[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 36 (Friday, February 24, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11566-11567]
[FR Doc No: 2017-03588]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #2

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

    Docket Numbers: EC17-82-000.
    Applicants: Cimarron Bend Assets, LLC, Cimarron Bend Wind Project
II, LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act, Request for Expedited Consideration and Confidential
Treatment of Cimarron Bend Assets, LLC, et. al.
    Filed Date: 2/17/17.
    Accession Number: 20170217-5168.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/17.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER17-994-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing: Notice of Cancellation of Service
Agreement Nos. 1873 and 1874 under ER08-858 to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 2/17/17.
    Accession Number: 20170217-5106.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-995-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.

    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: PRECorp Transmission IC
Agreement to be effective 4/19/2017.
    Filed Date: 2/17/17.
    Accession Number: 20170217-5142.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-996-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance re: Exempt new SCRs from
BSM rules to be effective 2/3/2017.
    Filed Date: 2/17/17.
    Accession Number: 20170217-5155.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-997-000.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Albany Green LGIA Amendment
Filing to be effective 2/9/2017.
    Filed Date: 2/17/17.
    Accession Number: 20170217-5171.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-998-000.
    Applicants: DATC Path 15, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Second Revised Appendix I
2017 to be effective 4/20/2017.
    Filed Date: 2/17/17.
    Accession Number: 20170217-5186.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-999-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-02-17_SA 3002 Hawks
Nest Lake TIA to be effective 2/3/2017.
    Filed Date: 2/17/17.
    Accession Number: 20170217-5202.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1000-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-02-17_SA 3000 Exelon-
MISO ENRIS (J374) to be effective 2/6/2017.
    Filed Date: 2/17/17.
    Accession Number: 20170217-5204.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/17.

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

    Docket Numbers: ES17-14-000.
    Applicants: Northern Maine Independent System Administrator, Inc.
    Description: Application of the Northern Maine Independent System
Administrator, Inc. for Authorization to Issue Securities Pursuant to
Section 204 of the Federal Power Act.
    Filed Date: 2/17/17.
    Accession Number: 20170217-5175.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 17, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-03588 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 207 (Friday, October 27, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49923-49924]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23348]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0175]

Hours of Service of Drivers: Application for Exemption; Pipe Line
Contractors Association (PLCA)

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition; denial of application for
exemption.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to deny the application of the
Pipe Line Contractors Association (PLCA) from the requirement that a
motor carrier install and require each of its drivers to use an
electronic logging device (ELD) to record the driver's hours-of-service
(HOS) no later than December 18, 2017. PLCA had requested the exemption
for all pipeline contractor vehicle drivers who typically use the
short-haul exception to the logging requirement, which also exempts
them from using ELDs. Sometimes, however, they may exceed the
conditions of the short-haul exception more than 8 days in a 30-day
period, which would subject them to the ELD rule. FMCSA has analyzed
the exemption application and public comments, and has determined that
the applicant would not achieve a level of safety that is equivalent
to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such
exemption. FMCSA therefore denies PLCA's application for exemption.

DATES: FMCSA denied the application for exemption by letter dated
October 16, 2017, after notice and opportunity for public comment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning this
notice, contact Mr. Thomas Yager, Chief, FMCSA Driver and Carrier
Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety
Standards; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email: [email protected]. If you have
questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact
Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant
exemptions from certain Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the
public an opportunity to inspect the information relevant to the
application,

including any safety analyses that have been conducted. The Agency must
also provide an opportunity for public comment on the request.
    FMCSA reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted, and
determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level
of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of
the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(b)) with the reason for the grant or denial, and, if granted,
the specific person or class of persons receiving the exemption, and
the regulatory provision or provisions from which exemption is granted.
The notice must also specify the effective period of the exemption (up
to 5 years), and explain the terms and conditions of the exemption. The
exemption may be renewed (49 CFR 381.300(b)).

Request for Exemption

    The PLCA is an industry trade association that negotiates labor
agreements, encourages safe practices in pipeline construction, and
seeks the resolution of problems common to those in the pipeline
construction industry. PLCA has been in existence since 1948 and
currently has 77 members who collectively employ approximately 30,000
to 40,000 workers depending upon the level of pipeline work in any
year. The drivers who would be covered under the exemption operate
flatbed trucks that haul heavy equipment, dump trucks, skid trucks,
water trucks, pilot cars and buses that transport workers from the
assembly point to the pipeline right-of-way. These drivers possess CDLs
and almost always operate within 100 miles of their assembly point, and
meet the other requirements of the short haul exception in 49 CFR
395.1(e)(1). However, the drivers may not return within the 12 hours
required for use of the short-haul exception.
    According to PLCA, exempting pipeline contractors from the ELD
requirement would have no impact on safety for several reasons. First,
drivers would continue to maintain written RODS on any day that they
exceed the requirements of the short-haul exemption. Second, pipeline
contractor drivers typically spend very little time operating on public
roads. Third, pipeline contractors are required to maintain time
records for their drivers. Finally, pipeline contractors and drivers
otherwise must comply with all the HOS regulations. PLCA stated that
granting this exemption would result in a level of safety that is equal
to or greater than the level of safety achieved by complying with the
ELD rule. A copy of the PLCA application for exemption is available in
the docket for this notice.

Public Comments

    On July 10, 2017, FMCSA published notice of PLCA's application for
exemption and requested public comment (82 FR 31796). The Agency
received 156 comments to the docket. The predominance of the
commenters--over 96%--supported the granting of the PLCA request; most
of these were ``form letter'' comments. Primary groups filing in
support included the Power and Communication Contractors Associations
(PCCA), American Pipeline Contractors Association, U.S. Pipeline, Inc.,
and the American Road and Transport Builders Association (ARTBA). The
two primary groups filing in opposition were the Advocates for Highway
and Auto Safety (Advocates) and the Owner-Operator Independent Driver's
Association (OOIDA).
    The Advocates expressed concern that the success of the ELD mandate
lies in its applicability to all CMVs operated by drivers subject to
the HOS and RODS. Despite this, the FMCSA has made great efforts to
accommodate various aspects of the industry while maintaining safety.
In the present case, despite having an existing exemption in the
regulation, PLCA claims that to even comply with the exemption is
onerous. The Agency has established a limit on the extent of the
exemption which must be enforced, lest the final rule is rendered
meaningless.
    Advocates further added that PLCA had provided no proof that the
requested exemption would ensure safety or address the Agency's
concerns regarding noncompliance with the HOS regulations when using
paper RODS.
    All comments are available for review in the docket for this
notice.

FMCSA Decision

    When FMCSA published the rule mandating ELDs it relied upon
research indicating that the rule improves CMV safety by improving
compliance with the HOS rules. The rule also reduces the overall
paperwork burden for both motor carriers and drivers. The primary
reason for denying this exemption is that PLCA did not demonstrate how,
without using ELDs, they would maintain a level of safety equivalent
to, or greater than, the level achieved without the exemption.
    For these reasons, FMCSA denies the applicant's request for
exemption.

    Issued on: October 16, 2017.
Daphne Y. Jefferson,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2017-23348 Filed 10-26-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 32 (Wednesday, February 16, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 8922]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03295]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2022-0009]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this
document provides the public notice that on January 26, 2022, Cuyahoga
Valley Scenic Railroad (CVSR) petitioned the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions
of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR 240.201,
Implementation. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2022-0009.
    Specifically, CVSR requests relief from Sec.  240.201(d), which
requires that only certified persons operate locomotives and trains.
The relief would allow noncertified persons to pay a fee and operate a
locomotive as part of a visitor experience program. CVSR states that
this program would support the organization's mission to provide
educational, recreational, and heritage railroad experiences. In
support of its petition, CVSR notes that the relief would only apply to
persons participating in the program, and that participants would be 18
years of age or older and under the direct supervision of a certified
and qualified locomotive engineer.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they
should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and
specify the basis for their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
    Communications received by April 4, 2022 will be considered by FRA
before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered if practicable. Anyone can search the electronic form of any
written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by
the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the
document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), the U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT) solicits comments from the public to better inform
its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any
personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as
described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can
be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacy-notice for the privacy notice of
regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2022-03295 Filed 2-15-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 157 (Thursday, August 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47694-47695]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19223]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72796; File No. SR-Phlx-2014-50]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Simple Order Fees for Removing Liquidity in SPY Options

August 8, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on July 28, 2014, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' 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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's Pricing Schedule to
amend Simple Order pricing in Section I, entitled Rebates and Fees for
Adding and Removing Liquidity in SPY.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Options overlying Standard and Poor's Depositary Receipts/
SPDRs (``SPY'') are based on the SPDR exchange-traded fund
(``ETF''), which is designed to track the performance of the S&P 500
Index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the changes proposed herein are effective upon filing, the
Exchange has designated that the amendments be operative on August 1,
2014.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to amend the Simple Order Fees for
Removing Liquidity in Section I applicable to transactions overlying
SPY. The Exchange currently assesses Customers a $0.47 per contract Fee
for Removing Liquidity in SPY Simple Orders. The Exchange is proposing
to decrease the Customer Fee for Removing Liquidity in SPY Simple
Orders from $0.47 to $0.43 per contract. The Exchange believes that
decreasing the SPY Simple Order Fee for Removing Liquidity for
Customers will encourage market participants to transact a greater
number of Customer orders in SPY options. The SPY Simple Order Fee for
Removing Liquidity for Specialists,\4\ Market Makers,\5\ Firms,\6\
Broker-Dealers \7\ and Professionals \8\ will remain at $0.49 per
contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A ``Specialist'' is an Exchange member who is registered as
an options specialist pursuant to Rule 1020(a).
    \5\ A ``Market Maker'' includes Registered Options Traders (Rule
1014(b)(i) and (ii)), which includes Streaming Quote Traders (see
Rule 1014(b)(ii)(A)) and Remote Streaming Quote Traders (see Rule
1014(b)(ii)(B)).
    \6\ The term ``Firm'' applies to any transaction that is
identified by a member or member organization for clearing in the
Firm range at The Options Clearing Corporation.
    \7\ The term ``Broker-Dealer'' applies to any transaction which
is not subject to any of the other transaction fees applicable
within a particular category.
    \8\ The term ``Professional'' means any person or entity that
(i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) places more
than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a
calendar month for its own beneficial account(s). See Rule
1000(b)(14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\9\ in general, and with
Section 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any
facility or system which the Exchange operates or controls, and is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to decrease the Customer Fee for Removing
Liquidity in Simple Orders for options overlying SPY from $0.47 to
$0.43 per

contract is reasonable because the Exchange believes the fee reduction
will encourage a greater number of market participants to remove
Customer liquidity on Phlx. Customer orders bring valuable liquidity to
the market which liquidity benefits other market participants.
    The Exchange's proposal to decrease the Customer Fee for Removing
Liquidity in Simple Orders for options overlying SPY from $0.47 to
$0.43 per contract is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
all non-Customer market participants will be assessed a uniform Fee for
Removing Liquidity in Simple Orders for options overlying SPY of $0.49
per contract. Reducing the Customer Fee for Removing Liquidity in SPY
Simple Orders is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more
trading opportunities, which attracts Specialists and Market Makers. An
increase in the activity of these market participants in turn
facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.

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

    Phlx does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose an
undue burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that decreasing the
SPY Simple Order Customer Fee for Removing Liquidity does not impose a
burden on competition, but rather that the proposed rule change will
attract more Customer orders on Phlx. All non-Customer market
participants will continue to be assessed the same fee to remove SPY
Simple Orders. The Exchange believes that all market participants
benefit from increased Customer liquidity on Phlx which attracts
Specialists and Market Makers. An increase in the activity of
Specialists and Market Makers in turn facilitates tighter spreads,
which may cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from
other market participants.
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market, comprised of
twelve options exchanges, in which market participants can easily and
readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels
at a particular venue to be excessive or rebates to be inadequate.
Accordingly, the fees that are assessed and the rebates paid by the
Exchange described in the above proposal are influenced by these robust
market forces and therefore must remain competitive with fees charged
and rebates paid by other venues and therefore must continue to be
reasonable and equitably allocated to those members that opt to direct
orders to the Exchange rather than competing venues.

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.\11\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2014-50 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2014-50. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2014-50, and should be
submitted on or before September 4, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-19223 Filed 8-13-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 20, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 161)]
[Notices]
[Page 51509-51512]
[DOCID:fr20au10-97]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62724; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2010-099]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing of a Proposed
Rule Change by the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC To Adopt a Definition of
Professional and Require That All Professional Orders Be Appropriately
Marked

August 16, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\, and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that on August 6, 2010, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which
Items have been prepared by NASDAQ. 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

    NASDAQ is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') a proposal for the NASDAQ Options Market
(``NOM'' or ``Exchange'') to amend Chapter I, Section 1 (Definitions)
to adopt a definition of ``Professional'' on the Exchange and require
that all Professional orders be appropriately marked by Exchange
Participants.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available from NASDAQ's Web
site at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com/Filings/, at NASDAQ's principal
office, 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, NASDAQ 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. NASDAQ 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 this proposal is to amend Chapter I, Section 1
(Definitions) to adopt a definition of ``Professional'' on the Exchange
and require that all Professional orders be appropriately marked.
    This filing is similar to the recent filings of PHLX NASDAQ OMX,
Inc. (``Phlx''), the International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE''),
and Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated, (``CBOE''), which
dealt with establishing a new definition of ``professional'' as a
person or entity that places a certain high volume of orders in listed
options per day on average during a calendar month in his or her own
beneficial account.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 61802 (March 30,
2010), 75 FR 17193 (April 5, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-05) (approval
order); 61198 (December 17, 2009), 74 FR 68880 (December 29, 2009)
(SR-CBOE-2009-078) (approval order); and 59287 (January 23, 2009),
74 FR 5694 (January 30, 2009) (SR-ISE-2006-26) (approval order). A
filing by NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE Amex'') proposing a similar
professional designation was based on the Phlx, ISE, and CBOE
proposals. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61818 (March 31,
2010), 75 FR 17457 (April 6, 2010) (SR-NYSEAmex-2010-18) (approval
order). Phlx, ISE, CBOE, and NYSE Amex are known in this filing as
the ``Professional Rule Exchanges.''
    The cited filings discuss, among other things, the need for a
professional designation to be applied by members of the respective
exchanges because the systems of such exchanges differentiate for
execution or processing purposes based on order origin. NOM does not
similarly differentiate among orders based on their origin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Background
    A member of NOM is known as a Participant or Options Participant
(``Participant'').\4\ This is a firm or organization that is registered
with the Exchange pursuant to Chapter II for purposes of participating
in options trading on NOM as a Nasdaq Options Order Entry Firm or
Nasdaq Options Market Maker.\5\ Options traded by Participants (which
may include trades on behalf of Public Customers) \6\ on NOM, a wholly
electronic exchange, are electronically executable and routable. The
NOM System \7\ and rules provide for the ranking, display, and
execution of all orders in price/time priority without regard to the
status of the person or entity entering an order.\8\ The Exchange notes
that NOM has, in contrast to certain other options markets, a ``flat''
system that does not differentiate for execution or processing purposes
among orders on the basis of who or what entity enters an order on the
Exchange.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Chapter I, Section 1(a)(40). Some NOM Participants are
also members of other options exchanges such as, for example, ISE,
CBOE, or Phlx.
    \5\ Nasdaq Options Order Entry Firm or Order Entry Firm or OEF
is defined in Chapter I, Section 1(a)(25) as: those Options
Participants representing as agent Customer Orders on NOM and those
non-Market Maker Participants conducting proprietary trading. Nasdaq
Options Market Maker or Options Market Maker is defined in Chapter
I, Section 1(a)(26) as: an Options Participant registered with the
Exchange for the purpose of making markets in options contracts
traded on the Exchange and that is vested with the rights and
responsibilities specified in Chapter VII of these Rules.
    \6\ Public Customer is defined in Chapter I, Section 1(a)(48)
as: a person that is not a broker or dealer in securities.
    \7\ System is defined in Chapter IV, Section 1(a) as: the
automated system for order execution and trade reporting owned and
operated by The Nasdaq Options Market LLC.
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57478 (March 12,
2008), 73 FR 14521 (March 18, 2008) (SR-NASDAQ-2007-004 and SR-
NASDAQ-2007-080) (approval order). See also Chapter VI, Section 10,
which discusses the price/time execution algorithm for System orders
and states, in relevant part, that the System will execute trading
interest at the best price in the System before executing trading
interest at the next best price, and that the System will execute
displayed orders before non-displayed orders at the same price.
    \9\ In contrast to NOM, hybrid options exchanges such as, for
example, Phlx and CBOE blend auction and electronic market
structures that differentiate certain order priority and execution
functions based upon, among other things, the origin of the order
(e.g., whether the order was a customer, market maker, broker or
dealer, firm, or other type of order); these exchanges also charge
different fees based on order origin. NOM does, like other
exchanges, differentiate fees based on order origin. For example,
fees for removing liquidity in SPY options are different for
customers than they are for market makers and firms. This filing
does not propose any changes in respect of the NOM fee structure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASDAQ Options Services LLC (``NOS''), a member of the
Exchange,\10\ is the Exchange's exclusive order router for all orders
that come through the Exchange.\11\ NOS performs routing functions with
respect to System Securities and Non-System Securities.\12\ The
Exchange's general routing procedures are set forth in Chapter VI,
Section 11 (Order Routing), which states in subsection (c) that, among
other things, once routed by the System, an order becomes subject to
the rules and procedures of the destination market.\13\ NOS also
performs order routing services on behalf of Phlx.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ NOS is also a member of other options exchanges such as,
for example, ISE and Phlx.
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57478 (March 12,
2008), 73 FR 14521 (March 18, 2008) (SR-NASDAQ-2007-004 and SR-
NASDAQ-2007-080) (approval order). See also Chapter VI, Section
11(e), which states, in relevant part: NOM shall route orders in
options via Nasdaq Options Services LLC, a broker-dealer that is a
member of an unaffiliated SRO which is the designated examining
authority for the broker-dealer. Nasdaq Options Services LLC serves
as the Routing Facility of NOM. The sole function of the Routing
Facility will be to route orders in options listed and open for
trading on NOM to away markets pursuant to NOM rules solely on
behalf of NOM. The Routing Facility is subject to regulation as a
facility of Nasdaq, including the requirement to file proposed rule
changes under Section 19 of the Act.
    \12\ Chapter VI, Section 1(b) states: ``System Securities''
shall mean all options that are currently trading on NOM pursuant to
Chapter IV (Securities Traded on NOM) above. All other options shall
be ``Non-System Securities.''
    \13\ Chapter VI, Section 11(c) states: Priority of Routed
Orders. Orders sent by the System to other markets do not retain
time priority with respect to other orders in the System and the
System shall continue to execute other orders while routed orders
are away at another market center. Once routed by the System, an
order becomes subject to the rules and procedures of the destination
market including, but not limited to, order cancellation. If a
routed order is subsequently returned, in whole or in part, that
order, or its remainder, shall receive a new time stamp reflecting
the time of its return to the System.
    \14\ NOS routes certain orders in options listed and open for
trading on the Phlx electronic order, trading and execution system
(known as XL II) to away market centers. See Phlx Rule
1080(m)(iii)(A) and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59995 (May
28, 2009), 74 FR 26750 (June 3, 2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-32) (approval
order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The exchanges that do the great majority of all U.S. options
trading, namely the Professional Rule Exchanges CBOE, ISE, NYSE AMEX,
and Phlx, already have rules that are similar to the Professional
designation rule proposed by the Exchange (a professional is a person
or entity that places 390 or more orders in listed options per day on
average during a calendar month in his or her own beneficial account).
These Professional Rule Exchanges make differentiations based on
whether an order is marked professional or otherwise. Some Exchange
Participants are, as noted, also members of Professional Rule Exchanges
such as CBOE, ISE, or Phlx. As members of these exchanges, such
Exchange Participants are subject to the professional designation rules
of the Professional Rule Exchanges. Similarly, NOS is a member of
several Professional Rule Exchanges. Exchange rules indicate that
orders routed by NOS become subject to the rules and

procedures of the destination markets (away exchanges).\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Once routed by the System, an order becomes subject to the
rules and procedures of the destination market including, but not
limited to, order cancellation. See Chapter VI, Section 11(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that disparate rules in respect of
Professional order designation, and lack of uniform application of such
rules, do not promote the best regulation and may, in fact, encourage
regulatory arbitrage.\16\ The Exchange believes that it is therefore
prudent and necessary to have a Professional designation rule as is
commonplace in the industry, particularly where NOS (like Exchange
Participants) is a member of several exchanges that have rules
requiring professional order designations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Exchange believes that the risk of regulatory arbitrage
is heightened where not all exchanges have Professional designation
rules; and there is a lack of uniformity regarding Professional Rule
Exchanges marking orders as Professional when routing such orders
away.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Proposal
    The Exchange proposes new Chapter I, Section 1(a)(48) to state that
the term ``Professional'' means any person or entity that (i) is not a
broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) places more than 390 orders in
listed options per day on average during a calendar month for its own
beneficial account(s). A Participant or a Public Customer may, without
limitation, be a Professional. Moreover, in order to properly represent
orders entered on the Exchange according to the new definition, a
Participant will be required to appropriately mark all Professional
orders.\17\ To comply with this requirement, Participants will be
required to review their Public Customers' activity on at least a
quarterly basis to determine whether orders that are not for the
account of a broker-dealer should be represented as Professional
orders.\18\ The Exchange will issue a notice to Participants via OTA or
ORA outlining the procedures for the implementation of the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The Exchange intends to require Participants to indentify
Professional orders submitted electronically by identifying them in
the customer type field, and will notify Participants via an Options
Trader Alert (``OTA'') or Options Regulatory Alert (``ORA'')
regarding this requirement.
    \18\ Participants will be required to conduct a quarterly review
and make any appropriate changes to the way in which they are
representing orders within five business days after the end of each
calendar quarter. While Participants will only be required to review
their accounts on a quarterly basis, if during a quarter the
Exchange identifies a customer for which orders are being
represented as other than Professional orders but that has averaged
more than 390 orders per day during a month, the Exchange will
notify the Participant and the Participant will be required to
change the manner in which it is representing the customer's orders
within five business days. This is similar to the process of other
options exchanges that have adopted a professional designation. See,
e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61802 (March 30, 2010), 75
FR 17193 (April 5, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-05) (approval order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Professional definition proposed by NOM is similar to the
Professional designation that has been adopted by Phlx, ISE, CBOE, and
NYSE Amex.\19\ As noted, the Professional definition will not impact
the Exchange's price/time order entry (priority) system.\20\ Instead,
the Exchange's proposal will ensure that Exchange Participants mark
their Professional orders properly, that is, similarly in terms of
professional order identification regardless of whether the order is
placed on NOM or some other Professional Order Exchange. Moreover, with
the proposed Professional designation in place, the Exchange will be
able to accept orders that are marked professional.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See supra note 3.
    \20\ For example, unlike the Phlx proposal (which, among other
things, discusses that Professional orders on Phlx will be treated
in the same manner as off-floor brokers in terms of certain priority
rules), the Exchange's proposal does not address or impact any
priority relationship for Professional as opposed to other NOM
orders.
    \21\ Currently, NOM only accepts orders that are marked as
customer, firm, market maker, or away market maker orders.
Professional orders that may not now be accepted by NOM must be sent
to other Exchanges. While the Exchange does not intend to
differentiate among Professional and other orders for priority
purposes, it may, in the future, feel that it is appropriate to
differentiate its routing or other fees in respect of Professional
as opposed to other orders; and if so, the Exchange intends to file
an appropriate fee-related rule filing(s). The Exchange does not
address its fee structure in the present filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The designation of Professional or Professional order would not
result in any different treatment of such orders for purposes of NOM
rules concerning away market protection. That is, all non broker or
dealer orders, including those that meet the definition of Professional
orders, would continue to be treated equally for purposes of Exchange
away market protection rules.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See, e.g., Chapter VI, Section 11 and Chapter XII.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that identifying Professional accounts based
upon the average number of orders entered in qualified accounts is an
appropriately objective approach that will reasonably distinguish such
persons and entities from retail investors or market participants. The
Exchange proposes the threshold of 390 orders per day on average over a
calendar month, because it believes that this number far exceeds the
number of orders that are entered by retail investors in a single
day.\23\ Moreover, the 390 orders per day threshold proposed by NOM
directly corresponds to the daily order volume recognized by Phlx and
other options exchanges that have, as previously discussed, established
professional order designations.\24\ In addition, basing the standard
on the number of orders that are entered in listed options for a
qualified account(s) assures that professional account holders cannot
inappropriately avoid the purpose of the rule by spreading their
trading activity over multiple exchanges, and using an average number
over a calendar month will prevent gaming of the 390 order
threshold.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 390 orders is equal to the total number of orders that a
person would place in a day if that person entered one order every
minute from market open to market close. Many of the largest retail-
oriented electronic brokers offer lower commission rates to
customers they define as ``active traders.'' Publicly available
information from the websites of Charles Schwab, Fidelity, TD
Ameritrade and OptionsXpress all define ``active trader'' as someone
who executes only a few options trades per month. The highest
required trading activity to qualify as an active trader among these
four firms was 35 trades per quarter. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 57254 at note 11 (which also notes that a study of one
of the largest retail-oriented options brokerage firms indicated
that on a typical trading day, options orders were entered with
respect to 5,922 different customer accounts. There was only one
order entered with respect to 3,765 of the 5,922 different customer
accounts on this day, and there were only 17 customer accounts with
respect to which more than ten orders were entered. The highest
number of orders entered with respect to any one account over the
course of an entire week was 27).
    \24\ The similarity of the Exchange's proposed Professional
order definition to that of other options exchanges is important
from the regulatory perspective, that is from a desire to promote a
national market system that minimizes regulatory arbitrage.
    \25\ The Exchange intends to notify Participants via OTA or ORA
that this proposal will be implemented on the first trading day of
the month after the approval or effectiveness of this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \26\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \27\ in particular, in that it is designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of
a free and open market and a national market system, by defining
Professional and indicating that all Professional orders shall be
appropriately marked by Participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not

necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2010-099 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2010-099. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between
the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
NASDAQ-2010-099 and should be submitted on or before September 10,
2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-20658 Filed 8-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 37059]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14988]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-D-0419]

Draft Guidance for Industry on Active Controls in Studies To
Demonstrate Effectiveness of a New Animal Drug for Use in Companion
Animals; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of a draft guidance for industry 204 entitled
``Active Controls in Studies to Demonstrate Effectiveness of a New
Animal Drug for Use in Companion Animals.''
    This draft guidance advises industry on the use of active controls
in studies intended to provide substantial evidence of effectiveness of
new animal drugs for use in companion animals. The intent of the
guidance is to provide information to clinical investigators who
conduct studies using active controls and have a basic understanding of
statistical principles.

DATES: Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this
draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the
guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft
guidance by August 20, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to
the Communications Staff (HFV-12), Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food
and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855. Send
one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing
your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic
access to the draft guidance document.
    Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa M. Troutman, Center for
Veterinary Medicine (HFV-116), Food and Drug Administration, 7500
Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry
204 entitled ``Active Controls in Studies to Demonstrate
Effectiveness of a New Animal Drug for Use in Companion Animals.'' The
purpose of this draft guidance is to provide information to clinical
investigators who conduct studies using active controls and have a
basic understanding of statistical principles. The draft guidance
advises industry on the use of active controls in studies intended to
provide substantial evidence of effectiveness of new animal drugs for
use in companion animals. The draft guidance compares studies that use
active controls to studies that use either placebo concurrent controls
or untreated concurrent controls, and it uses these comparisons to
illustrate the advantages and disadvantages of using a study with an
active control. Examples are provided to illustrate some of the
different outcomes that are possible when employing active controls in
studies.

II. Significance of Guidance

    This level 1 draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's
good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance,
when finalized, will represent the Agency's current thinking on this
topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and
does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may
be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable
statutes and regulations.

III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information
are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The
collections of information in 21 CFR part 514 have been approved under
OMB control number 0910-0032.

IV. Comments

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) either electronic or written comments regarding this
document. It is only necessary to send one set of comments. Identify
comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets
Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

V. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft guidance
at either http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/GuidanceComplianceEnforcement/GuidanceforIndustry/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: June 14, 2012.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-14988 Filed 6-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P