[Federal Register: May 14, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 93)]
[Notices]
[Page 27335-27337]
[DOCID:fr14my10-68]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings  1

May 6, 2010.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER98-1643-015; ER98-1643-014.
    Applicants: Portland General Electric Company.
    Description: Portland General Electric Company submits updated
market power study.
    Filed Date: 04/23/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100427-0013.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 22, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER98-1734-020; ER00-3251-023; ER01-1147-011; ER01-
1919-017; ER99-2404-016; ER01-513-029.
    Applicants: Commonwealth Edison Company; Exelon Generation Company;
PECO Energy Company; Exelon Energy Company; Exelon New England Power
Marketing, LP; Exelon Framingham, LLC; Exelon New Boston, LLC; Exelon
West Medway, LLC; Exelon Wyman, LLC.
    Description: Amended Quarterly Report of Exelon.
    Filed Date: 04/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100430-5291.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 21, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER05-1232-019; ER09-335-005; ER07-1117-010.
    Applicants: J.P. Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation, BE KJ LLC.
    Description: J.P. Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation and BE KJ
LLC's Supplement to Updated Market Power Analysis and Order Nos. 697
and 697-A Compliance Filing.
    Filed Date: 05/05/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100505-5114.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 26, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-560-008.
    Applicants: Credit Suisse Energy LLC.
    Description: Revised Appendix B of Credit Suisse Energy LLC.
    Filed Date: 05/05/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100505-5113.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 26, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1226-005; ER08-1225-007; ER08-1111-006.
    Applicants: Cloud County Wind Farm, LLC, Pioneer Prairie Wind Farm
I, LLC, Arlington Wind Power Project LLC.
    Description: Supplement to Notice of Change in Status of Arlington
Wind Power Project LLC, et. al.
    Filed Date: 05/04/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100504-5154.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 25, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-393-002.
    Applicants: West Oaks Energy, LLC.
    Description: West Oaks Energy, LLC submits Notice of Non-Material
Change in Status in compliance with Commission's reporting requirements
adopted in Order 652.
    Filed Date: 05/04/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100504-0218.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 25, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-622-001.
    Applicants: Macquarie Energy LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Macquarie
Energy LLC.
    Filed Date: 04/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100430-5510.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 21, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1077-001.
    Applicants: Otay Mesa Energy Center, LLC.
    Description: Otay Acquisition Company, LLC submits an amendment to
its notice of succession to Otay Mesa Energy Center, LLC, which was
filed 4/22/2010.
    Filed Date: 04/27/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100428-0202.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 18, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1179-000.
    Applicants: American Electric Power Service Corporation.
    Description: Request of American Electric Power Service Corporation
to Update Depreciation Expense Inputs in Formula Rate.
    Filed Date: 05/03/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100503-5155.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 24, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1185-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: ISO New England Inc submits redacted copies of
informational filing of qualification in

the Forward Capacity Market for the 2013-2014 Capacity Commitment
Period.
    Filed Date: 05/04/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100505-0208.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 19, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1186-000.
    Applicants: DTE Energy Supply, LLC.
    Description: DTE Energy Supply, LLC submits tariff filing per
35.12: DTE Energy Supply Baseline Filing to be effective 5/14/2010.
    Filed Date: 05/05/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100505-5014.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 26, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1187-000.
    Applicants: Woodland Biomass Power Ltd.
    Description: Woodland Biomass Power Ltd. submits tariff filing per
35.12: Woodland Biomass Baseline Tariff to be effective 5/14/2010.
    Filed Date: 05/05/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100505-5015.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 26, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1188-000.
    Applicants: DTE Stoneman, LLC.
    Description: DTE Stoneman, LLC submits tariff filing per 35.12: DTE
Stoneman Baseline Filing, to be effective 5/14/2010.
    Filed Date: 05/05/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100505-5016.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 26, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1189-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: PacifiCorp submits Small Generator Interconnection
Agreement Facilities Maintenance Agreement dated 4/19/10 with Lakeview
Cogeneration, LLC etc.
    Filed Date: 05/05/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100505-0103.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 26, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1190-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., New England Power Pool.
    Description: ISO New England Inc submits revised tariff sheets that
temporarily remove from the ISO Tariff provisions etc.
    Filed Date: 05/05/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100505-0216.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 26, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1191-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Co submits a letter
agreement with Calico Solar, LLC.
    Filed Date: 05/05/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100505-0214.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 26, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1192-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, LLC.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits five executed
Wholesale Market Participation Agreements.
    Filed Date: 05/05/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100505-0215.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 26, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1193-000.
    Applicants: Consolidated Edison Company of New York,
    Description: Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc submits
Faculties Agreement by and between Con Edison and Central Hudson, dated
as of 2/8/2010.
    Filed Date: 05/05/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100505-0217.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 26, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1194-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator
submits a Generator Interconnection Agreement.
    Filed Date: 05/05/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100505-0219.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 26, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1195-000.
    Applicants: Sierra Pacific Power Company.
    Description: NV Energy submits an executed Engineering and
Procurement Agreement with Spring Valley Wind LLC.
    Filed Date: 05/05/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100506-0208.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 26, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1196-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, LLC, PJM Settlement, Inc.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits Eleventh Revised
Sheet No. 1 et al and the Amended and Restated Operating Agreement.
    Filed Date: 05/05/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100506-0218.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 26, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1197-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Company submits amended
Interconnection Facilities Agreement between SCE and Dillon Wind, LLC,
Second Revised Service Agreement 3 under SCE's Transmission Owner
Tariff, etc.
    Filed Date: 05/06/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100506-0226.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, May 27, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1198-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Company submits revised
rate sheets reflecting the cancellation of the agreement for
Interconnectional and Cooperative Use of Certain Pacific Intertie
Microwave Facilities etc.
    Filed Date: 05/06/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100506-0227.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, May 27, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1199-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Company submits letter
agreement with Solar Millennium, LLC.
    Filed Date: 05/06/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100506-0228.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, May 27, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1200-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Company submits a revised
rate sheet reflecting the cancellation of the Coordinated Operations
Agreement with Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Filed Date: 05/06/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100506-0229.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, May 27, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1201-000.
    Applicants: American Electric Power Service Corporation.
    Description: American Electric Power Service Corporation submits a
fully executed generation interconnection agreement dated 4/16/10 with
IPA Coleto Creek, LLC et al.
    Filed Date: 05/06/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100506-0230.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, May 27, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1202-000.
    Applicants: Jersey Central Power & Light.
    Description: Jersey Central Power & Light submits tariff filing per
35.12: Market-Based Rate Power Sales Tariff to be effective 5/6/2010.
    Filed Date: 05/06/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100506-5096.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, May 27, 2010.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES10-11-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool Inc.

    Description: Request to Modify January 15, 2010 Authorization Order
of Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Filed Date: 05/06/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100506-5106.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 17, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ES10-31-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Amendment to Section 204 Application of Midwest
Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Filed Date: 05/06/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100506-5098.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 17, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ES10-41-000.
    Applicants: National Grid USA.
    Description: Application of National Grid USA on behalf of National
Grid Generation LLC to Issue Securities.
    Filed Date: 04/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100430-5503.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 21, 2010.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
reliability filings:

    Docket Numbers: RR08-4-000; RR08-4-001; RR08-4-002.
    Applicants: North American Electric Reliability Corporation.
    Description: North American Electric Reliability Corporation
submits supplemental information regarding the March 5, 2010 Violation
Severity Level Compliance Filing.
    Filed Date: 05/05/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100505-5112.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, May 20, 2010.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings 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) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. 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. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-11537 Filed 5-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 11, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70205-70207]
[FR Doc No: 2016-24424]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79039; File No. SR-BatsBZX-2016-62]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Rule
22.3, Continuing Options Market Maker Registration

October 4, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on September 28, 2016, Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'' or the
``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 filed a proposal to make a modification to Exchange
Rule 22.3, Continuing Options Market Maker Registration, to remove the
provision of the rule that requires termination of a Member's Options
Market Maker registration in an option series if the Options Market
Maker fails to enter quotations in the series within five business days
after the Options Market Maker's registration in the series becomes
effective.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 22.3 to remove
subparagraph (c), which currently requires the Exchange to terminate a
firm's Options Market Maker registration if it does not enter
quotations in an option series in which it is registered within five
business days after the Options Market Maker's registration in the
series becomes effective. Currently, the Exchange surveils whether a
newly registered Options Market Maker enters quotations in the series
within five business days of registration. If an Options Market Maker
does not, the Exchange is required by Exchange Rule 22.3(c) to
automatically deregister the Options Market Maker in that series. The
Exchange views Exchange Rule 22.3(c) as largely duplicative of other
Exchange Rules and excessively rigid in view of other Exchange Rules
that allow the Exchange discretion and flexibility in determining an
appropriate remedy.
    Exchange Rule 22.5(a)(6) provides that Options Market Makers are
expected to ``maintain active markets'' in all series in which they are
registered. Both Rule 22.3(c) and Rule 22.5(a)(6) impose an obligation
upon registered Options Market Maker to maintain active markets. The
main difference is that Exchange Rule 22.3(c) applies only to the first
five days that an Options Market Maker is registered, whereas Exchange
Rule 22.5(a)(6) applies during the first five days and continues for as
long as the Options Market Maker is

registered in a series. The Exchange believes that there is no benefit
to imposing stricter quoting obligations on a newly registered Options
Market Maker than those imposed on existing registered Options Market
Makers. Instead, in the Exchange's view, the requirement to maintain
active markets should be the same from when an Options Market Maker
first registers as any time after registration.
    The Exchange notes that it will continue to be permitted to
deregister a registered Options Market Maker under Exchange Rule
22.2(b) if it is found that the Options Market Maker has failed in its
obligation to maintain active markets under Exchange Rule 22.5(a)(6) or
fails its obligation to provide continuous two-sided quotes under Rule
22.6(d).\3\ Removing Exchange Rule 22.3(c) would simply remove the non-
discretionary requirement that the Exchange must deregister an Options
Market Maker's registration in a series if it does not enter quotations
in the series within five business days of registration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Exchange Rule 22.2(b) (``The registration of any Member
as a Market Maker may be suspended or terminated by the Exchange
upon a determination that such Member has failed to properly perform
as a Market Maker.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange currently conducts surveillance to monitor and enforce
compliance with the ``active markets'' provision of Exchange Rule
22.5(a)(6) for all Options Market Makers. A registered Options Market
Maker is subject to the Exchange Rule 22.5(a)(6) surveillance for the
entire time the Options Market Maker is registered, including the first
five days covered by Exchange Rule 22.3(c). If a registered Options
Market Maker is found by surveillance not to be maintaining active
markets in the option series in which it is registered, the Exchange
will determine the appropriate course of action against such Options
Market Maker. The Exchange may take actions of escalating severity
against the offending Options Market Maker from an informal warning up
to deregistering the Options Market Maker in the options in which it
fails to maintain active markets or bringing formal action.\4\ The
Exchange has found that this discretion has allowed for effective
enforcement of Options Market Maker obligations while allowing the
Exchange to consider the facts and circumstances of each case in
determining the appropriate remedy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Exchange Rules 22.2(b) and 22.5(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On the other hand, current Exchange Rule 22.3(c) is non-
discretionary and its enforcement can lead to potentially arbitrary
results, as it does not permit the Exchange to consider the facts and
circumstances of each case in enforcing the rule. While as a general
matter an Options Market Maker should enter quotations in a series in
which it is registered as soon as practicable, experience has shown
that many factors can affect when a newly registered Options Market
Maker will be in a position to begin entering quotations. Further, as
discussed above [sic], Exchange Rule 22.6(d) contemplates certain
acceptable periods of inactivity. Just as the Exchange is provided
discretion to enforce all Options Market Maker obligations under
Exchange Rule 22.2(b), the Exchange believes that it should be afforded
the same discretion to evaluate the facts and circumstances of each
case in which an Options Market Maker is not active in a series within
the first five days of registration and determine the appropriate
remedy.
    Finally, other national options exchanges do not require automatic
deregistration of a registered Options Market Maker from an options
series when the Options Market Maker fails to submit a quote within the
first five days of registration. Other exchanges allow considerably
more discretion in determining the appropriate remedy for a registered
Options Market Maker that fails its quoting obligations. For example,
neither the Chicago Board Options Exchange (``CBOE''), nor the Miami
International Securities Exchange (``MIAX''), nor NYSE Arca, Inc.
Options (``NYSE Arca''), has a requirement to automatically deregister
an options market maker if it fails in its quoting or other obligations
within five days of registration. Instead, each of the above exchanges
appears to rely on a rule substantively identical to Exchange Rule
22.2(b) that gives the respective exchange discretion as to the
appropriate remedy for Options Market Makers that do not meet their
obligations.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See CBOE Rule 8.2(b) (``The registration of a Market-Maker
may be suspended or terminated by the Exchange upon a determination
that the Market-Maker has failed to properly perform as a Market-
Maker.''); MIAX Rule 600(c) (``The registration of any Member as a
Lead Market Maker, Primary Lead Market Maker, or as a Registered
Market Maker may be suspended or terminated by the Exchange upon a
determination that such Member has failed to properly perform as a
Market Maker''); NYSE Arca Options Rule 6.33 (``The registration of
any person as a Market Maker may be suspended or terminated by the
Exchange upon a determination of any substantial or continued
failure by such Market Maker to engage in dealings in accordance
with [Market Maker Obligations].'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange, therefore, proposes to amend Exchange Rule 22.3 to
remove subparagraph (c) and to enforce its Options Market Maker
``active market'' obligations with the remedies permitted in Exchange
Rule 22.2(b) and Exchange Rule 22.5(c).
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that
are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular,
with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\6\
    In particular, the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(1) \7\
in that it enables the Exchange to be so organized as to have the
capacity to be able to carry out the purposes of the Exchange Act and
to comply, and to enforce compliance by its exchange members and
persons associated with its exchange members, with the provisions of
the Exchange Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, and the rules
of the Exchange. The proposal allows the Exchange the discretion so
that it may appropriately and equitably enforce compliance by its
members with the rules of the Exchange--in particular, the Exchange's
Options Market Maker obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of
the Act \8\ because it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in 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 proposed amendment to remove Exchange Rule
22.3(c) will permit the Exchange to consider all facts and
circumstances in instances where it appears that a registered Options
Market Maker does not meet its obligations and to exercise discretion
in applying the appropriate remedy for such failure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 proposed rule change
does not introduce any burden on competition, but rather, removes the
automatic deregistration requirement of Exchange Rule 22.3(c) to allow
the Exchange to apply the obligation to maintain active

markets to all registered Options Market Makers equally.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any written comments from members or other interested parties.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (A)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (B) impose any significant burden on competition; and (C) by
its terms, 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 \9\ and
paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\10\ the Exchange has
designated this rule filing as non-controversial. The Exchange has
given the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed
rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed
rule change at least five business days prior to the date of filing of
the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: (1)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (2) for the protection
of investors; or (3) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the
Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be
approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BatsBZX-2016-62 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BatsBZX-2016-62. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal 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-BatsBZX-2016-62, and should
be submitted on or before November 1, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-24424 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 6, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19182-19187]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8103]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2006-26275; Notice No. 11-3]

Petition for Rulemaking--Classification of Polyurethane Foam and
Certain Finished Products Containing Polyurethane Foam as Hazardous
Materials

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

ACTION: Notice; closing of comment period and denial of petition P-
1491.

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

SUMMARY: On March 30, 2007, a notice [72 FR 15184] was published in the
Federal Register soliciting comments on the merits of a petition for
rulemaking filed by the National Association of State Fire Marshals
(NASFM). The NASFM petitioned PHMSA to classify polyurethane foam and
certain finished products containing polyurethane foam as hazardous
material for purposes of transportation in commerce. The comment period
for the notice closed June 28, 2007. Subsequently, on October 19, 2007,
the NASFM requested that action be deferred on the petition, and that
the public docket be re-opened to allow interested persons to submit
additional comments on the March 30, 2007 notice, and on supplemental
information submitted by the petitioner. On May 7, 2008, a notice [73
FR 25825] was published in the Federal Register re-opening the comment
period and indicating that it would remain open until further notice
had been published in the Federal Register. Since re-opening of the
comment period, no additional or supplemental information have been
submitted to PHMSA to support the contention that polyurethane foam and
certain finished products containing polyurethane foam should be
designated as hazardous materials when transported in commerce. As
well, no further comments have been submitted to suggest we continue to
pursue any further action on this subject.
    Therefore, in light of the fact that the comment period had been
extended and remained opened for more than three years, with no further
comment or data having been submitted to PHMSA to support proposals
contained in petition P-1491 or the NASFM's October 19, 2007
supplemental letter, issuance of this notice closes the comment period
for the March 30, 2007 Notice [72 FR 15184] and the May 7, 2008 Notice
[73 FR 25825], under Docket No. PHMSA-2006-26275.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or Docket
Operations, U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building, Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Routing Symbol M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal Holidays.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any
written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by
the name of the individual submitting the document (or signing the
document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in
the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70;
Pages 19477-78), which may also be found at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Helen L. Engrum, Office of Hazardous
Materials Standards<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office of Hazardous Materials
Safety, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC 20590-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On October 31, 2006, the National Association of State Fire
Marshals (NASFM) submitted a petition for rulemaking to the U. S.
Department of Transportation (DOT) through the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) under the provisions of 49 CFR
106.95 (formerly 49 CFR 106.31). The NASFM requested that the Hazardous
Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171-180) be amended to
classify polyurethane (PU) foam and certain finished products
containing PU foam as a hazardous material for purposes of
transportation in commerce. The NASFM is made up of senior-level public
safety officials from the 50 States and the District of Columbia. The
NASFM petition was received and acknowledged by PHMSA and assigned
petition number P-1491; Docket No. PHMSA-2006-26275. On March 30, 2007,
a notice [72 FR 15184] was published in the Federal Register soliciting
comments on the merits of the petition for rulemaking filed by the
NASFM.

A. Summary of Petition P-1491

    As a matter of safety for emergency responders and the public, the
National Association of State Fire Marshals (NASFM) petitioned the
Department to classify PU foam and certain finished products containing
PU foam as a hazardous material for purposes of transportation in
commerce. The NASFM regards this proposal as critical to the safety of
emergency responders and the public they are sworn to protect, and said
that the safety of emergency responders begins with information--at
minimum, responders have the absolute right to know when they are
dealing with hazardous materials, so they may take special precautions
at incidents. The petitioners' interest extends to ensuring that
hazardous materials are used, stored and transported in safe ways.
According to the NASFM, regulations exist across agencies that regulate
the use and storage of PU foam, but a gap exists in ensuring the safe
transportation of this hazardous material, and because it is not
officially classified as a hazardous material for purposes of
transportation, the NASFM believes the safety of emergency responders
and the public is compromised.

B. NASFM's Proposed Rulemaking Procedure

    In its petition, the NASFM proposed the following procedure based
on its understanding of the PHMSA rulemaking process: ``Issue an
interim final rule designating bulk shipments of Polyurethane (PU) Foam
as a Class 9 (Miscellaneous) hazardous material. As part of this
interim final rule,
Phase I
     Assign a North American Identification Number to PU foam.
     Except shippers/carriers from requiring shipping papers,
employee training, specific packaging requirements, and placarding.
     Require carriers to display Orange Panels with the
identification number to identify the presence of PU foam for initial
responders.
     Require transportation incidents involving PU foam fires
to be reported to PHMSA.
     Publish a Safety Alert identifying measures initial
responders can take to protect themselves and the general public during
this initial response phase of the incident involving PU foam.
     Incorporate the measures published in the Safety Alert
into the 2008 Emergency Response Guidebook (ERG).

Cotton can be used as an example of how PU can be initially regulated.
The following is recommended for inclusion in the Hazardous Materials
Table (49 CFR 172101):

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Column 1--Symbols......................  D (Domestic).
Column 2--HM description and proper      Polyurethane Foam.
 shipping name.
Column 3--Hazard Class or Division.....  9.
Column 4--Identification Number........  NA XXXX (to be assigned by
                                          PHMSA).
Column 5--Packing Group................  Leave blank.
Column 6--Label Codes..................  None.
Column 7--Special Provisions...........  To be determined by PHMSA.
Column 8--Packaging (8A, 8B, and 8C)...  None.
Column 9--Packaging Limitations........  To be determined by PHMSA and
                                          the Federal Aviation
                                          Administration.
Column 10--Vessel Stowage..............  To be determined by PHMSA and
                                          the US Coast Guard.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This should not be considered a significant rulemaking because
there are a limited number of carriers transporting bulk PU foam.
Phase IIA
    Initiate domestic rulemaking to finalize interim final rule and
explore the need for additional regulatory oversight of products
manufactured using PU foam through the issuance of a notice of proposed
rulemaking.
Phase IIB
    Introduce PU foam as a proposed work item at the 30th session of
the Transport of Dangerous Goods Sub-Committee.
    Phase IIA and IIB can be conducted simultaneously.

C. NASFM's Follow-Up Requests for Exceptions or Exemptions

    On June 26, 2007, the NASFM submitted a letter to the docket
stating that the dialogue resulting from the public comment period on
this petition has caused the NASFM to consider amending the petition to
exempt mattresses that meet the new Federal fire safety requirements
(16 CFR part 1633), institutional and other upholstered furniture that
meets California Technical Bulletin 133, and charitable organizations,
such as the Salvation Army whose trucks may occasionally carry
upholstered furniture and mattresses. Previously, the NASFM had
contacted the Business and Institutional Furniture Manufacturers
Association (BIFMA), the International Sleep Products Association
(ISPA), and the Salvation Army to determine if they wish the NASFM to
amend its petition as noted. The resulting correspondence (i.e., copies
of letters from the NASFM written to BIFMA, ISPA, and the Salvation
Army asking them if they wish to be excepted from the proposals in the
PU foam petition) was submitted to the docket as an attachment to the
June 26, 2007 letter to the docket.
    On August 7, 2007, the NASFM submitted a letter to PHMSA requesting
an amendment of its original petition (P-1491) to provide exceptions.
It requested that if the PU proposals from petition P-1491 are adopted,
the following categories or organizations should be excepted:
    (1) Mattresses that meet or exceed the Federal standard for
flammability (open flame) of mattress sets in accordance with 16 CFR
part 1633; [CPSC]
    (2) Upholstered furniture in compliance with the standard
California Technical Bulletin 133; and
    (3) Charitable not-for-profit organizations.

D. NASFM's Request To Defer Action on Petition P-1491 and Extend the
Comment Period

    On October 19, 2007, the NASFM submitted a letter to PHMSA asking
to defer any action on its petition (P-1491) and to re-open the public
docket to allow additional consideration of the flammability risks
posed by PU foam and finished products containing PU foam. In its
letter, the NASFM noted that PU foam and products containing PU foam
``do not fit neatly within the Agency's long-standing definition for
flammable solids,'' and suggests that the Agency should consider
whether another, more appropriate definition should be developed to
convey the risks associated with these materials. The NASFM also
suggests that Federal, State, and industry standards-setting agencies
and organizations should consider developing a standard test and
definition applicable to polyurethane foam. According to the NASFM:

    Other branches of the U.S. Department of Transportation, the
U.S. Coast Guard, and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
regulate these materials and each agency has its own tests,
standards and terms to define the same combustible properties. The
same is true of the International Building Code, International Fire
Code, and the National Fire Protection Association's standard for
automatic fire extinguishers (NFPA 13), all of which contain the
language to provide authority to regulate polyurethane foam as a
hazardous material requiring special protection. These model codes
are referenced in countless Federal, State and local statutes. In
effect, the polyurethane foam in the dashboard of a truck is
regulated while the polyurethane foam shipped on the truck is not.
The polyurethane foam shipment is regulated as a fire hazard in the
factories in which it is made and used, in the warehouses in which
it is stored, in the retail stores that offer it to the public and
in the home. It is regulated in the seats of a commercial aircraft,
but not in the cargo hold of that same aircraft.

    The NASFM stated that the question is not whether PU foam is
dangerously flammable, but whether PHMSA has a more appropriate means
of classifying PU foam as a hazardous material for transportation. For
this reason, the NASFM asked to defer action on its petition and to re-
open the public docket. The NASFM believes that additional public
comment may be useful to solicit ideas on how best to classify PU foam
under PHMSA's existing definitions, possible statutory changes to
clarify questions such as this, and comments on whether a single
standardized test might be feasible.
    On May 7, 2008, PHMSA re-opened the public docket and extended the
comment period of the preceding original notice [72 FR 15184] to allow
additional public comment on the question of whether there is a more
appropriate means of classifying PU foam as a hazardous material for
purposes of transportation in commerce. In the subsequent notice [73 FR
25825] re-opening the comment period, PHMSA said that we appreciated
and shared the NASFM's concern for public safety and effective
emergency response, and agreed with the NASFM that the comment period
on this issue should be extended to permit interested persons to
provide more data and information on the definitional issue raised by
the NASFM in its October 19, 2007 letter. PHMSA indicated that the
comment period would remain open until further notice had been
published in the Federal Register, and that this action did not
constitute a decision by DOT/PHMSA to undertake a rulemaking action on
the substance of the petition. The notice was issued solely to obtain
comments on the merits of the petition to assist PHMSA in making a
decision of whether to proceed with a rulemaking. We were particularly
interested in substantive comments that address the following items:
(1) Estimated incremental costs or savings; (2) Anticipated safety
benefits; (3) Estimated burden hours associated with the proposals
related to information collection; (4) Impact on small businesses; and
(5) Impact on the national environment.
    We asked that the commenters address the safety implications of the
proposals contained in the NASFM's petition. We were particularly
interested in data and information related to regulation of PU foam by
other agencies, such as the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC),
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the U.S.
Coast Guard (USCG), and the National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA), and whether the standards used by these agencies could be
adapted for use in the transportation environment. We invited
interested persons to supplement comments they may have already
submitted to address the issues raised in the NASFM's October 19, 2007
letter, to highlight other issues that we should consider in making a
decision on the petition, or to provide additional data and information
in support of previously stated positions. To date, no further
information or additional comments have been received, including any
comments on the issues raised in the NASFM October 19, 2007 letter,
suggesting that Federal, State, and industry standards-setting agencies
and organizations should consider developing a standard test and
definition applicable to PU foam.

II. Summary of Comments Received on the March 30, 2007 Notice [72 FR
15814]

    The purpose of the notice [72 FR 15184] was to solicit comments on
the merits of a petition for rulemaking (P-1491) filed by the NASFM
requesting classification of PU foam and certain finished products
containing PU foam as a Class 9 (Miscellaneous) hazardous material,
whether or not it meets the Class 9 (Miscellaneous) definition in Sec.
173.140 of the HMR. The majority of commenters did not support the
NASFM request to classify PU foam and certain finished products
containing PU foam as a Class 9 (Miscellaneous) hazardous material
during transportation. Under the HMR, a Class 9 (Miscellaneous)
material presents a hazard in transportation but does not meet the
definition of any other hazard class. Class 9 (Miscellaneous) materials
are: (a) Any material which has an anesthetic, noxious or other similar
property which could cause extreme annoyance or discomfort to a flight
crew member so as to prevent the correct performance of assigned
duties; or (b) Any material that meets the definition of an elevated
temperature material, a hazardous substance, and a hazardous waste, or
a marine pollutant.
    Twenty-nine (29) of the thirty (30) comments received opposed the
proposals to classify PU foam as a hazardous material, saying, among
other reasons, that there is little or no evidence or data
demonstrating the dangers of PU foam in transportation. Most commenters
believe that the transportation safety risks of such materials have not
been documented and the costs of increased regulation would be
prohibitive. Many commenters said that PU foam does not exhibit hazard
characteristics that meet any of the hazard class definitions in the
HMR, and that the NASFM did not provide any data, documentation, or
information that would warrant a change.
    Comments were received from the following trade associations,
companies, organizations and individuals:

                           List of Commenters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Commenters                            Position
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. American Chemistry Council (Center for     Opposed.
 the PU Industry).
2. American Home Furnishings................  Opposed.
3. American Moving and Storage Assoc........  Opposed.
4. American Trucking Associations...........  Opposed.
5. Association of Rotational Moulders         Opposed.
 International.
6. Bayer Material Science...................  Opposed.
7. Bodman Attorneys & Counselors (for Lear    Opposed.
 Corporation).
8. The Business and Institutional Furniture   Opposed.
 Manuf. Assoc..

9. The Council on Safe Transportation of      Opposed.
 Hazardous Articles.
10. Ken A. Cruishank (DOE Subcontractor)....  Opposed.
11. Foam Supplies, inc......................  Opposed.
12. Dangerous Goods Advisory Council........  Opposed.
13. General Plastics Manufacturing Company..  Opposed.
14. Gonzalez, Saggio, Harlan LLP (for         Opposed.
 Johnson Controls, Inc.).
15. Hickory Chair...........................  Opposed.
16. Hickory Springs Manufacturing Company...  Opposed.
17. High Point Furniture Industries.........  Opposed.
18. Huntsman Polyurethanes..................  Opposed.
19. International Sleep Products Association  Opposed.
20. International Vessel Operators Dangerous  Opposed.
 Goods Assoc., Inc..
21. Metal Construction Association..........  Opposed.
22. McIntyre Law Firm, PLLC (for the PU Foam  Opposed.
 Assoc.).
23. National Tank Truck Carriers, Inc.......  Opposed.
24. National Association of State Fire        Support.
 Marshals.
25. National Home Furnishings Association...  Opposed.
26. North American Automotive Hazmat Action   Opposed.
 Committee.
27. Polyisocyanurate Insulation               Opposed.
 Manufacturers Association.
28. Ritchie Industries, Inc.................  Opposed.
29. Sealed Air Corporation..................  Opposed.
30. Charles (Chuck) Williamson (Retired from  Opposed.
 Plastics Industry).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. One Commenter Supports Granting of Petition P-1491

    The NASFM believes that the proposals in its petition have merit.
On May 9, 2007, the NASFM commented to the Docket. The NASFM stated
that PHMSA has clear authority to grant the petition, and that the
NASFM has provided sufficient justification in support of the proposed
action. The NASFM said it enthusiastically supports PHMSA's innovative
approach to encouraging cooperative problem-solving among stakeholders
via ``enterprise'' dialogues, and therefore welcomes this opportunity
to elaborate on the petition. The NASFM noted that this public comment
addresses the question of whether polyurethane foam and products
containing it are hazardous materials, and is the first of three
submissions the NASFM will make to this docket.
    In its comment, the NASFM affirmed that the American Chemistry
Council's Center for the Polyurethanes Industry (CPI) describes itself
as representing ``the leading companies engaged in the business of
polyurethanes.'' CPI members are committed to environmental and social
sustainability and the health, safety and security of its employees and
communities. Over the years, the NASFM has observed the Center and its
predecessor, the Alliance for the Polyurethanes Industry (API),
translate these words into stewardship that often goes well beyond
minimum mandatory levels of safety. Attached to this comment were
articles, MSDS, and a technical bulletin, marked as Attachments A, B,
C, D, and E. The attachments addressed fire safety guidelines on
flexible PU used in upholstered furniture and bedding, proper handling
and storage of flexible PU, several MSDS on PU from two manufacturers,
and an article on the problem of flammability of foamed plastics in
storage.
    On June 12, 2007, the NASFM acknowledged in its comments that in
the notice PHMSA had requested data on known transportation incidents
involving polyurethane foam and products containing it. The NASFM went
on to say that even if polyurethane foam and products containing it
were currently classified as hazardous materials for transportation,
incident data might not be readily available. Because PU foam is not
classified as a hazardous material for transportation, it might follow
that finding examples of incidents would be difficult. Federal Law
requires immediate and detailed reporting of serious transportation
incidents where the term ``serious'' is defined as a fatality or injury
caused by the hazardous material, loss of more than 119 gallons of
product, closure of a major transportation artery, or change of an
aircraft's flight plan.
    The NASFM said that it is willing to undergo a detailed review of
fire department reports from incidents involving commercial vehicles.
In separate correspondence to the U.S. DOT, the NASFM said that it will
soon propose a detailed assessment of fire department records to
identify transportation incidents where shipments of PU foam and
product containing it contributed to the severity of the fire. To this
end, on June 12, 2007, the NASFM submitted to the U.S. DOT, Bureau of
Transportation Statistics (BTS) ``an unsolicited research proposal.''
The NASFM said that details of the proposal were included in an
attachment from the firm of TriData Corporation, ``an acknowledged
expert in fire statistics and well known to the Department.'' The NASFM
requested funding from BTS to utilize multiple data sources to
determine the extent PU foam is involved in transportation incidents.
To date, PHMSA has no knowledge of the BTS response to the NASFM's
request for funding and research into incidents involving the
transportation of PU foam.
    In its June 28, 2007 comment to the docket, the President of the
NASFM stated:

    Whether or not a hazardous material has been technically
classified as a hazardous material does not affect the temperature
of a fire or the smoke and gases from that fire. When a clearly
hazardous material is not officially classified, the hazard is all
that much greater because emergency responders have no way of
knowing the risks as they attempt to rescue trapped vehicle
occupants, protect nearby lives and property, and suppress the fire.
    Firefighters are trained to look for placards, read manifests
and consult with experts before they choose tactics. The American
Chemistry Council's Chemtrec program handles 300 telephone calls a
day, many from emergency responders at the scene of incidents
seeking information on a hazardous material listed on a manifest or
placard. Responders know that water can cause an explosion when used
with some hazardous materials and that some suppression foams

do not work on certain hazardous materials. Responders know that
evacuation may be necessary depending on the hazardous material and
weather conditions. But when responders have no way of knowing that
a burning substance is hazardous, they have no way of taking any of
these precautions.
    No one questions the fact that polyurethane foam ignites easily,
spreads fire aggressively, and generates large volumes of highly
toxic smoke and gases. Polyurethane foam is classified as a
combustible solid where it is manufactured, stored, sold and used in
construction. Other branches of the U.S. Department of
Transportation recognize the exceptionally poor fire performance of
polyurethane foam, as do the National Transportation Safety Board,
the U.S. Coast Guard, The Departments of Defense and Commerce, and
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
    The U.S. Department of Transportation has broad powers to
protect the public, ensure the safety of emergency responders and
classify and regulate hazardous materials. The National Association
of State Fire Marshals, on behalf of its members as well as
emergency responders nationwide, asks the Department to use its
authority to ensure that responders have some way of knowing when
they are dealing with transportation incidents involving this
exceptionally hazardous material.

    PHMSA notes that we did not receive any individual comments from
firefighters, emergency responders, or firefighter associations. The
NASFM has said that it speaks on behalf of firefighters and emergency
responders nationwide.

B. Commenters Opposed to Granting Petition P-1491

    The majority of commenters opposed the proposals contained in the
petition. The American Home Furnishings Alliance (AHFA) opposed the
petition and said about 80 percent of the upholstery sold in the United
States is manufactured domestically. To remain competitive, domestic
producers rely on lean manufacturing and distribution regimens. Process
management software ensures that the right quantities of wood frame
parts, polyurethane foam, and polyester fiber are delivered to
furniture plants in response to individual orders at retail.
Consequently, AHFA members are vitally interested in the efficient safe
transportation of bulk foam, foam cushions and other furniture
components. Regulatory changes that would disrupt this just-in-time
manufacturing process are a recipe for job loss. AHFA asked that PHMSA
weigh the logistical burdens the proposed regulation would have on the
furniture industry and its carriers against any safety benefit likely
to be accrued.
    The McIntyre Law Firm, PLLC, on behalf of the Polyurethane Foam
Association (PFA), suggested that PHMSA dismiss the petition. In 1994,
PHMSA issued an interpretation as a result of an inquiry from James T.
McIntyre, Counsel for the PFA, in response to a request for a
determination that the HMR does not apply to flexible PU foam. In the
interpretation response, PHMSA concluded that flexible PU foam is able
to burn, but are not self-reactive, do not meet the definition of a
Division 4.1 (flammable solid) material, do not release flammable gas
or vapor likely to create a flammable mixture with air in a transport
vehicle, do not meet any hazard class definition and, therefore, it is
not regulated by the HMR for purposes of transportation in commerce. In
concluding that PU foam is not a Division 4.1 hazardous material, DOT
determined that it does not fit within any class, which would include
Class 9 (Miscellaneous). Thus, Mr. McIntyre stated that the petition is
asking for a reversal of that determination, but it cites no
justifiable basis for doing so.
    The American Chemistry Council (ACC) stated that polyurethanes are
an important contributor of the U.S. economy and such a rulemaking
could have serious repercussions for consumers and small businesses.
The ACC said that in 2004, the total production of polyurethane in the
United States was approximately 6,692.5M pounds. Because of this large
production volume, the polyurethanes industry directly creates 47,500
jobs paying $2 billion in wages to its employees and generates $19.7
billion in revenues. Increased regulations would result in increased
cost for transporting these products on our nation's roadways, without
any evidence that such classification would result in safer
transportation of PU foam and products containing PU. Finally,
classifying such widely used products as a hazardous material has the
potential to create unnecessary concern with emergency responders. ACC
said that this could have unintended negative consequences in the
effectiveness of the existing hazardous material emergency response
program.
    The Business and Institutional Furniture Manufacturers Association
(BIFMA) said that as written the proposal appears to regulate shipment
of ``urethane'' foam whether in bulk or in finished goods. In addition
to commercial furniture, this could conceivably be extended to
clothing, shoes, and other products where the percentage of urethane
foam is also small and the products have little or no fire hazard in
their final form. BIFMA members are currently dealing with many
overlapping and often conflicting rules on furniture flammability. For
example, the CPSC is in the process of developing more rigorous
flammability rules for upholstered furniture at the same time that
environmental agencies are banning chemical fire retardants that are
often required to achieve flame resistance performance. The entire
regulatory environment for furniture flammability is changing, and the
proposed regulation of urethane foam as a hazardous material would
further complicate the use and handling of these materials in a way
that could be detrimental to many manufacturers, distributors, and
consumers, alike.
    The Council on Safe Transportation of Hazardous Articles, Inc.
(COSTHA) stated that while we understand the intent of the NASFM to
enhance safety to emergency responders, they see insignificant safety
benefits that might be anticipated through this petition. Emergency
responders are already trained to be aware of hazards associated with
vehicle fires due not only to the contents of the vehicle but the
components built into the vehicle, many of which employ vinyl and other
polymers due to their strength and durability and the ``creature
comforts'' the public demands. PU foam may also be in common use as an
insulating material in refrigerated delivery trucks such as those
involved in delivery of dairy products or frozen foods, and in
refrigerated freight containers. COSTHA said to attempt to identify,
classify, and mark all of these articles and substances for
transportation might tend to create complacency or a false sense of
safety when responding to fires involving vehicles not so marked.
    The Dangerous Goods Advisory Council (DGAC) stated that while it
appreciates the concerns expressed by the NASFM, DGAC does not consider
the petition compelling and recommends that PHMSA deny the petition.
Further, while oftentimes materials not subject to the HMR have the
potential for extensive damage in tunnels, they do not consider the HMR
to be the appropriate means of controlling risks to tunnels posted by
non-hazardous materials. In fact, the referenced Mont Blanc tunnel fire
which resulted in 39 deaths and an estimated cost of $2.5 billion
involved the burning of 9 tons of margarine, road bed material and
nearby vehicles.
    The National Tank Truck Carriers, Inc. (NTTC) stated that
polyurethane foam does not meet the definition of a hazardous material,
even as a Miscellaneous Class 9 material. NTTC noted, in this instance,
the effort to have it both ways by requiring an orange

label, while also exempting shippers and carriers from complying with
the normal hazardous materials requirements regarding shipping papers,
training, and placarding, et al., demonstrates the weakness of the
petition. It is unclear how emergency response will be improved. NTTC
said that what is foreseeable, however, is that the requested action
would unnecessarily open the door to consideration of numerous other
non-hazardous products. In addition, it would weaken the international
harmonization of hazardous materials that PHMSA is working to further,
and which NTTC supports. In short, NTTC views the petition as ``an
attempt to fit a round peg into a square hole,'' and urged the
Administrator to deny the petition.
    The International Sleep Products Association (ISPA) opposes the
petition and requests that PHMSA dismiss it. ISPA said that most
mattress producers assemble finished mattresses from components
supplied by third parties, and that many mattresses sold in the United
States today contain flexible PU foam to provide cushioning and
support. All finished mattresses, including those that contain flexible
PU foam, must meet various flammability standards. For example, since
the mid-1970s, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has
required that all mattresses resist ignition from a smoldering
cigarette. 16 CFR part 1632. Beginning July 1, 2007 the CPSC will
require that all mattresses withstand an open-flame ignition (such as a
match, lighter, or candle). 16 CFR part 1633. ISPA said that PHMSA
should dismiss the petition because it provides no legal or factual
basis for designating PU foam as a hazardous material.
    The American Trucking Associations (ATA) said that one of the most
troubling aspects of the petition is the difficulty motor carriers
would experience in complying with the suggested requirement to mark
trucks to indicate the presence of polyurethane foam. Polyurethane foam
is ubiquitous. In addition to its use in furniture, pillows,
mattresses, car seats, and carpet padding, it is used as insulation in
refrigerators, freezers and truck bodies. It is used as a packaging
material. It also is used as a decorative coating and is molded into
car bumpers. The ATA said that motor carriers take seriously their
responsibility to comply with DOT regulations, and that the regulatory
requirements requested in this petition set up motor carriers to fail--
as motor carriers face a regulatory requirement to mark trucks
containing polyurethane foam, but have no corresponding way to know
whether a shipper has tendered articles containing polyurethane foam.

III. PHMSA Is Denying the NASFM Petition P-1491

    In accordance with 49 CFR 106.95, Petition P-1491 is denied for the
following reasons:
    (1) In conclusion, the majority of commenters do not believe that
PU foam, nor products that contain PU foam, meet any of the defining
criteria under the HMR, and do not constitute an ``unreasonable'' risk
to health, safety and property when transported in commerce. PHMSA
agrees with the majority of the commenters. A PU fire is similar to
house fires and other fires with organic materials. A PU fire does not
require special fire fighting agents, procedures, or protective
equipment and, therefore, does not pose an unreasonable danger to first
responders. PHMSA believes that the information in the compendium do
not support the petition. Thus, classifying PU foam as a hazardous
material is unwarranted and inconsistent with the standards for
classification set forth in the HMR.
    (2) PU foam is not designated as a hazardous material because it is
not considered a substance or material capable of posing an acute or
unreasonable risk to health, safety and property when transported in
commerce. The petition does not provide sufficient supporting data to
warrant the adoption of the petition.
    (3) PU foam products are solid organic materials. Like many other
plastic products, PU foam products were not deemed to meet the
``Readily combustible solid'' definition and test criteria when DOT and
the UN Committee of Experts developed the definition, test method, and
criteria in 1990. The Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) submitted by
the NASFM did not identify PU foam products as hazardous materials.
Rather, the MSDS recognizes that PU foam products when exposed to fire
will melt into liquid and the flash point of the liquids is >500
[deg]F, which is outside of the range and criteria of Flammable liquid
or Combustible liquid, as defined in 49 CFR 173.120.
    (4) The safety implications of the proposals in the petition were
given careful considerations as we went through the process of
determining whether regulatory action was needed. While we understand
the intent of the NASFM to improve safety of emergency responders,
anticipated safety benefits associated with the transportation of PU
foam would be insignificant, since emergency responders are already
trained to be aware of hazards associated with vehicle fires due to
components built into the vehicle, many of which employ vinyl and other
polymers because of their strength and durability.
    (5) The NASFM stated in the petition that this should not be
considered a significant rulemaking because there are a limited number
of carriers transporting bulk PU foam. However, if the proposal to
classify PU foam as a hazardous material was adopted, it could be
applied universally to all PU foam products. To attempt to identify,
classify, and mark all of these articles and substances for purposes of
transportation in commerce would be a much larger impact, greater than
transportation. The costs associated with implementing the petition
would far exceed the benefits.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 31, 2011.
Magdy El-Sibaie,
Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety.
[FR Doc. 2011-8103 Filed 4-5-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 206 (Thursday, October 28, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59771-59774]
[FR Doc No: 2021-23434]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-93407; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2021-081]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend the Exchange's Schedule of Transaction Credits and Charges at
Equity 7, Section 118(a)

October 22, 2021.
    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 October 13, 2021, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's
schedule of transaction credits and charges, at Equity 7, Section
118(a).
    Each month, the Exchange determines the applicability to a member
of the various credits and charges set forth in this schedule based, in
part, on the nature and extent of a member's activities on the Exchange
during the month. Credits generally apply to members that add liquidity
to the Exchange during the month, with credit amounts varying based
upon the extent or nature of such liquidity adding activity, or other
criteria, while transaction charges that are discounted

from the standard rate apply to members that remove liquidity from the
Exchange during the month, with the amounts of the discounts varying
based upon the extent or nature of such liquidity removal activity, or
other criteria.
    Among the order types that comprise a member's activity on the
Exchange during a month are Midpoint Extended Life Orders (``M-
ELOs'').\3\ Generally, the M-ELO order type (including its Holding
Period) is designed to create additional trading opportunities on the
Exchange for investors with longer investment time horizons. M-ELO
Order will only execute against other M-ELO orders, as well as certain
other qualified midpoint orders on the continuous book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Pursuant to Equity 4, Rule 4702(b)(14), a ``Midpoint
Extended Life Order'' is an Order Type with a Non-Display Order
Attribute that is priced at the midpoint between the NBBO and that
will not be eligible to execute until a minimum period of 10
milliseconds has passed after acceptance of the Order by the System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the Exchange charges a member that executes a M-ELO
Order a flat fee of $0.0004 per share executed (for securities priced
at $1 or more), but does not provide a credit for liquidity provided or
charge a fee for liquidity removed.\4\ The design of the tiers of the
Section 118 ``Nasdaq Market Center Order Execution and Routing''
mandates that member's trading activity that is not treated as
``liquidity provided,'' necessarily becomes activity classified as
``liquidity removed.'' Accordingly, before the proposed change became
effective, all M-ELO trading activity was classified as removing
liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Although the proposed rule change will classify all M-ELO
trading activity as ``liquidity provided,'' a member that executes a
M-ELO Order will continue to be assessed a fee of $0.0004 per share
executed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq now proposes to count all M-ELO Orders that a member
executes on Nasdaq during the month as liquidity-adding activity on
Nasdaq for the purposes of calculating the extent of a member's trading
activity during the month on Nasdaq and determining the charges and
credits applicable to such member's activity.\5\ A M-ELO Order must
rest on the book for at least 10 milliseconds, and therefore Nasdaq
believes this approach is appropriate because M-ELO is an order type
that focuses on the execution quality experience. Nasdaq believes that
these qualities allow a M-ELO Order to have a lesser market price
impact thus contributing to the market quality by providing passive
liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Where a fee in a particular tier is determined based on
shares of non-displayed liquidity (without specifying the treatment
of M-ELO Orders) provided in all securities that represent more than
a certain threshold of Consolidated Volume, executed M-ELO Orders
will not be counted towards such non-displayed liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of counting all M-ELO Orders that a member executes on
Nasdaq during the month as liquidity-adding activity on Nasdaq for the
purposes of calculating the extent of a member's trading activity
during the month is to provide extra incentives to members to be
actively involved in M-ELO on the Exchange. The Exchange believes that
if such incentives are effective, then any ensuing increase in M-ELO
activity on the Exchange will improve market quality, to the benefit of
all participants.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposals are consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act,\6\ in general, and further the objectives of
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ in particular, in that they
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other
charges among members and issuers and other persons using any facility,
and are not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers. The proposals are also consistent with
Section 11A of the Act relating to the establishment of the national
market system for securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposals Are Reasonable
    The Exchange's proposals are reasonable in several respects. As a
threshold matter, the Exchange is subject to significant competitive
forces in the market for equity securities transaction services that
constrain its pricing determinations in that market. The fact that this
market is competitive has long been recognized by the courts. In
NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit
stated as follows: ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow
is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market
system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that
act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of
where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to
take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange
possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of
order flow from broker dealers'. . . .'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market
model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Numerous indicia demonstrate the competitive nature of this market.
For example, clear substitutes to the Exchange exist in the market for
equity security transaction services. The Exchange is only one of
several equity venues to which market participants may direct their
order flow. Competing equity exchanges offer similar tiered pricing
structures to that of the Exchange, including schedules of rebates and
fees that apply based upon members achieving certain volume thresholds.
    Within this environment, market participants can freely and often
do shift their order flow among the Exchange and competing venues in
response to changes in their respective pricing schedules. Within the
foregoing context, the proposals represent reasonable attempts by the
Exchange to increase its liquidity and market share relative to its
competitors.
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to count all M-ELO
Orders that a member executes on Nasdaq during the month as liquidity-
adding activity on Nasdaq for the purposes of calculating the extent of
a member's trading activity during the month on Nasdaq and determining
the charges and credits applicable to such member's activity.
    The proposal is reasonable because it will provide extra incentives
to members to engage in substantial amounts of MELO-related activity on
the Exchange during a month. Nasdaq believes that the qualities of a M-
ELO Order cause it to have a lesser market price impact thus
contributing to the market quality by providing passive liquidity. The
Exchange believes that if such incentives are effective, then any
ensuing increase in M-ELO Orders will improve the quality of the M-ELO
market, and the market overall, to the benefit of M-ELO and all market
participants.

    The Exchange notes that those market participants that are
dissatisfied with the proposals are free to shift their order flow to
competing venues that offer more generous pricing or less stringent
qualifying criteria.
The Proposals Are Equitable Allocations of Fees and Credits
    The Exchange believes that it is an equitable allocation to modify
the eligibility requirements for its transaction credits and fees
because the proposal will encourage members to increase the extent to
which they add M-ELO liquidity to the Exchange. Nasdaq believes that
the qualities of a M-ELO Order cause it to have a lesser market price
impact thus contributing to the market quality by providing passive
liquidity. To the extent that the Exchange succeeds in increasing the
levels of M-ELO liquidity on the Exchange, then the Exchange will
experience improvements in its market quality, which stands to benefit
all market participants.
    Any participant that is dissatisfied with the proposals is free to
shift their order flow to competing venues that provide more generous
pricing or less stringent qualifying criteria.
The Proposals Are Not Unfairly Discriminatory
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is not unfairly
discriminatory. As an initial matter, the Exchange believes that
nothing about its volume-based tiered pricing model is inherently
unfair; instead, it is a rational pricing model that is well-
established and ubiquitous in today's economy among firms in various
industries--from co-branded credit cards to grocery stores to cellular
telephone data plans--that use it to reward the loyalty of their best
customers that provide high levels of business activity and incent
other customers to increase the extent of their business activity. It
is also a pricing model that the Exchange and its competitors have long
employed with the assent of the Commission. It is fair because it
incentivizes customer activity that increases liquidity, enhances price
discovery, and improves the overall quality of the equity markets.
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend the qualifying
criteria for its transaction fees and credits is not unfairly
discriminatory because these credits and fees are available to all
members. Nasdaq believes that the qualities of a M-ELO Order cause it
to have a lesser market price impact thus contributing to the market
quality by providing passive liquidity. Moreover, the proposal stands
to improve the overall market quality of the Exchange, to the benefit
of all market participants, by incentivizing members to increase the
extent of their M-ELO liquidity provision or activity on the Exchange.
    Any participant that is dissatisfied with the proposals is free to
shift their order flow to competing venues that provide more generous
pricing or less stringent qualifying criteria.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Intramarket Competition
    The Exchange does not believe that its proposals will place any
category of Exchange participant at a competitive disadvantage because
the change represents a reasonable effort to enhance the ability of
longer-term trading interest to participate effectively on an exchange,
without discriminating unfairly against other market participants or
inappropriately or unnecessarily burdening competition. Nasdaq believes
that the qualities of a M-ELO Order cause it to have a lesser market
price impact thus contributing to the market quality by providing
passive liquidity. In addition, the proposal is applicable to all
members on equal terms.
    The Exchange notes that its members are free to trade on other
venues to the extent they believe that the proposed treatment of M-ELO
Orders is not desirable. As one can observe by looking at any market
share chart, price competition between exchanges is fierce, with
liquidity and market share moving freely between exchanges in reaction
to fee and credit changes. The Exchange notes that its pricing tier
structure is consistent with broker-dealer fee practices as well as the
other industries, as described above.
Intermarket Competition
    In terms of inter-market competition, the Exchange notes that it
operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants
can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee or credit levels at
a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available
at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the
Exchange must continually adjust its fees and credits to remain
competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems
that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards
applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their
own fees and credits in response, and because market participants may
readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes
that the degree to which fee and credit changes in this market may
impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
    The proposal is reflective of this competition because, even as one
of the largest U.S. equities exchanges by volume, the Exchange has less
than 20% market share, which in most markets could hardly be
categorized as having enough market power to burden competition.
Moreover, as noted above, price competition between exchanges is
fierce, with liquidity and market share moving freely between exchanges
in reaction to fee and credit changes. This is in addition to free flow
of order flow to and among off-exchange venues which comprises upwards
of 44% of industry volume.
    The Exchange's proposal is pro-competitive in that the Exchange
intends for the change to increase M-ELO liquidity addition on the
Exchange, thereby rendering the Exchange a more attractive and vibrant
venue to market participants.
    In sum, if the changes proposed herein are unattractive to market
participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market share as
a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed
changes will impair the ability of members or competing order execution
venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

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

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

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

Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2021-081 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2021-081. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2021-081 and should be submitted
on or before November 18, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-23434 Filed 10-27-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P