectives and criteria used for training
not subject to Coast Guard approval must be documented and available for
evaluation.  Documentation of course objectives and training criteria
will ensure that training and assessment activities prepare seafarers to
meet the standards of competency outlined in STCW.

c)  Documentation and submission of skills demonstration to the NMC.
Under STCW, when courses are not required, candidates for original
licenses and license renewals must demonstrate competency in skills
necessary to perform assigned duties.  Evidence of demonstrated
competency must be documented and submitted to the NMC in order for
candidates to receive STCW certification or documentation.

d)  Documentary evidence showing that the personnel serving on passenger
ships on international voyages meet appropriate training.  STCW
Regulation V/3 requires that each mariner who completes the required
training receive a certificate.  Every five years, completion of a
refresher course would be documented in the mariner’s record and it
would show that the mariner has received such training, or has otherwise
maintained competence in the required areas of knowledge, understanding
and proficiency.

e)  Documentation of medical fitness.  Applicants for merchant
mariners’ documents must submit written reports from medical
practitioners stating that they are medically fit to perform assigned
duties once every two years.  Documentation of medical fitness will
ensure that seafarers are fit to perform assigned duties.

f)  Maintenance of merchant mariners’ records by owner or operator.
Ship companies must ensure that information regarding the medical
fitness, experience, and competency of seafarers serving on any vessel
is maintained and accessible to management.  Seafarers’ records
maintained by the owners/operators would be subject to Coast Guard
review in its oversight function to ensure that seafarers employed on
vessels affected by STCW have the skills and fitness level necessary to
perform assigned duties.

g)  Posting of watch schedules.  Rest hour minima will require posting
of rest hour schedules for each vessel.  These recordkeeping
requirements are largely consistent with good commercial practices and
dictate good seamanship for safe navigation.

This information collection supports the following strategic goals:

Department of Homeland Security

Prevention

Protection

Coast Guard

Marine Safety

Protection of the Natural Resources

Prevention Policy & Response Policy Directorates (CG-5P & CG-5R)

Reduce crewmember deaths and injuries on U.S. commercial vessels

Reduce the risk of major loss of life on passenger vessels

Reduce the discharge of oil into the marine environment

Reduce the discharge of chemicals into the environment

2)  Purpose of the information collection.

The purpose of the information collection is to ensure compliance with
international requirements and to maintain acceptable quality in
activities associated with training and assessment of merchant mariners.
 Documentation of objectives and criteria used for training and
assessment would ensure that training programs meet the objectives
required by the IMO.  Documentation of skill demonstration and
sea-service would ensure that seafarers have the skills and experience
necessary to perform assigned duties.  Ship company record maintenance
and rest hour posting requirements would make companies responsible for
verifying the credentials of seafarers employed in their service.

3)  Considerations of the use of improved technology.

The information collection may be in written or electronic form.  There
are no forms, structured format or system required for maintaining the
information.  We estimate that about 50% of the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements can be done electronically.

4)  Efforts to identify duplication.

There are no State or local regulations relating to this issue.  No
similar information collection is conducted by other Federal agencies.
Similar information does not exist.

5)  Methods used to minimize the burden to small businesses if involved.

Domestic law generally excludes uninspected passenger vessels from
regulations applicable to ocean-going vessels, the Coast Guard exempts
personnel serving on uninspected passenger vessels from STCW
requirements.  Additionally, domestic regulations for small passenger
vessels and for seagoing vessels less than 200 gross register tons are
considered equivalent to STCW standards.

6)  Consequences to the Federal program if collection were not conducted
or conducted less frequently.

Failure to effect the required collection of information relating to
skills and experience could render unverifiable compliance with STCW
training and assessment requirements.  Without an information
collection, there would be no practical means for holding the owner or
operator of a seagoing vessel accountable for inadequate navigational
safety practices.  Also, there would be no way to determine whether
seafarers employed on vessels covered under STCW had successfully
completed training or demonstrated competency in skills necessary to
perform assigned duties.

7)  Special collection circumstances.

This information collection is conducted in manner consistent with the
guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.5(d)(2).

8)  Consultation.

A 60-day Notice will be published in the Federal Register to obtain
public comment on this collection.

9)  Provide any payment or gift to respondents.

There is no offer of monetary or material value for this information
collection.

10)  Assurances of confidentiality provided to respondents.

There are no assurances of confidentiality provided to the respondents
for this information collection.  This information collection request is
covered by the Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE)
and Merchant Mariner Licensing and Documentation System Privacy Impact
Assessments (PIAs) and the MISLE and Merchant Seamen’s Records System
of Records Notices (SORNs).  Links to the aforementioned PIAs and SORNs
are provided below:

  HYPERLINK
"https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/privacy_pia_uscg_m
isle.pdf"
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/privacy_pia_uscg_mi
sle.pdf

   HYPERLINK
"https://www.dhs.gov/publication/dhsuscgpia-015-merchant-mariner-licensi
ng-and-documentation-system"
https://www.dhs.gov/publication/dhsuscgpia-015-merchant-mariner-licensin
g-and-documentation-system

  HYPERLINK
"https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2009-06-25/html/E9-14906.htm"
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2009-06-25/html/E9-14906.htm

  HYPERLINK
"https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2009-06-25/html/E9-14911.htm"
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2009-06-25/html/E9-14911.htm

11)  Additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature.

There are no questions of sensitive language.

12)  Estimate of annual hour and cost burden to respondents.

The estimated annual number of respondents is 35,116.

The estimated annual number of responses is 46,738.

The estimated annual hour burden is 29,366 hours.

The estimated annual cost burden is $2,080,980.

The burden to respondents is provided in Appendix A.  Respondents are
merchant mariners with a least 1 active STCW endorsement, training
providers that offer STCW-related course, and U.S. Flag vessels required
to be manned by mariners with STCW endorsements.  All wage rates used
are in accordance with the current edition of COMDTINST 7310.1(series)
for “Out-Government” personnel.

a)  We estimate that it takes 1 hour per recording of a training and
assessment record and that a record is done by a technical specialist.
The position of a technical specialist is equivalent to a GS-13.
Additionally, we estimate that annually about 0.3% of the total STCW
mariner population uses this type of record.

b)  We estimate that it takes 1 hour to document a training course or a
student’s performance and that a record is done by an administrative
specialist.  The position of an administrative specialist is equivalent
to a GS-7.  Additionally, we estimate that this action is taken once for
each STCW training provider and for each STCW course.

c)  We estimate that it takes 0.5 hours to record and submit a skills
demonstration to the NMC and that that action is done by a technical
specialist.  The position of a technical specialist is equivalent to a
GS-13.  Additionally, we estimate that annually about 0.3% of the total
STCW mariner population uses this type of record.

d)  We estimate that it takes about 5 minutes (0.083 hours) to record
that personnel serving on passenger vessels are trained as required by
STCW Regulation V/2 and that the action is done by a technical
specialist.  The position of a technical specialist is equivalent to a
GS-13.  Additionally, we estimate that annually about 2% of the total
STCW mariner population uses this type of record.

e)  We estimate that it takes about 15 minutes (0.25 hours) by a medical
practitioner and 5 minutes (0.083 hours) by a mariner to record the
mariner’s medical fitness.  The position of a medical practitioner is
equivalent to a GS-15, and the mariner is equivalent to a GS-13.
Medical fitness reviews are required every 2 years.

f)  We estimate that it takes 3 hours to maintain seamen records per
voyage on each U.S. Flag vessel with STCW mariners and that the work is
done by an administrative specialist.  The position of a technical
specialist is equivalent to a GS-7.  Additionally, we estimate that each
vessel annually has 3 voyages (i.e., crew changes).

g)  We estimate that it takes 15 minutes (0.25 hours) to post a watch
schedule per voyage on each U.S. Flag vessel with STCW mariners and that
the work is done by an administrative specialist.  The position of a
technical specialist is equivalent to a GS-7.  Additionally, we estimate
that each vessel annually has 3 voyages (i.e., crew changes).

13)  Estimate of annualized capital and start-up costs.

There are no recordkeeping, capital, start-up or maintenance costs
associated with this information collection.

14)  Estimates of annualized cost to the Federal Government.

The annualized Federal Government cost estimate is $781,770 (see
Appendix B).  We estimate that it takes a member of the Coast Guard
about 30 minutes to review each (a) training and assessment record, (b)
training course or student performance record, (c) skills demonstration,
or (d) record that personnel serving on passenger vessels are trained as
required by STCW Regulation V/2.  We estimate that it takes a member of
the Coast Guard about 30 minutes to review each (e) medical fitness
record.  We estimate that it takes a member of the Coast Guard about 30
minutes to review each (f) seamen record and (g) each watch schedule.
Additionally, for seamen records and watch schedules, we estimate that
the Coast Guard will spot check 25% of all records each year during
inspections, boarding or post-casualty investigations.  The Coast Guard
member conducting each of these activities is analogous to a Lieutenant
Junior Grade (LTJG, O-2).  The wage rate used is in accordance with the
current edition of COMDTINST 7310.1(series) for “In-Government”
personnel.

15)  Reasons for change in the burden.

The change in burden is an ADJUSTMENT due to a change (i.e., decrease)
in the estimated annual number of responses.  There is no proposed
change to the reporting requirements of this collection.  The reporting
requirements, and the methodology for calculating burden, remain
unchanged.

16)  Plans for tabulation, statistical analysis and publication.

This information collection will not be published for statistical
purposes.

17)  Approval for not explaining the expiration date for OMB approval.

The Coast Guard will display the expiration date for OMB approval of
this information collection.

18)  Exception to the certification statement.

The Coast Guard does not request an exception to the certification of
this information collection.

B.  Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods

This information does not employ statistical methods.

  As a merchant mariner with an STCW endorsement only needs to take a
medical examination every 2 years, the STCW mariner population used in
this ICR is 50% of the total mariner population with STCW endorsements.

  This population is estimated by using the Coast Guard’s Marine
Information for Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE) database—searching
for Active, Inspected, Documented, US Flag Vessels with route type
'Oceans' and GRT, GT_ITC, or GRT_Simplified greater than or equal to
200.

1625-0079

 PAGE

  PAGE  6  of    NUMPAGES 6


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 140 (Friday, July 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42714-42715]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17657]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Project No. 9690-109]

Eagle Creek Hydropower, LLC, Eagle Creek Land Resources, LLC,
Eagle Creek Water Resources, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for
Filing, Soliciting Motions To Intervene, Protests, and Comments

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Amendment to License.
    b. Project No.: 9690-109.
    c. Date Filed: June 19, 2012.
    d. Applicants: Eagle Creek Hydropower, LLC; Eagle Creek Land
Resources, LLC; and Eagle Creek Water Resources, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Rio Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the Mongaup River in Orange
County, New York.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Robert Gates, Senior Vice President--
Operations, Eagle Creek Hydropower, LLC, Eagle Creek Water Resources,
LLC, Eagle Creek Land Resources, LLC, 65 Madison Avenue, Suite 500,
Morristown, NJ 07960,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Steven Sachs at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene, protests, and comments
is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. If unable to be
filed electronically, documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an
original and seven copies should be mailed to: The Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters,
without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and
contact information at the end of your comments.
    Please include the project number (P-9690-109) on any motions,
protests, or comments filed.
    k. Description of Application: The licensee proposes to install a
second powerhouse containing a single 800 kilowatt turbine/generator
unit designed to release the required 100 cubic foot per second minimum
flow. The new powerhouse would be located about 300 feet downstream of
the project's dam and draw water through a new 48-inch-diameter
underground penstock which would tap into the project's existing
pipeline. The licensee also proposes to construct a new access road,
transmission line, and parking area associated with the new powerhouse.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits
in the docket number field to access the document. You may also
register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to
be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call (866) 208- 3676 or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Motions to Intervene, Protests, and Comments: Anyone may submit
a motion to intervene, protest, or comments in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any motions to intervene,
protests, or comments must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must: (1)
Bear in all capital letters the title ``MOTION TO INTERVENE,''
``PROTEST,'' or ``COMMENTS'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the
heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the
application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name,
address, and telephone number of the person intervening, protesting, or
commenting; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR
385.2001 through 385.2005. All motions to intervene, protests, or
comments must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply
with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). All motions to intervene,
protests, or comments should relate to project works which are the
subject of the application. Agencies may obtain copies of the
application directly from the applicant. A copy of any motion to
intervene or protest must be served upon each representative of the
applicant specified in the particular application. If an intervener
files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits
of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular
resource agency, they

must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy
of all other filings in reference to this application must be
accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service
list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with
18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    Dated: July 12, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-17657 Filed 7-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 240 (Wednesday, December 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77883-77887]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31999]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65913; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2011-163]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating
to the Options Regulatory Fee

December 8, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 28, 2011, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to institute a new transaction-based
``Options Regulatory Fee'' and eliminate registered representative fees
for NASDAQ members using the NASDAQ Options Market (``NOM''), NASDAQ's
facility for executing and routing standardized equity and index
options.
    While fee changes pursuant to this proposal are effective upon
filing, the Exchange has designated these changes to be operative on
January 3, 2012.
    The text of the proposed rule change is set forth below. Proposed
new text is italicized and deleted text is in brackets.

* * * * *

7003. Registration and Processing Fees

    (a) The following fees will be collected and retained by FINRA
via the Web CRD registration system for the registration of
associated persons of Nasdaq members that are not also FINRA
members:
    (1) $85 for each initial Form U4 filed for the registration of a
representative or principal;
    (2) $95 for the additional processing of each initial or amended
Form U4 or Form U5 that includes the initial reporting, amendment,
or certification of one or more disclosure events or proceedings;
    (3) $30 annually for each of the member's registered
representatives and principals for system processing;
    (4) $13 for processing and posting to the CRD system each set of
fingerprints submitted by the member, plus a pass-through of any
other charge imposed by the United States Department of Justice for
processing each set of fingerprints;
    (5) $13 for processing and posting to the CRD system each set of
fingerprint results and identifying information that has been
processed through a self-regulatory organization other than NASD;
and
    (6) a $75 session fee for each individual who is required to
complete the Regulatory Element of the Continuing Education
Requirements pursuant to Nasdaq Rule 1120.
    (b) The following fees will be collected via the Web CRD
registration system for the registration of associated persons of
Nasdaq members:*
    (1) $55 for each initial Form U4 filed for the registration of a
representative or principal.
    (2) $55 for each registration U4 transfer or re-licensing of a
representative or principal.
    * NOM Participants that do not transact an equities business on
the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC are not subject to the fees in Rule
7003(b).
* * * * *

7059. NASDAQ Options Regulatory Fee

    NOM Participants will be assessed an Options Regulatory Fee of
$0.0015 per contract. *
    * Effective January 2, 2012, the Options Regulatory Fee will be
assessed by NOM to each NOM Participant for all options transactions
executed or cleared by NOM Participant that are cleared by The
Options Clearing Corporation (OCC) in the customer range regardless
of the exchange on which the transaction occurs. The Options
Regulatory Fee is collected indirectly from NOM Participants through
their clearing firms by OCC on behalf of NOM. NOM Participants who
do not transact an equities business on the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC
in a calendar year will receive a refund of the fees specified in
Rule 7003(b) upon written notification to the Exchange along with
documentation evidencing that no equities business was conducted on
the NASDAQ Stock Market for that calendar year. The Exchange will
accept refund requests up until sixty (60) days after the end of the
calendar year.
* * * * *
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    NASDAQ is proposing to amend Rule 7003 entitled ``Registration and
Processing Fees'' to eliminate its registered representative fees for
NOM Participants and also create a new Rule 7059 entitled ``NASDAQ
Options Regulatory Fee'' to institute a new transaction-based Options
Regulatory Fee.
    Each Options Participant that registers an options principal and/or
representative who is conducting business on NOM is assessed a
registered representative fee (``RR Fee'') based on the action
associated with the registration. There are annual fees as well as
initial, transfer and termination fees. RR Fees as well as other
regulatory fees collected by the Exchange were

intended to cover only a portion of the cost of the Exchange's
regulatory programs. Prior to recent rule changes by other options
exchanges such as the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE''), NASDAQ OMX PHLX, LLC (``Phlx''), the International
Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE''), NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSEArca'') and
NYSE AMEX LLC (``NYSEAmex'') and NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX''), all
options exchanges, regardless of size, charged registered
representative fees.
    The Exchange believes that the current RR Fee is no longer
equitable given changes among option market participants. The options
industry has evolved to a structure with many more Internet-based and
discount brokerage firms. These firms have few registered
representatives and thus pay very little in RR Fees compared to full
service brokerage firms that have many registered representatives.
Further, due to the manner in which RR Fees are charged, it is possible
for a NOM Participant to restructure its business to avoid paying these
fees altogether. A firm can avoid RR Fees by terminating its options
participant status and sending its business to NOM through another
separate NOM Participant, even an affiliated firm that has many fewer
registered representatives. If firms terminated their options
participant status to avoid RR Fees, the Exchange would suffer the loss
of a source of funding for its regulatory programs. More importantly,
the regulatory effort the Exchange expends to review the transactions
of each type of firm is not commensurate with the number of registered
representatives that each firm employs.
    In order to address the inequity of the current regulatory fee
structure and to offset more fully the cost of the Exchange's
regulatory programs pertaining to NOM, the Exchange proposes to
eliminate the current RR Fee for NOM Participants and adopt an Options
Regulatory Fee (``ORF'') of $0.0015 per contract. All participants will
continue to be assessed the RR Fee in Exchange Rule 7003(b),\3\
however, NOM Participants that do not transact an equity business on
the NASDAQ Stock Market during the applicable year, will receive a
refund of the RR fees collected through CRD, specifically the fees
specified in Rule 7003(b). The NOM Participant would solely conducted
an options business would be refunded the RR Fees at the end of the
first quarter of the following year. For example, a NOM Participant
that does not transact an equity business on NASDAQ Stock Market during
the calendar year would be entitled to a refund of its RR Fees.\4\ The
Exchange would refund these fees upon written notification to the
Exchange and documentation evidencing that no equity business was
conducted on the NASDAQ Stock Market for that calendar year. The
Exchange will accept refund requests up until sixty (60) days after the
end of the calendar year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The RR fee would still apply to those NOM Participants that
also conduct business on the NASDAQ Stock Market equities trading
platform. See Exchange Rule 7003.
    \4\ This would include the $55 fee for initial Form U4s filed
for the registration of a representative or principal and the $55
fee for each registration U4 transfer or re-licensing of a
representative or principal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ORF would be assessed by the Exchange to each NOM Participant
for all options transactions executed or cleared by the NOM Participant
that are cleared by The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') in the
customer range, i.e., transactions that clear in the customer account
of the NOM Participant's clearing firm at OCC, regardless of the
marketplace of execution. In other words, the Exchange would impose the
ORF on all options transactions executed by a NOM Participant, even if
the transactions do not take place on NOM.\5\ The ORF would also be
charged for transactions that are not executed by a NOM Participants
but are ultimately cleared by a NOM Participant. In the case where a
NOM Participant executes a transaction and a NOM Participant clears the
transaction, the ORF would be assessed to the NOM Participant who
executed the transaction. In the case where a non-NOM Participant
executes a transaction and a NOM Participant clears the transaction,
the ORF would be assessed to the NOM Participant who clears the
transaction. As noted, the ORF would replace RR Fees, which relate to a
NOM Participant's options customer business. Further, RR Fees
constituted the single-largest fee assessed that is related to NOM
customer trading activity (in that NOM generally does not charge
customer transaction fees), and the Exchange believes it is appropriate
to charge the ORF only to transactions that clear as customer at the
OCC. The Exchange believes that its broad regulatory responsibilities
with respect to NOM Participants' activities supports applying the ORF
to transactions cleared but not executed by a NOM Participant. The
Exchange's regulatory responsibilities are the same regardless of
whether a NOM Participant executes a transaction or clears a
transaction executed on its behalf. The Exchange regularly reviews all
such activities, including performing surveillance for position limit
violations, manipulation, frontrunning, contrary exercise advice
violations and insider trading.\6\ These activities span across
multiple exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The ORF would apply to all customer orders executed by a NOM
Participant on NOM. Exchange rules require each NOM Participant to
submit trade information in order to allow the Exchange to properly
prioritize and match orders and quotations and report resulting
transactions to the OCC. See Exchange Rules Chapter V, Section 7.
The Exchange represents that it has surveillances in place to verify
that NOM Participants comply with the Rule.
    \6\ The Exchange also participates in The Options Regulatory
Surveillance Authority (``ORSA'') national market system plan and in
doing so shares information and coordinates with other exchanges
designed to detect the unlawful use of undisclosed material
information in the trading of securities options. ORSA is a national
market system comprised of several self-regulatory organizations
whose functions and objectives include the joint development,
administration, operation and maintenance of systems and facilities
utilized in the regulation, surveillance, investigation and
detection of the unlawful use of undisclosed material information in
the trading of securities options. The Exchange compensates ORSA for
the Exchange's portion of the cost to perform insider trading
surveillance on behalf of the Exchange. The ORF will cover the costs
associated with the Exchange's arrangement with ORSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the initial level of the fee is reasonable
because it relates to the recovery of the costs of supervising and
regulating NOM Participants. The Exchange believes the amount of the
ORF is fair and reasonably allocated because it is a closer
approximation to the Exchange's actual costs in administering its
regulatory program. The ORF would be collected indirectly from NOM
Participants through their clearing firms by OCC on behalf of the
Exchange. The Exchange expects that NOM Participants will pass-through
the ORF to their customers in the same manner that firms pass-through
to their customers the fees charged by Self Regulatory Organizations
(``SROs'') to help the SROs meet their obligations under Section 31 of
the Exchange Act.
    The ORF is designed to recover a material portion of the costs to
the Exchange of the supervision and regulation of NOM Participants,
including performing routine surveillances, investigations, as well as
policy, rulemaking, interpretive and enforcement activities.\7\ The
Exchange believes that revenue generated from the ORF, when combined
with all of the Exchange's other regulatory fees, will cover a material
portion, but not all, of the Exchange's regulatory costs. At

present, RR Fees make up the largest part of the Exchange's total
options regulatory fee revenue, however, the total amount of NOM
specific regulatory fees collected by the Exchange is significantly
less than the regulatory costs incurred by NOM on an annual basis. The
Exchange notes that its regulatory responsibilities with respect to NOM
Participant compliance with options sales practice rules have been
allocated to FINRA under a 17d-2 agreement. The ORF is not designed to
cover the cost of options sales practice regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ As stated above, the RR Fees collected by the Exchange were
originally intended to cover only a portion of the cost of the
Exchange's regulatory programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange would monitor the amount of revenue collected from the
ORF to ensure that it, in combination with its other NOM regulatory
fees and fines, does not exceed the Exchange's total regulatory costs.
The Exchange expects to monitor NOM regulatory costs and revenues at a
minimum on an annual basis. If the Exchange determines NOM regulatory
revenues exceed regulatory costs, the Exchange would adjust the ORF by
submitting a fee change filing to the Commission. The Exchange would
notify NOM Participants of adjustments to the ORF via a Regulatory
Information Circular.
    The Exchange believes the proposed ORF is equitably allocated
because it would be charged to all NOM Participants on all their
customer options business. This is because of the amount of resources
required by the Exchange to regulate non-customer trading activity,
which is significantly less than the amount of resources the Exchange
must dedicate to regulate customer trading activity. The ORF seeks to
recover the costs of supervising and regulating members, including
performing routine surveillances, investigations, examinations,
financial monitoring, and policy, rulemaking, interpretive, and
enforcement activities. The Exchange believes the proposed ORF is
reasonable because it will raise revenue related to the amount of
customer options business conducted by NOM Participants, and thus the
amount of Exchange regulatory services those NOM Participants will
require, instead of how many registered representative a particular NOM
Participant employs.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange expects that implementation of the proposed ORF
will result generally in many traditional brokerage firms paying
less regulatory fees while Internet and discount brokerage firms
will pay more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a fully-electronic exchange without a trading floor, the amount
of resources required by the Exchange to regulate non-customer trading
activity is significantly less than the amount of resources the
Exchange must dedicate to regulate customer trading activity. This is
because regulating customer trading activity is much more labor
intensive and requires greater expenditure of human and technical
resources than regulating non-customer trading activity, which tends to
be more automated and less labor-intensive. As a result, the costs
associated with administering the customer component of the Exchange's
overall regulatory program are materially higher than the costs
associated with administering the non-customer component (e.g., market
maker) of its regulatory program.
    The Exchange believes it is reasonable and appropriate for the
Exchange to charge the ORF for options transactions regardless of the
exchange on which the transactions occur. The Exchange has a statutory
obligation to enforce compliance by NOM Participants and their
associated persons with the Exchange Act and the Rules of the Exchange
and to surveil for other manipulative conduct by market participants
(including non-NOM Participants) trading on the Exchange. The Exchange
cannot effectively surveil for such conduct without looking at and
evaluating activity across all options markets. Many of the Exchange's
market surveillance programs require the Exchange to look at and
evaluate activity across all options markets, such as surveillance for
position limit violations, manipulation, frontrunning and contrary
exercise advice violations/expiring exercise declarations.\9\ Also, the
Exchange and the other options exchanges are required to populate a
consolidated options audit trail (``COATS'') system in order to surveil
NOM Participant activities across markets.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Exchange and other options SROs are parties to a 17d-2
agreement allocating among the SROs regulatory responsibilities
relating to compliance by the common members with rules for expiring
exercise declarations, position limits, OCC trade adjustments, and
Large Option Position Report reviews. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 63430 (December 3, 2010), 75 FR 76758 (December 9,
2010).
    \10\ COATS effectively enhances intermarket options surveillance
by enabling the options exchanges to reconstruct the market promptly
to effectively surveil certain rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to its own surveillance programs, the Exchange works
with other SROs and exchanges on intermarket surveillance related
issues. Through its participation in the Intermarket Surveillance Group
(``ISG''),\11\ the Exchange shares information and coordinates
inquiries and investigations with other exchanges designed to address
potential intermarket manipulation and trading abuses. The Exchange's
participation in ISG helps it to satisfy the Exchange Act requirement
that it have coordinated surveillance with markets on which security
futures are traded and markets on which any security underlying
security futures are traded to detect manipulation and insider
trading.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ ISG is an industry organization formed in 1983 to
coordinate intermarket surveillance among the SROs by cooperatively
sharing regulatory information pursuant to a written agreement
between the parties. The goal of the ISG's information sharing is to
coordinate regulatory efforts to address potential intermarket
trading abuses and manipulations.
    \12\ See Exchange Act Section 6(h)(3)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that charging the ORF across markets will
avoid having NOM Participants direct their trades to other markets in
order to avoid the fee and to thereby avoid paying for their fair share
of regulation. If the ORF did not apply to activity across markets then
NOM Participants would send their orders to the least cost, least
regulated exchange. Other exchanges could impose a similar fee on their
member's activity, including the activity of those members on NOM. In
addition to the ORF that is currently in place at other exchanges,\13\
the Exchange notes that there is established precedent for an SRO
charging a fee across markets, namely, FINRA's Trading Activity
Fee.\14\ While the Exchange does not have all the same regulatory
responsibilities as FINRA, the Exchange believes that, like the other
exchanges that assess an ORF, its broad regulatory responsibilities
with respect to NOM Participants' activities, irrespective of where
their transactions take place, supports a regulatory fee applicable to
transactions on other markets. Unlike FINRA's Trading Activity Fee, the
ORF would apply only to a NOM Participant's customer options
transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See other options exchanges such as the Chicago Board
Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE''), NASDAQ OMX PHLX, LLC
(``Phlx''), the International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE''),
NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSEArca'') and NYSE AMEX LLC (``NYSEAmex'') and
NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX''), all options exchanges, regardless of
size, charged registered representative fees.
    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47946 (May 30,
2003), 68 FR 3402 (June 6, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While fee changes pursuant to this proposal are effective upon
filing, the Exchange has designated these changes to be operative on
January 3, 2012.
2. Statutory Basis
    NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\15\ in general, and with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\16\ in particular, in that it provides for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among

members and issuers and other persons using any facility or system
which NASDAQ operates or controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes the ORF is objectively
allocated to NOM Participants because it would be charged to all NOM
Participants on all their transactions that clear as customer at the
OCC. RR Fees constituted the single-largest fee assessed that is
related to NOM customer trading activity (in that NOM generally does
not charge customer transaction fees), and the Exchange believes it is
appropriate to charge the ORF only to transactions that clear as
customer at the OCC. In addition, the Exchange is assessing higher fees
to those Participants that require more Exchange regulatory services
based on the amount of customer options business they conduct. As a
fully-electronic exchange without a trading floor, the amount of
resources required by the Exchange to regulate non-customer trading
activity is significantly less than the amount of resources the
Exchange must dedicate to regulate customer trading activity. This is
because regulating customer trading activity is much more labor
intensive and requires greater expenditure of human and technical
resources than regulating non-customer trading activity, which tends to
be more automated and less labor-intensive.
    Moreover, the Exchange believes the ORF ensures fairness by
assessing higher fees to those NOM Participants that require more
Exchange regulatory services based on the amount of customer options
business they conduct. The ORF seeks to recover the costs of
supervising and regulating Participants including performing routine
surveillances, investigations, examinations, financial monitoring, and
policy, rulemaking, interpretive, and enforcement activities. The
Exchange's regulatory responsibilities are the same regardless of
whether a NOM Participant executes a transaction or clears a
transaction executed on its behalf. The Exchange believes that this
proposal is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly [sic] for the
foregoing reasons and also because this proposal would remove the
inequity of the current regulatory fee structure \17\ and offset more
fully the cost of the Exchange's regulatory programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ As discussed herein, the options industry has evolved to a
structure with many more Internet-based and discount brokerage
firms. These firms have few registered representatives and thus pay
very little in RR Fees compared to full service brokerage firms that
have many registered representatives. Further, due to the manner in
which RR Fees are charged, it is possible for a NOM Participant to
restructure its business to avoid paying these fees altogether. A
firm can avoid RR Fees by terminating its options participant status
and sending its business to NOM through another separate NOM
Participant, even an affiliated firm that has many fewer registered
representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has addressed the funding of an SRO's regulatory
operations in the Concept Release Concerning Self-Regulation \18\ and
the release on the Fair Administration and Governance of Self-
Regulatory Organizations.\19\ In the Concept Release, the Commission
states that: ``Given the inherent tension between an SRO's role as a
business and a regulator, there undoubtedly is a temptation for an SRO
to fund the business side of its operations at the expense of
regulation.'' \20\ In order to address this potential conflict, the
Commission proposed in the Governance Release rules that would require
an SRO to direct monies collected from regulatory fees, fines, or
penalties exclusively to fund the regulatory operations and other
programs of the SRO related to its regulatory responsibilities.\21\ The
Exchange has designed the ORF to generate revenues that would recover a
material portion of NOM's regulatory costs, which is consistent with
the Commission's view that regulatory fees be used for regulatory
purposes and not to support the Exchange's business side.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50700 (November 18,
2004), 69 FR 71256 (December 8, 2004) (``Concept Release'').
    \19\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50700 (November 18,
2004), 69 FR 71256 (December 8, 2004) (``Concept Release''). [sic]
    \20\ Concept Release at 71268.
    \21\ Governance Release at 71142.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \22\ and paragraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 \23\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \23\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2011-163 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-NASDAQ-2011-163. 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 such 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 publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2011-163 and should
be submitted on or before January 4, 2012.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-31999 Filed 12-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P