[Federal Register: May 1, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 83)]
[Notices]
[Page 23879-23881]
[DOCID:fr01my07-106]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55666; File No. SR-Phlx-2007-29]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Extension of the $1 Strike Pilot Program

April 25, 2007.
    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 April 16, 2007, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Phlx'' 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 substantially prepared by Phlx.
The Exchange has filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon filing with the
Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Commentary .05 to Exchange Rule 1012
in order to extend for a period of one year a pilot program that allows
the Exchange to list options classes overlying five individual stocks
with strike price intervals of $1.00 where, among other things, the
underlying stock closes below $20.00 on the primary market trading it
on the day before selection by the Exchange to list pursuant to the
pilot, and the Exchange can list $1.00 strike prices on any options
classes specifically designated by other securities exchanges that
employ a similar pilot program under their rules (``Pilot
Program'').\5\ The text of the proposed rule change is available at
Phlx, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and http://www.phlx.com.

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

    \5\ The Pilot Program was initially approved by the Commission
on June 11, 2003, and extended until June 5, 2007. See Securities
Exchange Act Release Nos. 48013 (June 11, 2003), 68 FR 35933 (June
17, 2003) (SR-Phlx-2002-55) (``Phlx Approval Order''); 49801 (June
3, 2004), 69 FR 32652 (June 10, 2004) (SR-Phlx-2004-38); 51768 (May
31, 2005), 70 FR 33250 (June 7, 2005) (SR-Phlx-2005-35); and 53938
(June 5, 2006), 71 FR 34178 (June 13, 2006) (SR-Phlx-2006-36)
(collectively, ``Phlx Pilot Extensions''). The other options
exchanges have similar $1 strike price listing pilot programs that
were likewise extended through June 5, 2007. See Securities Exchange
Act Release Nos. 53843 (May 19, 2006), 71 FR 30455 (May 26, 2006)
(SR-Amex-2006-49); 53885 (May 24, 2006), 71 FR 30973 (May 31, 2006)
(SR-BSE-2006-19); 53805 (May 15, 2006), 71 FR 29690 (May 23, 2006)
(SR-CBOE-2006-31); 53806 (May 15, 2006), 71 FR 29694 (May 23, 2006)
(SR-ISE-2006-20); and 53807 (May 15, 2006), 71 FR 29373 (May 22,
2006) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to extend the Pilot
Program for one year until June 5, 2008, so that the Exchange may
continue to list options at $1.00 strike price intervals within the
parameters specified in Commentary .05 to Phlx Rule 1012.
    The Commission approved the Pilot Program allowing the listing of
strike prices for options at $1.00 intervals for securities trading
under $20.00, and extended it through June 5, 2007.\6\ The Exchange is
proposing to extend the Pilot Program for a period of one year, through
June 5, 2008. The Pilot Program will remain unchanged such that
pursuant to it Phlx can establish $1 strike price intervals on options
classes overlying no more than five individual stocks designated by the
Exchange where the underlying stock closes below $20.00 on its primary
market on the trading day before selection by the Exchange to list
pursuant to the Pilot Program; the $1.00 strike price is from $3.00 to
$20.00; the $1.00 strike price is no more than $5.00 from ($5.00 above
or below) the closing price of the underlying stock on the preceding
day; the $1.00 strike price will not be listed within $0.50 of an
existing $2.50 strike price within the same series; and the $1.00
strike price will not be applied to Long-Term Equity AnticiPation
Securities. And, pursuant to the Pilot Program, the Exchange can
multiply list those option classes specifically designated to be listed
at $1.00 strike prices by other options exchanges that have similar
$1.00 pilot programs pursuant to their own rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Phlx Approval Order and Phlx Pilot Extensions, supra
note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In July 2003, Phlx chose and listed five options classes with $1
strike price intervals, thereafter listed on a multiple listing basis
$1 strike prices options classes that were listed by other options
exchanges pursuant to their $1 strike price pilot programs, and
currently lists 22 options classes with $1 strike prices.\7\ The
Exchange continues to believe that the ability to list stocks at $1
strike price intervals pursuant to the Pilot Program has given
investors flexibility and the opportunity to more closely and

effectively tailor their options investments to the price of the
underlying stock and has allowed the Exchange to take advantage of
competitive opportunities to list options at $1.00 strike prices.
Furthermore, the Exchange has not detected any material proliferation
of illiquid options series resulting from the Pilot Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Phlx continues to list the $1 strike prices in the options
classes that it initially chose for the Pilot Program: TYCO
International, LTD (TYC), Micron Tech. (MU), Oracle Co. (ORQ),
Brocade Comm. (UBF), and Juniper Networks (JUP). Because TYC is
presently trading outside the strike price range permissible in the
Pilot Program, however, it is not trading at $1 strike price
intervals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Phlx Pilot Extensions, the Commission indicated that if Phlx
sought to extend, expand, or request permanent approval of the Pilot
Program, it would be required to include a Pilot Program Report with
its filing.\8\ Phlx's Pilot Program Report (``Report''), included as
Exhibit 3 to the proposal, reviews the Exchange's experience with the
Pilot Program. According to Phlx, the Report clearly supports the
Exchange's belief that extension of the Pilot Program is proper. Among
other things, Phlx believes that the Report shows the strength and
efficacy of the Pilot Program on the Exchange, as reflected by the
increase in the percentage of $1 strikes in comparison to total options
volume traded on Phlx at $1 strike price intervals as compared to other
options volume and the continuing robust open interest of options
traded on Phlx at $1 strike price intervals. Phlx believes that the
Report establishes that the Pilot Program has not created and in the
future should not create capacity problems for the systems of the
Exchange or the Options Price Reporting Authority (``OPRA''), and
explains that most delistings of $1 strike price options series
occurred to ensure that the chosen $1 strike price issues remained
within the parameters of the Pilot Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Phlx Pilot Extensions, supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act,\9\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5),\10\ specifically, in that it is designed to perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system,
to protect investors and the public interest, and to promote just an
equitable principles of trade. Phlx believes the proposal would achieve
this by allowing the continued listing of options at $1.00 strike price
intervals within certain parameters, thereby stimulating customer
interest in options overlying the lowest tier of stocks and creating
greater trading opportunities and flexibility and providing customers
with the ability to more closely tailor investment strategies to the
precise movement of the underlying stocks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 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 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

    Because the foregoing rule change does not: (1) Significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (2) impose
any significant burden on competition; and (3) become operative for 30
days from the date of this filing, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). Rule 19b-4(f)(6) also requires the
self-regulatory organization to give the Commission 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. Phlx
has satisfied the five-day pre-filing requirement. As set forth in
the Commission's initial approval of the Pilot Program, if Phlx
proposes to: (1) Extend the Pilot Program; (2) expand the number of
options eligible for inclusion in the Pilot Program; or (3) seek
permanent approval of the Pilot Program, it must submit a Pilot
Program Report to the Commission along with the filing of its
proposal to extend, expand, or seek permanent approval of the Pilot
Program. Phlx must file any proposal to expand or seek permanent
approval of the Pilot Program and the Pilot Program Report with the
Commission at least 60 days prior to the expiration of the Pilot
Program. The Pilot Program Report must cover the entire time the
Pilot Program was in effect and must include: (1) Data and written
analysis on the open interest and trading volume for options (at all
strike price intervals) selected for the Pilot Program; (2) delisted
options series (for all strike price intervals) for all options
selected for the Pilot Program; (3) an assessment of the
appropriateness of $1 strike price intervals for the options Phlx
selected for the Pilot Program; (4) an assessment of the impact of
the Pilot Program on the capacity of Phlx's, OPRA's, and vendors'
automated systems; (5) any capacity problems or other problems that
arose during the operation of the Pilot Program and how Phlx
addressed them; (6) any complaints that Phlx received during the
operation of the Pilot Program and how Phlx addressed them; and (7)
any additional information that would help to assess the operation
of the Pilot Program. See Phlx Approval Order, supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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 Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File No. SR-Phlx-2007-29 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-Phlx-2007-29. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of Phlx. 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 No. SR-
Phlx-2007-29 and should be submitted on or before May 22, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-8257 Filed 4-30-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 10, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21506-21508]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8555]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2011-1334; Airspace Docket No. 11-ASO-43]

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Augusta, GA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class E Airspace in Augusta, GA.
The Bushe Non-Directional Beacon (NDB) and the Burke County NDB have
been decommissioned and new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures
have been developed at Augusta Regional Airport at Bush Field, and
Burke County Airport, Waynesboro, GA, respectively. Airspace
reconfiguration is necessary for the continued safety and management of
instrument flight rules (IFR) operations within the Augusta, GA,
airspace area. This action also would update the geographic coordinates
of Burke County Airport.

DATES: 0901 UTC. Comments must be received on or before May 25, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001;
Telephone: 1-800-647-5527; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify the
Docket Number FAA-2011-1334; Airspace Docket No. 11-ASO-43, at the
beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received
comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by
submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire.
Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and
suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned
regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited
on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and
energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2011-1334; Airspace Docket No. 11-ASO-43) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on
this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket
No. FAA-2011-1334; Airspace Docket No. 11-ASO-43.'' The postcard will
be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and
comments submitted through http://www.regulations.gov. Recently
published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's
Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. An
informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at
the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation
Administration, room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia
30337.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>, to
request a copy of Advisory circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend Class E airspace extending upward
from 700 feet above the surface in the Augusta, GA area. Airspace
reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Bushe
NDB at Augusta Regional at Busch Field Airport, and the Burke County
NDB at Burke County Airport, Waynesboro, GA, thereby cancelling the NDB
approaches. This action would ensure the continued safety and
management of IFR operations within the Augusta, GA airspace area. The
geographic coordinates for Burke County Airport also would be adjusted
to coincide with the FAAs aeronautical database.
    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of
FAA order 7400.9V, dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15,
2011, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This proposed rulemaking is promulgated under the authority
described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under
that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign
the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This proposed regulation is within the scope
of that authority as it would amend Class E airspace in the Augusta, GA
area.
    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

    1. The authority citation for Part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9V, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 9, 2011, effective September 15, 2011,
is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ASO GA E5 Augusta, GA

Augusta Regional At Bush Field Airport, GA
    (Lat. 33[deg]22'12'' N., long. 81[deg]57'52'' W.)
Emory NDB
    (Lat. 33[deg]27'46'' N., long. 81[deg]59'49'' W.)
Daniel Field
    (Lat. 33[deg]27'59'' N., long. 82[deg]02'22'' W.)
Burke County Airport, GA
    (Lat. 32[deg]02'29'' N., long. 82[deg]00'10'' W.)
Millen Airport
    (Lat. 32[deg]53'37'' N., long. 81[deg]57'55'' W.)
Millen NDB
    (Lat. 32[deg]53'41'' N., long. 81[deg]58'01'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within an 8.6-mile radius of Augusta Regional at Bush Field Airport,
and within 3.2 miles either side of the 168[deg] bearing from the
airport extending from the 8.6-mile radius to 12.5 miles south of
the airport, and within a 7-mile radius of Daniel Field Airport, and
within 8 miles west and 4 miles east of the 349[deg] bearing from
the Emory NDB extending from the 7-mile radius to 16 miles north of
the Emory NDB, and within a 6.6-mile radius of Burke County Airport,
and within a 7.3-mile radius of the Millen Airport and within 4
miles east and 8 miles west of the 357[deg] bearing from the Millen
NDB extending from the 7.3-mile radius to 16 miles north of the
airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on March 30, 2012.
Barry A. Knight,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2012-8555 Filed 4-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 93 (Monday, May 15, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31083-31087]
[FR Doc No: 2023-10249]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-97466; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2023-013]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Equity 7, Section 118

May 9, 2023.
    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 May 2, 2023, 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 (i) eliminate various transaction credits
at Equity 7, Section 118(a); and (ii) amend Equity 7, Section 118(a)
and Section 118(j) to exclude certain days for purposes of calculating
Consolidated Volume and trading activity, 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: (i) eliminate
various transaction credits at Equity 7, Section 118(a); and (ii) amend
Equity 7, Section 118(a) and Section 118(j) to exclude certain days for
purposes of calculating Consolidated Volume and trading activity.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange initially filed the proposed pricing changes on
May 1, 2023 (SR-NASDAQ-2023-012). The instant filing replaces SR-
NASDAQ-2023-012, which was withdrawn on May 2, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elimination of Credits
    The Exchange proposes to eliminate 14 credits in its fee schedule
at Equity 7, Section 118(a), including: (i) six credits currently
offered to members for displayed quotes/orders (other than Supplemental
Orders or Designated Retail Orders) that provide liquidity to the
Exchange; (ii) three supplemental credits currently offered to members
for displayed quotes/orders (other than Supplemental Orders or
Designated Retail Orders) that provide liquidity to the Exchange; and
(iii) five credits currently offered for non-displayed orders (other
than Supplemental orders) that provide liquidity to the Exchange.
    The Exchange proposes to eliminate the following credits currently
offered to members for displayed quotes/orders (other than Supplemental
Orders or Designated Retail Orders) that provide liquidity to the
Exchange:
     $0.00305 per share executed credit for securities in Tapes
A, B, and C for a member (i) with shares of liquidity provided in all
securities through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs that
represent 1.20% or more of Consolidated Volume; (ii) executes 0.40% or
more of Consolidated Volume through providing midpoint orders and
through M-ELO; and (iii) removes at least 1.45% of Consolidated Volume;
     $0.0030 per share executed for securities in Tapes A, B,
and C for a member with shares of liquidity provided in all securities
through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs that represent
1.25% or more of Consolidated Volume, which includes shares of
liquidity provided with respect to securities that are listed on
exchanges other than Nasdaq or NYSE that represent 0.40% or more of
Consolidated Volume;
     $0.00305 per share executed for securities in Tapes A, B,
and C for a member (i) with shares of liquidity provided in all
securities through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs that
represent more than 1.20% of Consolidated Volume, and (ii) with at
least 0.25% of Consolidated Volume that sets the NBBO;
     $0.0027 per share executed for securities in Tapes A, B,
and C for a member (i) with shares of liquidity accessed in all
securities through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs that
represent more than 0.60% of Consolidated Volume, and (ii) with shares
of liquidity provided in all securities through one or more of its
Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs that represent more than 0.25% of
Consolidated Volume;
     $0.0029 per share executed for securities in Tapes A, B,
and C for a member with (i) shares of liquidity provided in all
securities during the month representing more than 0.15% of
Consolidated Volume, through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center
MPIDs, and (ii) Total Volume, as defined in Options 7, Section 2 of The
Nasdaq Options Market rules, of 0.90% or more of total industry ADV in
the Customer clearing range for Equity and ETF option contracts per day
in a month on The Nasdaq Options Market; and
     $0.0027 per share executed for securities in Tapes A, B,
and C for a member that, through one or more of its Nasdaq Market
Center MPIDs: (i) provides shares of liquidity in all securities that
represent equal to or greater than 0.20% of Consolidated Volume; (ii)
increases the extent to which it provides liquidity in all securities
as a percentage of Consolidated Volume by 35% or more during the month
relative to the month of May 2021; and (iii) has a ratio of at least
60% NBBO liquidity provided (as defined in Equity 7, Section 114(g)) to
liquidity provided by displayed quotes/orders (other than Supplemental
Orders or Designated Retail Orders) during the month.
    In addition, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the following
supplemental credits currently offered to members for displayed quotes/
orders (other than Supplemental Orders or Designated Retail Orders)
that provide liquidity to the Exchange:
     $0.00005 per share executed for securities in Tape B for a
member with shares of liquidity provided in all securities through one
or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs that represent at least 1.75%
of Consolidated Volume, including shares of liquidity provided with
respect to securities that are listed on exchanges other than Nasdaq or
NYSE that represent at least 0.60% of Consolidated Volume;
     $0.00005 per share executed for securities in Tape A for a
member with (i) shares of liquidity provided in Tape A securities
through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs that represent at
least 0.75% of Consolidated Volume, and (ii) shares of liquidity
provided in Tape B securities through one or more of its Nasdaq Market
Center MPIDs that represent at least 0.60% of Consolidated Volume; and
     $0.000025 per share executed for securities in Tapes A and
C for a member with (i) shares of liquidity provided in Tape A
securities during the month representing at least 1.40% of Consolidated
Volume, and (ii) shares of liquidity provided in Tape C representing at
least 1.40% of Consolidated Volume.
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the following credits
currently offered for non-displayed orders (other than Supplemental
orders) that provide liquidity to the Exchange:
     $0.00175 per share executed for securities in Tapes A and
B and

$0.00125 per share executed for securities in Tape C for other non-
displayed orders if the member (i) provides 0.225% or more of
Consolidated Volume through non-displayed orders (other than midpoint
orders) and (ii) provides 0.165% or more of Consolidated Volume through
midpoint orders;
     $0.0020 per share executed for securities in Tapes A and B
and $0.0015 per share executed for securities in Tape C for other non-
displayed orders if the member (i) provides 0.275% or more of
Consolidated Volume through non-displayed orders (other than midpoint
orders) and (ii) provides 0.175% or more of Consolidated Volume through
midpoint orders;
     $0.00125 per share executed for securities in Tapes A and
B and $0.00075 per share executed for securities in Tape C for other
non-displayed orders if the member, during the month (i) provides 0.30%
or more of Consolidated Volume through non-displayed orders (other than
midpoint orders); and (ii) increases providing liquidity through non-
displayed orders (including midpoint orders) by 10% or more relative to
the member's February 2021 ADV provided through non-displayed orders
(including midpoint orders);
     $0.00075 per share executed for securities in Tape C for
other non-displayed orders if the member, during the month (i) provides
0.90% or more of Consolidated Volume; (ii) increases providing
liquidity through non-displayed orders (other than midpoint orders) by
10% or more relative to the member's July 2020 Consolidated Volume
provided through non-displayed orders (other than midpoint orders) and;
(iii) provides 0.20% or more of Consolidated Volume through non-
displayed orders (other than midpoint orders); and
     $0.0001 per share executed for securities in Tapes A, B,
and C if the member, during the month (i) provides at least 10 million
shares of midpoint liquidity per day during the month; and (ii)
increases providing liquidity through midpoint orders by 50% or more
relative to the member's July 2022 Consolidated Volume provided through
midpoint orders.
    The Exchange proposes to eliminate these credits in order to
simplify its fee schedule. In its effort to simplify its fee schedule,
the Exchange proposes to eliminate credits that are not being heavily
utilized and have not been successful in accomplishing their
objectives, including the objective to induce members to increase
liquidity on the Exchange. The Exchange has limited resources to
allocate to incentives and it must, from time to time, reallocate those
resources to maximize their net impact on the Exchange, market quality,
and participants. Going forward, the Exchange plans to reallocate the
resources to other incentives that it hopes will be more impactful.
    Furthermore, several of the credits that the Exchange proposes to
eliminate reference baseline months for the growth elements of the
tiers that are no longer relevant benchmarks. As such, these credits no
longer provide growth incentives that are aligned with the Exchange's
needs. Again, the Exchange has limited resources to devote to incentive
programs, and it is appropriate for the Exchange to reallocate these
incentives periodically in a manner that best achieves the Exchange's
overall mix of objectives.
Amendments to Calculation of Consolidated Volume and Trading Activity
    The Exchange also proposes to amend Equity 7, Section 118(a) and
Section 118(j) to exclude the following from calculations of total
Consolidated Volume and the member's trading activity for purposes of
volume calculations for equity pricing tiers/incentives: (1) the dates
on which stock options, stock index options, and stock index futures
expire (i.e., the third Friday of March, June, September, and December)
(``Triple Witch Dates''); (2) the dates on which the MSCI Equity
Indexes are rebalanced (i.e., on a quarterly basis) (``MSCI Rebalance
Dates''); (3) the dates on which the S&P 400, S&P 500, and S&P 600
Indexes are rebalanced (i.e., on a quarterly basis) (``S&P Rebalance
Dates''); and (4) the date of the annual reconstitution of the Nasdaq-
100 and Nasdaq Biotechnology Indexes (``Nasdaq Reconstitution Date'').
Currently, the Exchange excludes the date of the annual reconstitution
of the Russell Investments Indexes from calculations of total
Consolidated Volume and the member's trading activity for purposes of
volume calculations for equity pricing tiers/incentives.
    For the same reasons that the Exchange currently excludes the date
of the annual reconstitution of the Russell Investments Indexes from
these calculations, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to exclude
Triple Witch Dates, MSCI Rebalance Dates, S&P Rebalance Dates, and the
Nasdaq Reconstitution Date from these calculations in the same manner,
as trading volumes on such days are generally far in excess of volumes
on other days during the month, and market participants that are not
otherwise active on the Exchange to a great extent often participate on
the Exchange on such dates to rebalance holdings, or in the case of
Triple Witch Dates, to close out or roll over positions prior to
expiration. The Exchange believes this change to normal activity may
affect a member's ability to meet the applicable volume thresholds
under its volume-based tiers. The Exchange notes that the proposed
exclusion of Triple Witch Dates, MSCI Rebalance Dates, S&P Rebalance
Dates, and the Nasdaq Reconstitution Date from the relevant
calculations would be applied in the same manner that the Exchange
currently excludes the date of the annual reconstitution of the Russell
Investments Indexes from such calculations.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\4\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\5\ 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, and is
not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange's proposed changes to its schedule of credits 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'. . . .'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 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.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 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. As such, the
proposal represents a reasonable attempt by the Exchange to increase
its liquidity and market share relative to its competitors.
    The Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly
discriminatory to eliminate various of the Exchange's transaction
credits. As described above, the Exchange seeks to simplify and
streamline its schedule of credits by eliminating 14 credits in its fee
schedule at Equity 7, Section 118(a), including: (i) six credits
currently offered to members for displayed quotes/orders (other than
Supplemental Orders or Designated Retail Orders) that provide liquidity
to the Exchange; (ii) three supplemental credits currently offered to
members for displayed quotes/orders (other than Supplemental Orders or
Designated Retail Orders) that provide liquidity to the Exchange; and
(iii) five credits currently offered for non-displayed orders (other
than Supplemental orders) that provide liquidity to the Exchange.
    The Exchange proposes to eliminate various credits in order to
simplify its fee schedule. In doing so, the Exchange proposes to
eliminate credits that have not been successful in accomplishing their
objectives as well as eliminate several credits that reference baseline
months for the growth elements of tiers that are no longer relevant
benchmarks. The proposed changes are designed to better align with the
Exchange's needs. The Exchange has limited resources to devote to
incentive programs, and it is appropriate for the Exchange to
reallocate these incentives periodically in a manner that best achieves
the Exchange's overall mix of objectives.
    Those participants that are dissatisfied with the eliminations from
the Exchange's schedule of credits are free to shift their order flow
to competing venues that provide more generous incentives or less
stringent qualifying criteria.
    The Exchange also believes it is reasonable, equitable, and not
unfairly discriminatory to exclude Triple Witch Dates, MSCI Rebalance
Dates, S&P Rebalance Dates, and the Nasdaq Reconstitution Date from
calculations of total Consolidated Volume and the member's trading
activity for purposes of volume calculations for equity pricing tiers/
incentives. As described above, Triple Witch Dates, MSCI Rebalance
Dates, S&P Rebalance Dates, and the Nasdaq Reconstitution Date
typically have extraordinarily high and/or abnormally distributed
trading volumes which, in turn, may affect a member's ability to meet
the applicable volume thresholds under its transaction pricing tiers/
incentives, and the Exchange believes that excluding such days from the
relevant calculations for purposes of determining a member's
qualification for such tiers/incentives would help to avoid penalizing
members that might otherwise have met the requirements to qualify for
such tiers/incentives. The proposal would diminish the likelihood of a
de facto price increase occurring because a member is not able to reach
a volume percentage on that date that it reaches on other trading days
during the month. Because trading activity on Triple Witch Dates, MSCI
Rebalance Dates, S&P Rebalance Dates, and the Nasdaq Reconstitution
Date will be excluded from determinations of a member's percentage of
Consolidated Volume, the Exchange believes it will be easier for
members to determine the volume required to meet a certain percentage
of participation than would otherwise be the case. To the extent that a
member has been active on the Exchange at a significant level
throughout the month, excluding the Triple Witch Dates, MSCI Rebalance
Dates, S&P Rebalance Dates, and the Nasdaq Reconstitution Date, on
which its percentage of Consolidated Volume is likely to be lower than
on other days, will increase its overall percentage for the month.
Conversely, even if a member was more active on Triple Witch Dates,
MSCI Rebalance Dates, S&P Rebalance Dates, and the Nasdaq
Reconstitution Date than on other dates, it is unlikely that its
activity on one day would be able to increase its overall monthly
percentage to a meaningful extent. Thus, the Exchange believes that the
change will benefit members that are in a position to achieve volume
levels required by the Exchange's pricing schedule but without harming
the ability of any members to reach such levels. This proposal would
help to preserve or improve the pricing status that would apply to
members' trading activity in the absence of Triple Witch Dates, MSCI
Rebalance Dates, S&P Rebalance Dates, and the Nasdaq Reconstitution
Date, and therefore will not impact the ability of such members to
compete. The proposed rule change would apply to all members uniformly,
in that each member's volume activities for purposes of pricing tiers/
incentives would continue to be calculated in a uniform manner and
would now exclude Triple Witch Dates, MSCI Rebalance Dates, S&P
Rebalance Dates, and the Nasdaq Reconstitution Date.

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.
Intramarket Competition
    The Exchange does not believe that its proposal will place any
category of Exchange participant at a competitive disadvantage.
    The Exchange intends for its proposed changes to eliminate credits
at Equity 7, Section 118(a) to simplify its fee schedule, eliminate
unsuccessful rebates, preserve its limited resources for optimized
effect, and better align the schedule of credits with the Exchange's
overall mix of objectives. The Exchange intends for its proposed
changes to amend the calculation of Consolidated Volume and trading
activity at Equity 7, Section 118(a) and Section 118(j) to avoid
penalizing members that might otherwise have met the applicable volume
thresholds to qualify for the Exchange's transaction pricing tiers/
incentives if not for the abnormal trading volumes and market
conditions typically experienced in the equities markets on the Triple
Witch Dates, MSCI Rebalance Dates, S&P Rebalance Dates, and the Nasdaq
Reconstitution Date. The proposed exclusion of such

dates from the relevant calculations would apply to all members
uniformly and in the same manner that the Exchange currently excludes
the date of the annual reconstitution of the Russell Investments
Indexes from such calculations.
    The Exchange notes that its members are free to trade on other
venues to the extent they believe that these proposals are not
attractive. 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.
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 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 credits and fees 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 credits and
fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust
their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to
which credit or fee changes in this market may impose any burden on
competition is extremely limited. The proposal is reflective of this
competition.
    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 50% of industry volume.
    Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposal to exclude certain
dates from calculating Consolidated Volume and trading activity is not
concerned with competitive issues, but rather relates to calculation
methodologies applicable to its pricing tiers/incentives.
    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.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 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 (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please
include File Number SR-NASDAQ-2023-013 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-2023-013. 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 (https://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. Do
not include personal identifiable information in submissions; you
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. We may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication
submitted material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection.
You should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2023-
013 and should be submitted on or before June 5, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-10249 Filed 5-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 20, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 64899]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20366]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER23-2826-000]

Sparta Northstar Ltd.; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Sparta Northstar Ltd.'s application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is October 4, 2023.
    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 may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

    Dated: September 14, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-20366 Filed 9-19-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 25, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 205)]
[Notices]
[Page 65491-65494]
[DOCID:fr25oc10-66]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0411]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Guide To Minimize
Microbial Food Safety Hazards of Fresh-Cut Fruits and Vegetables

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by
November 24, 2010.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0609.
Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denver Presley Jr., Office of
Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr.,
PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Guide To Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards of Fresh-Cut Fruits and
Vegetables--(OMB Control Number 0910-0609)--Extension

    Fresh-cut fruits and vegetables are fruits and vegetables that have
been processed by peeling, slicing, chopping, shredding, coring,
trimming, or mashing, with or without washing or other treatment, prior
to being packaged for consumption. The methods by which produce is
grown, harvested, and processed may contribute to its contamination
with pathogens and, consequently, the role of the produce in
transmitting foodborne illness. Factors such as the high degree of
handling and mixing of the product, the release of cellular fluids
during cutting or mashing, the high moisture content of the product,
the absence of a step lethal

to pathogens, and the potential for temperature abuse in the
processing, storage, transport, and retail display all enhance the
potential for pathogens to survive and grow in fresh-cut produce.
    The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) prohibits the
distribution of adulterated food in interstate commerce (21 U.S.C. 331
and 342). In response to the increased consumption of fresh-cut fruits
and vegetables and the potential for foodborne illness associated with
these products, FDA recognizes the need for guidance specific to the
processing of fresh-cut fruits and vegetables. The guidance document
entitled ``Guide to Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards of Fresh-cut
Fruits and Vegetables,'' which is available at: http://www.fda.gov/
FoodGuidances, provides FDA's recommendations to fresh-cut produce
processors about how to avoid contamination of their product with
pathogens. The guidance is in addition to the current good
manufacturing practices (cGMPs) provided in part 110 of FDA's
regulations (21 CFR part 110). The guidance is intended to assist
fresh-cut produce processors in minimizing microbial food safety
hazards common to the processing of most fresh-cut fruits and
vegetables sold to consumers and retail establishments in a ready-to-
eat form. Accordingly, FDA encourages fresh-cut produce processors to
adopt the general recommendations in the guidance and to tailor
practices to their individual operations.
    The guidance provides information and recommended procedures
designed to help fresh-cut produce processors minimize microbial food
safety hazards. The recommended procedures contained in the guidance
are voluntary. Both FDA and fresh-cut produce processors will use and
benefit from the information collected.
    Two general recommendations in the guidance are for operators to
develop and implement both a written Standard Operating Procedures
(SOPs) plan and a Sanitary Standard Operation Procedures (SSOPs) plan.
SOPs and SSOPs are important components to properly implemented and
monitored cGMPs that are required for processed food operations under
part 110. Other recommended programs that require documentation and
recordkeeping are recall and traceback programs. In the event of a food
safety concern, processors who adopt these recommended programs will be
prepared to recall products from the market place or be able to trace
back fresh produce, which might be implicated in a foodborne illness
outbreak, to its source. Fresh-cut produce processors are also asked to
consider the application of Hazards Analysis and Critical Control Point
(HACCP) principles or comparable preventive control programs to the
processing of fruits and vegetables. FDA, other Federal and State food
agencies, industry, and food establishments have found such preventive
control programs, when properly designed and maintained by the
establishment's personnel, to be valuable in managing the safety of
food products.
    FDA's fresh-cut guidance represents the agency's recommendations to
industry based on the current state of science. Following the
recommendations set forth in the fresh-cut guidance is the choice of
each individual fresh-cut operation, plant, or processor. FDA estimates
the burden of the guidance on industry by assuming that those in the
fresh-cut industry who do not currently follow the recommendations put
forth in the guidance will find it of value to do so. Therefore, the
estimates of the burden associated with the issuance of the guidance
represent the upper bound estimate of burden; the burden if every
fresh-cut plant, processor, or operation that does not follow the
recommendations of the guidance should choose to do so.
    In the Federal Register of August 11, 2010 (75 FR 48692), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. No comments were received .
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                               Table 1--Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Annual
            Activity                  No. of       frequency per   Total annual      Hours per      Total hours
                                   recordkeepers   recordkeeping      records         record
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOP and SSOP: Maintenance.......             122           3,315         404,430           0.067          27,097
Traceback development...........              10               1              10              20             200
Traceback maintenance...........             290               1             290              40          11,600
Preventive control program                    10               1              10             100           1,000
 comparable to a HACCP system:
 System development.............
Preventive control program                   145             510          73,950           0.067           4,955
 comparable to a HACCP system:
 System implementation..........
Preventive control program                   145               4             580               4           2,320
 comparable to a HACCP system:
 Implementation review..........
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Annual burden hours.........  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............          47,172
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

Industry Profile

    Estimates of the paperwork burden to the fresh-cut industry are
based on information received from a fresh-cut processor who has
developed and maintained these programs and information from a fresh-
cut produce industry trade association. Because of the small number of
fresh-cut processors, the agency is able to extrapolate data from
industry programs to calculate the total estimated upper bound burdens
(see table 1 of this document).
    The burden to industry of developing and maintaining the activities
recommended in FDA's fresh-cut guidance will vary considerably among
fresh-cut processors, depending on the type and number of products
involved, the sophistication of the equipment or instruments (e.g.,
those that automatically monitor and record food safety controls), and
the type of controls monitored under any individual preventive control
program, such as critical control points (CCPs) monitored under a HACCP
program.
    In 2007, FDA estimated that there were 250 fresh-cut plants in
operation in the United States, and that approximately 10 new firms
enter the fresh-cut industry each year (72 FR

11364, at 11366, March 13, 2007). Using these figures, we estimate that
in 2010 there are 280 fresh-cut plants in operation and that
approximately 10 new firms will enter the fresh-cut industry each year,
over the next 3 years. Many of the existing firms in the fresh-cut
industry already make use of cGMP-related, recall, HACCP, and other
activities. FDA estimates that the burden of the fresh-cut guidance
will fall on both existing and new firms entering the industry who may
follow the recommendations in the guidance.

SOPs and SSOPs

    Two general recommendations in the guidance are for operators to
develop and implement both a written SOPs plan and a written SSOPs
plan. SOPs describe in writing the performance of the day-to-day
operations of a processing plant. Examples of activities that would
fall under SOPs would be developing written specifications for
agricultural inputs, ingredients, and packaging materials; production
steps for the processing and packaging operations; instructions for
packaging and storage activities; and procedures for equipment
maintenance, calibration, and replacement and facility maintenance and
upkeep; and maintaining SOP records on product processing and
distribution activities.
    SSOPs provide written instructions or procedures for sanitary
practices developed for each specific sanitation activity in and around
the facility. Sanitation activities include procedures for cleaning
equipment, food-contact surfaces, and plant facilities; chemical use
and storage; cleaning equipment maintenance, use, and storage; pest
control; and maintaining SSOP records for the activities. From
communication with the fresh-cut industry, we know that existing fresh-
cut processors already have developed SOPs and SSOPs. We therefore
consider the development of SOPs and SSOPs to be ``usual and
customary'' for manufacturers and processors in the fresh-cut industry
(see 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2)). Thus, we do not calculate this burden for
existing firms or new firms entering this industry.
    FDA recommends that facilities not only develop but also maintain
SOPs and SSOPs. Implementation and maintenance of SOPs and SSOPs
include maintaining daily records for each of the firm's operational
days for the following activities: Inspection of incoming ingredients,
such as the fresh produce and packaging material; facility and
production sanitation inspections; equipment maintenance, sanitation,
and visual safety inspections; equipment calibration, e.g., checking pH
meters; facility and premises pest control audits; temperature controls
during processing and in storage areas; and audits of ingredients, food
contact surfaces, and equipment for microbiological contamination. Of
the 280 fresh-cut processors, we estimate that well over half have SOP
and SSOP maintenance programs in place. Therefore, for purposes of
estimating the annual recordkeeping burden for SOP and SSOP maintenance
programs, the agency assumed that 40 percent of the existing
processors, or 112 firms, and the 10 new firms do not have SOP and SSOP
maintenance programs in place. FDA estimates the recordkeeping burden
for SOP and SSOP maintenance programs by assuming that these 122 firms
will choose to implement such a maintenance strategy as a result of the
recommendations in the fresh-cut guidance document.
    A typical fresh-cut processing plant operates about 255 days per
year. For an 8-hour shift, assuming the ingredients are received twice
during that time, under the recommendations in the guidance, there
would be about 13 records kept (2 for inspecting incoming ingredients;
2 for inspecting the facility and production areas once every 4 hours;
3 records for equipment (maintenance, sanitation, and visual
inspections for defects); 1 for calibrating equipment; 2 temperature
recording audits (1 time for each of the 2 processing runs); and 3
microbiological audits (ingredients, food contact surfaces, and
equipment)). Therefore, the annual frequency of recordkeeping for SOPs
and SSOPs is calculated to be 3,315 times (255 x 13) per year per firm;
122 firms will be performing these activities to generate a total
404,430 records (3,315 x 122) annually, assuming all firms choose to
follow the recommendations on keeping records.
    The total time to record observations for SOP and SSOP maintenance
is estimated to take 4 minutes or 0.067 hours per record, and the
number of records maintained is 404,430. Therefore, the total annual
burden in hours for 122 processors to maintain their SOP and SSOP
records is approximately 27,097 hours (404,430 x 0.067). The
maintenance burden for these 122 firms, along with the annual
maintenance burden of audits or testing, is estimated in row 1 of table
1 of this document. Again, these figures assume that all firms choose
to follow the recommendations on recording observations.

Recall and Traceback

    We recommend that fresh-cut processors establish and maintain
written traceback procedures to respond to food safety hazard problems
when they arise and establish and maintain a written contingency plan
for use in initiating and effecting a recall. In order to facilitate
tracebacks and recalls, we recommend that processors establish a
program that documents and tracks fresh-cut products back to the source
of their raw ingredients, and keep records of product identity and
specifications, the product in inventory, and where, when, to whom, and
how much of the product is shipped.
    Traceback programs are used for those times when a food safety
problem has been identified or a product has been implicated in a
foodborne illness outbreak. The burden to develop a traceback program
is a one-time activity estimated to take approximately 20 hours. In
2007, we previously estimated that firms in the industry would choose
to begin a traceback program after the guidance was made available and
estimated that the 250 existing fresh-cut firms and the 10 new
businesses expected to enter the industry annually from 2007 to 2010
would spend 5,200 hours (250 x 20) on this activity. Accordingly, we
only need to estimate the burden of this one-time activity on the 10
new businesses expected to enter the industry annually in the next 3
years. We estimate that the 10 new firms will spend 20 hours each
preparing a traceback program, for a total of 200 hours (10 x 20). The
burden estimate of developing a traceback program is shown in row 2 of
table 1 of this document.
    Traceback program adjustments or revisions may, or may not, be
needed annually. Firms may test their traceback programs yearly to see
if adjustments are needed to maintain traceback capabilities.
Evaluating and updating traceback programs is estimated to take 40
hours to complete. The annual burden of maintaining a traceback program
is estimated for the 280 existing firms in the industry plus the 10
firms new to the industry that may decide to implement this type of
program. Assuming that each firm completes this exercise once a year,
the total maintenance burden of traceback programs is 11,600 hours
yearly (290 x 40). This burden estimate is shown in row 3 of table 1 of
this document.
    The fresh-cut guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations. The recommendations in this
document regarding establishing and maintaining

a recall plan, as provided in 21 CFR 7.59, have been approved under OMB
control number 0910-0249. Therefore, FDA is not calculating a new
paperwork burden for recall plans.

Preventative Control Program

    When properly designed and maintained by the establishment's
personnel, a preventive control program is a valuable program for
managing the safety of food products. A common preventive control
program used by the fresh-cut industry is a HACCP system. A HACCP
system allows managers to assess the inherent risks and identify
hazards attributable to a product or a process, and then determine the
necessary steps to control the hazards. Monitoring and verification
steps, which include recordkeeping, are included in the HACCP system to
ensure that potential risks are controlled. We use HACCP as an example
of a preventive control program that a firm may choose based on the
recommendations in the guidance to estimate the burden of developing,
implementing, and reviewing a preventive control program.
    FDA estimated the paperwork burden of developing and implementing a
HACCP plan based on a plan with two CCPs. The number of CCPs may vary
depending on how the processor chooses to identify the CCPs for a
particular operation. Developing a HACCP plan is a one-time activity
that is estimated to take 100 hours based on a trained HACCP team
working on the plan full time. The HACCP team identifies the CCPs and
measures needed to control them, and then identifies the approach
needed to verify the effectiveness of the controls. During this plan
development period, the firm chooses the records to be kept and
information and observations to be recorded. This is a one-time process
during the first year.
    In 2007, we previously estimated that, of the estimated 250 fresh-
cut processors, approximately 50 percent of the firms already have
HACCP plans in place. We therefore assumed that the remaining fresh-cut
processors (125 existing firms plus the 10 new firms), would
voluntarily develop a HACCP plan, and estimated that 135 processors
would spend 13,500 hours (135 x 100) to develop their individual HACCP
plans. Accordingly, we only need to estimate the burden of this one-
time activity on the 10 new businesses expected to enter the industry
annually in the next 3 years. We estimate that the 10 new firms will
spend 100 hours each to develop their individual HACCP plans, for a
total of 1,000 hours (10 x 100). This burden estimate is shown in row 4
of table 1 of this document.
    After the HACCP plan is developed, the frequency for recordkeeping
for implementing or maintaining daily records is estimated to be 510
records per year. (This is based on a firm choosing to maintain daily
records for 2 CCPs for one 8-hour shift per day for each of the
estimated 255 operational days per year.) The total time to record
observations for the CCPs was estimated to take 4 minutes or 0.067
hours per record. Therefore, the total annual records kept by 145 firms
(the 135 firms plus the 10 new businesses expected to enter the
industry) is 73,950 (510 x 145), and the total hours required are 4,955
(73,950 records x 0.067 hours per record = 4,954.65, rounded to 4,955).
This annual burden is shown in row 5 of table 1 of this document.
    After the HACCP plan has been developed and implemented, we
recommend that the plan is reviewed regularly to ensure that it is
working properly. Fresh-cut processors are estimated to review their
HACCP plans four times per year (once per quarter). Assuming that it
takes each of the 145 firms 4 hours per review each quarter, the total
burden of this activity, for firms that choose to review their plans
annually, is 2,320 (145 x 4 x 4) hours per year. This annual burden is
shown in row 6 of table 1 of this document.

    Dated: October 18, 2010.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-26829 Filed 10-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


240.18a-1(d) shows that its total tentative net capital is less than
120 percent of the security-based swap dealer's required minimum
tentative net capital;
    (3) If the level of tangible net worth of a major security-based
swap participant falls below $20 million; and
    (4) The occurrence of the fourth and each subsequent backtesting
exception under Sec.  240.18a-1(d)(9) during any 250 business day
measurement period.
    (c) Every security-based swap dealer that files a notice of
adjustment of its reported capital category with the Federal Reserve
Board, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency or the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation must give notice of this fact that same
day by transmitting a copy notice of the adjustment of reported capital
category in accordance with paragraph (h) of this section.
    (d) Every security-based swap dealer or major security-based swap
participant that fails to make and keep current the books and records
required by Sec.  240.18a-5 or Sec.  240.17a-3, as applicable, must
give notice of this fact that same day in accordance with paragraph (h)
of this section, specifying the books and records which have not been
made or which are not current. The security-based swap dealer or major
security-based swap participant must also transmit a report in
accordance with paragraph (h) of this section within 48 hours of the
notice stating what the security-based swap dealer or major

security-based swap participant has done or is doing to correct the
situation.
    (e) Whenever any security-based swap dealer for which there is no
prudential regulator discovers, or is notified by an independent public
accountant under Sec.  240.18a-7(g), of the existence of any material
weakness, as defined in Sec.  240.18a-7(c)(3)(iii), the security-based
swap dealer must:
    (1) Give notice, in accordance with paragraph (h) of this section,
of the material weakness within 24 hours of the discovery or
notification of the material weakness; and
    (2) Transmit a report in accordance with paragraph (h) of this
section, within 48 hours of the notice stating what the security-based
swap dealer has done or is doing to correct the situation.
    (f) [Reserved]
    (g) If a security-based swap dealer fails to make in its special
reserve account for the exclusive benefit of security-based swap
customers a deposit, as required by Sec.  240.18a-4(c), the security-
based swap dealer must give immediate notice in writing in accordance
with paragraph (h) of this section.
    (h) Every notice or report required to be given or transmitted by
this section must be given or transmitted to the principal office of
the Commission in Washington, DC and the regional office of the
Commission for the region in which the security-based swap dealer or
major security-based swap participant has its principal place of
business, or to an email address provided on the Commission's website,
and to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) if the security-
based swap dealer or major security-based swap participant is
registered as a futures commission merchant with the CFTC. The report
required by paragraph (d) or (e)(2) of this section may be transmitted
by overnight delivery.

0
15. Section 240.18a-9 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  240.18a-9   Quarterly security counts to be made by certain
security-based swap dealers.

    This section applies to a security-based swap dealer registered
pursuant to section 15F of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78o-10) that does not
have a prudential regulator and that is not also a broker or dealer,
including an OTC derivatives dealer as that term is defined in Sec.
240.3b-12, registered pursuant to section 15 of the Act (15 U.S.C.
78o). Section 240.17a-13 (rather than this section) applies to the
following entities (if not exempt under the provisions of Sec.
240.17a-13): A member of a national securities exchange who transacts a
business in securities directly with others than members of a national
securities exchange; a broker or dealer who transacts a business in
securities through the medium of a member of a national securities
exchange; a broker or dealer, including an OTC derivatives dealer,
registered pursuant to section 15 of the Act; a security-based swap
dealer registered pursuant to section 15F of the Act that is also a
broker or dealer, including an OTC derivatives dealer, registered
pursuant to section 15 of the Act; and a major security-based swap
participant that is also a broker or dealer, including an OTC
derivatives dealer, registered pursuant to section 15 of the Act.
    (a) Any security-based swap dealer that is subject to the
provisions of this section must at least once in each calendar quarter-
year:
    (1) Physically examine and count all securities held including
securities that are the subjects of repurchase or reverse repurchase
agreements;
    (2) Account for all securities in transfer, in transit, pledged,
loaned, borrowed, deposited, failed to receive, failed to deliver,
subject to repurchase or reverse repurchase agreements or otherwise
subject to its control or direction but not in its physical possession
by examination and comparison of the supporting detailed records with
the appropriate ledger control accounts;
    (3) Verify all securities in transfer, in transit, pledged, loaned,
borrowed, deposited, failed to receive, failed to deliver, subject to
repurchase or reverse repurchase agreements or otherwise subject to its
control or direction but not in its physical possession, where such
securities have been in said status for longer than thirty days;
    (4) Compare the results of the count and verification with its
records; and
    (5) Record on the books and records of the security-based swap
dealer all unresolved differences setting forth the security involved
and date of comparison in a security count difference account no later
than 7 business days after the date of each required quarterly security
examination, count, and verification in accordance with the
requirements provided in paragraph (b) of this section. Provided,
however, that no examination, count, verification, and comparison for
the purpose of this section is within 2 months of or more than 4 months
following a prior examination, count, verification, and comparison made
under this paragraph (a)(5).
    (b) The examination, count, verification, and comparison may be
made either as of a date certain or on a cyclical basis covering the
entire list of securities. In either case the recordation must be
effected within 7 business days subsequent to the examination, count,
verification, and comparison of a particular security. In the event
that an examination, count, verification, and comparison is made on a
cyclical basis, it may not extend over more than 1 calendar quarter-
year, and no security may be examined, counted, verified, or compared
for the purpose of this section within 2 months of or more than 4
months after a prior examination, count, verification, and comparison.
    (c) The examination, count, verification, and comparison must be
made or supervised by persons whose regular duties do not require them
to have direct responsibility for the proper care and protection of the
securities or the making or preservation of the subject records.

0
 16. Section 240.18a-10 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)
introductory text and (b)(1) through (3), adding paragarphs (b)(4) and
(5), and revising paragraphs (c) introductory text, (d)(2)(ii)
introductory text, and (e) to read as follows:

Sec.  240.18a-10   Alternative compliance mechanism for security-based
swap dealers that are registered as swap dealers and have limited
security-based swap activities.

    (a) A security-based swap dealer may comply with capital, margin,
segregation, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the Commodity
Exchange Act and chapter I of this title applicable to swap dealers in
lieu of complying with Sec. Sec.  240.18a-1 and 240.18a-3 through
240.18a-9 if:
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Comply with capital, margin, segregation, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements of the Commodity Exchange Act and chapter I of
this title applicable to swap dealers and treat security-based swaps or
collateral related to security-based swaps as swaps or collateral
related to swaps, as applicable, pursuant to those requirements to the
extent the requirements do not specifically address security-based
swaps or collateral related to security-based swaps;
    (2) Disclose in writing to each counterparty to a security-based
swap before entering into the first transaction with the counterparty
after the date the security-based swap dealer begins operating under
this section that the security-based swap dealer is operating under
this section and is therefore complying with the applicable capital,
margin, segregation, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the

Commodity Exchange Act and the rules promulgated by the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission thereunder in lieu of complying with the
capital, margin, segregation, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements
promulgated by the Commission in Sec. Sec.  240.18a-1 and 240.18a-3
through 240.18a-9;
    (3) Immediately notify the Commission and the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission in writing if the security-based swap dealer fails
to meet a condition specified in paragraph (a) of this section;
    (4) Simultaneously notify the Commission if the security-based swap
dealer is required to send a notice concerning its capital, books and
records, liquidity, margin operations, or segregation operations to the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission by transmitting to the Commission
a copy of the notice being sent to the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission; and
    (5) Furnish promptly to a representative of the Commission legible,
true, complete, and current copies of those records of the security-
based swap dealer that are required to be preserved under the Commodity
Exchange Act and chapter I of this title applicable to swap dealers, or
any other records of the security-based swap dealer subject to
examination pursuant to section 15F of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78o-10) that
are requested by a representative of the Commission.
    (c) A security-based swap dealer that fails to meet one or more of
the conditions specified in paragraph (a) of this section must begin
complying with Sec. Sec.  240.18a-1 and 240.18a-3 through 240.18a-9 no
later than:
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) Continue to comply with Sec. Sec.  240.18a-1 and 240.18a-3
through 240.18a-9 for at least:
* * * * *
    (e) The notices required by this section must be sent by facsimile
transmission to the principal office of the Commission and the regional
office of the Commission for the region in which the security-based
swap dealer has its principal place of business or to an email address
provided on the Commission's website, and to the principal office of
the Commodity Futures Trading Commission in a manner consistent with
the notification requirements of the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission. The notice must include a brief summary of the reason for
the notice and the contact information of an individual who can provide
further information about the matter that is the subject of the notice.
* * * * *

PART 249--FORMS, SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

0
17. The authority citation for part 249 continues to read, in part, as
follows:

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 78a et seq. and 7201 et seq.; 12 U.S.C.
5461 et seq.; 18 U.S.C. 1350; Sec. 953(b), Pub. L. 111-203, 124
Stat. 1904; Sec. 102(a)(3), Pub. L. 112-106, 126 Stat. 309 (2012);
Sec. 107, Pub. L. 112-106, 126 Stat. 313 (2012), and Sec. 72001,
Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312 (2015), unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *

0
18. Subpart G is amended by revising the heading to read as follows:

Subpart G--Forms for Reports To Be Made by Certain Exchange
Members, Brokers, Dealers, Security-Based Swap Dealers, and Major
Security-Based Swap Participants

* * * * *

0
19. Section 249.617 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  249.617   Form X-17A-5, information required of certain brokers,
dealers, security-based swap dealers, and major security-based swap
participants pursuant to sections 15F and 17 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Sec. Sec.  240.17a-5, 240.17a-10, 240.17a-11, 240.17a-
12, and 240.18a-79 of this chapter, as applicable.

    Appropriate parts of Form X-17A-5, as applicable, shall be used by
brokers, dealers, security-based swap dealers, and major security-based
swap participants required to file reports under Sec. Sec.  240.17a-5,
240.17a-10, 240.17a-11, 240.17a-12, and 240.18a-7 of this chapter, as
applicable.

0
20. Part III of Form X-17A-5 (referenced in Sec.  249.617 of this
chapter) is revised to read as follows:

    Note:  The text of Part III of Form X-17A-5 does not and this
amendment will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.004

0
21. Part II of Form X-17A-5 and the instructions thereto (referenced in
Sec.  249.617 of this chapter) are revised to read as follows:

    Note: The text of Part II of Form X-17A-5 and the instructions
thereto do not and this amendment will not appear in the Code of
Federal Regulations.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.015

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.017

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.018

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.019

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.020

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.021

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.022

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.023

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.024

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.025

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.026

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.027

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.028

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.029

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.030

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.031

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.032

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.033

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.034

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.035

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.036

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.037

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.038

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.039

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.040

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.041

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.042

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.043

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.044

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.045

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.046

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.047

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.048

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.049

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.050

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.051

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.052

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.053

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.054

0
22. Part IIC of Form X-17A-5 and the instructions thereto (referenced
in Sec.  249.617 of this chapter) are added to read as follows:

    Note:  The text of Part IIC of Form X-17A-5 and the instructions
thereto will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.055

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.056

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.057

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.058

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.059

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.060

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.061

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.062

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.063

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.064

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.065

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE19.066

    By the Commission.

    Dated: September 19, 2019.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-20678 Filed 12-13-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-C