50420 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 8, 2021 / Notices 

54See supra note 47. 55 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

RML Orders, which cause the 

dissemination of the Retail Liquidity 

Identifier, over those that do not. 

Additionally, the Exchange believes that 

providing execution priority to 

designated RML Orders is not unfairly 

discriminatory since any User can 

designate their RML Orders to be 

identified as such for purposes of the 

Retail Liquidity Identifier, and the 

Exchange believes that Users would 

only choose not to designate RML 

Orders to be identified as such when 

another purpose, such as the potential 

for information leakage, outweighs the 

importance of execution priority for 

such orders. 

In sum, the Exchange submits that the 

proposed RML Program is a simple, 

transparent approach designed to 

provide an opportunity for retail 

customers’ orders to receive meaningful 

price improvement in a manner 

generally consistent with the approved 

retail programs of other exchanges. 

Thus, the Exchange believes that the 

proposed RML Program is consistent 

with the Act in that it is designed to 

promote just and equitable principles of 

trade, to foster cooperation and 

coordination with persons engaged in 

facilitating transactions in securities, to 

remove impediments to and perfect the 

mechanism of a free and open market 

and a national market system and, in 

general, to protect investors and the 

public interest. 

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Burden on Competition 

The Exchange does not believe that 

the proposed rule change will impose 

any burden on competition that is not 

necessary or appropriate in furtherance 

of the purposes of the Act. To the 

contrary, the Exchange believes that the 

proposed RML Program would enhance 

competition and execution quality for 

retail investors and would enhance 

competition for Users and their clients 

seeking to interact with retail liquidity. 

The Exchange does not believe that 

the proposed rule change will impose 

any burden on intermarket competition 

since competing venues have and can 

continue to adopt similar retail 

programs, subject to the SEC rule 

change process. The Exchange operates 

in a highly competitive market in which 

market participants can easily direct 

their orders to competing venues, 

including off-exchange venues. 

The Exchange also does not believe 

that the proposed rule change will 

impose any burden on intramarket 

competition that is not necessary or 

appropriate in furtherance of the 

purposes of the Act. As described above, 

a Retail Midpoint Order may only be 

submitted by firms approved to send 

Retail Orders on the Exchange (i.e., 

RMOs), which is comparable to an IEX 

Retail Order offered under the IEX 

Retail Program and retail programs on 

other exchanges where specific rules 

have been approved allowing only 

certain participants to send Retail 

Orders.54 All Users would be eligible to 

enter an RML Order, and all Users 

would be eligible to execute against an 

incoming Retail Midpoint Order in price 

priority in accordance with the 

Exchange’s existing rules. Moreover, the 

proposed rule change would provide 

potential benefits to all Users to the 

extent it is successful in attracting 

additional midpoint liquidity. 

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Comments on the 

Proposed Rule Change Received From 

Members, Participants, or Others 

The Exchange neither solicited nor 

received comments on the proposed 

rule change. 

III. Date of Effectiveness of the 

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for 

Commission Action 

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 Exchange consents, the Commission 

will: (a) By order approve or disapprove 

such 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 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 rule-comments@

sec.gov. Please include File Number SR– 

MEMX–2021–10 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–MEMX–2021–10. This file 

number should be included on the 

subject line if email is used. To help the 

Commission process and review your 

comments more efficiently, please use 

only one method. The Commission will 

post all comments on the Commission’s 

internet website (http://www.sec.gov/ 

rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the 

submission, all subsequent 

amendments, all written statements 

with respect to the proposed rule 

change that are filed with the 

Commission, and all written 

communications relating to the 

proposed rule change between the 

Commission and any person, other than 

those that may be withheld from the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be 

available for website viewing and 

printing in the Commission’s Public 

Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20549 on official 

business days between the hours of 

10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the 

filing also will be available for 

inspection and copying at the principal 

office of the Exchange. All comments 

received will be posted without change. 

Persons submitting comments are 

cautioned that we do not redact or edit 

personal identifying information from 

comment submissions. You should 

submit only information that you wish 

to make available publicly. All 

submissions should refer to File 

Number SR–MEMX–2021–10 and 

should be submitted on or before 

September 29, 2021. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.55

J. Matthew DeLesDernier, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2021–19294 Filed 9–7–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD 

[Docket No. FD 36542] 

NCSR, LLC d/b/a New Castle Southern 

Railroad—Lease and Operation 

Exemption With Interchange 

Commitment—Norfolk Southern 

Railway Company 

NCSR, LLC d/b/a New Castle 

Southern Railroad (NCSR), a noncarrier, 

has filed a verified notice of exemption 

pursuant to 49 CFR 1150.31 to lease 

from Norfolk Southern Railway 

Company (NSR) and operate 

approximately 21 miles of rail line 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 8, 2021 / Notices 50421 

1A copy of the agreement with the interchange 

commitment was submitted under seal. See 49 CFR 

1150.33(h)(1). 1See 49 CFR 1250.2. 

2Available at https://prod.stb.gov/about-stb/ 

agency-materials/budget-requests/ then follow 

hyperlink ‘‘FY 2022 Budget Request Final.’’ 

3This communication during the initial phase of 

the pandemic included ‘‘daily and weekly 

communications with key railroad and shipper 

stakeholders to actively monitor the reliability of 

the freight rail network with a special focus on 

critical supply chains.’’ Surface Transportation 

Board, Budget Request Fiscal Year 2022, 14. For 

example, the Board and RSTAC convened weekly 

(and later biweekly) conference calls. Id. The Board 

also participated in calls hosted by the Federal 

Railroad Administration, held with representatives 

from each Class I railroad, the short line and 

regional railroads, and the National Passenger 

Railroad Corporation (Amtrak). Id. 

4See, e.g., Letter from Martin J. Oberman, 

Chairman, to Canadian Pacific (May 27, 2021), 

https://prod.stb.gov/news-communications/nondocketed-public-correspondence/ (follow hyperlink 

‘‘Chairman Oberman Rail Service Letter to CP, May 

27, 2021’’ under headings ‘‘2021’’ and ‘‘May’’). 

5See, e.g., Letter from Martin J. Oberman, 

Chairman, to BNSF Railway Company (July 22, 

2021), https://prod.stb.gov/news-communications/ 

non-docketed-public-correspondence/ (follow 

hyperlink ‘‘Chairman Oberman Letter to BNSF 

Regarding Intermodal Supply Chain Issues, July 22, 

2021’’ under headings ‘‘2021’’ and ‘‘July’’). 

6Available at https://prod.stb.gov/newscommunications/non-docketed-publiccorrespondence/ then follow hyperlink ‘‘RCC Letter 

to STB regarding regulation and rail service, 

February 11, 2021’’ under headings ‘‘2021’’ and 

‘‘February.’’ 

extending from milepost CB 5.40 at 

Beesons, Ind., to milepost CB 25.30 at 

New Castle, Ind., and from milepost R 

0.09 to milepost R 1.16 at New Castle 

(the Line). 

According to the verified notice, 

NCSR and NSR have recently reached a 

lease agreement pursuant to which 

NCSR will provide common carrier rail 

service on the Line. According to NCSR, 

the agreement between NCSR and NSR 

contains an interchange commitment 

that affects the interchange point at 

Beesons.1 The verified notice states that 

NSR and Big Four Terminal Railroad, 

LLC, are the carriers that could 

physically interchange with NCSR at 

Beesons. As required under 49 CFR 

1150.33(h), NCSR provided additional 

information regarding the interchange 

commitment. 

NCSR has certified that its projected 

annual revenues will not exceed $5 

million and will not result in NCSR’s 

becoming a Class I or Class II rail 

carrier. 

Pursuant to 49 CFR 1150.32(b), the 

effective date of an exemption is 30 days 

after the verified notice of exemption is 

filed, which here would be September 

22, 2021. However, concurrently with 

its verified notice, NCSR filed a petition 

to partially waive the 30-day 

effectiveness period to allow the 

exemption to become effective on 

September 13, 2021. The Board will 

address NCSR’s petition for partial 

waiver and establish the effective date 

of the exemption in a separate decision. 

If the notice contains false or 

misleading information, the exemption 

is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the 

exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) 

may be filed at any time. The filing of 

a petition to revoke will not 

automatically stay the effectiveness of 

the exemption. A deadline for petitions 

for stay will also be established in the 

Board’s decision on the petition for 

partial waiver. 

All pleadings, referring to Docket No. 

FD 36542, should be filed with the 

Surface Transportation Board via efiling on the Board’s website. In 

addition, one copy of each pleading 

must be served on NCSR’s 

representative: Robert A. Wimbish, 

Fletcher & Sippel LLC, 29 North Wacker 

Drive, Suite 800, Chicago, IL 60606. 

According to NCSR, this action is 

categorically excluded from 

environmental review under 49 CFR 

1105.6(c) and from historic preservation 

reporting requirements under 49 CFR 

1105.8(b). 

Board decisions and notices are 

available at www.stb.gov. 

Decided: September 1, 2021. 

By the Board, Scott M. Zimmerman, Acting 

Director, Office of Proceedings. 

Brendetta Jones, 

Clearance Clerk. 

[FR Doc. 2021–19309 Filed 9–7–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915–01–P 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD 

[Docket No. EP 767] 

First-Mile/Last-Mile Service 

The Board seeks comments on issues 

regarding first-mile/last-mile (FMLM) 

service, particularly on whether 

additional metrics to measure such 

service might have utility that exceeds 

any associated burden. FMLM service 

refers to the movement of railcars 

between a local railroad serving yard 

and a shipper or receiver facility. Socalled ‘‘local trains’’ serve customers in 

the vicinity of the local yard, spotting 

(i.e., placing for loading or unloading) 

inbound cars and pulling (i.e., picking 

up) outbound cars from each customer 

facility. A larger local yard may run 

numerous local trains serving many 

customers dispersed along separate 

branches; a smaller yard may run only 

a handful of local trains. Yard crews 

build outbound local trains by 

assembling blocks (groups of cars) for 

each customer on the route. Inbound 

local trains return to the yard with cars 

released from shipper facilities and, in 

turn, are sorted into outbound blocks for 

line-haul movements. After hearing 

concerns raised by shippers across 

numerous industries and requests for 

transparency of FMLM data, the Board 

seeks information on possible FMLM 

service issues, the design of potential 

metrics to measure such service, and the 

associated burdens or trade-offs with 

any suggestions raised by commenters. 

Background 

In addition to weekly and monthly 

collection of certain railroad 

performance data metrics from Class I 

railroads,1 the Board actively monitors, 

on an informal basis, the national rail 

network, including network fluidity and 

service issues, through, for example, the 

Railroad-Shipper Transportation 

Advisory Council (RSTAC), the Rail 

Customer and Public Assistance 

Program, and information requests to 

Class I railroads. See, e.g., Surface 

Transportation Board, Budget Request 

Fiscal Year 2022, 14–15.2 Since Spring 

2020, the Board has focused its informal 

monitoring on the effects of and 

response to the pandemic, engaging in 

frequent communication 3 with carriers, 

shippers, and other stakeholders. See id. 

Recently, the Board’s Chairman 

inquired to each Class I carrier about 

rail service issues 4 and supply chain 

issues 5 (including local service issues). 

The Board appreciates the carriers’ 

responses to its informal requests and 

now seeks more formal input from 

shippers, carriers, and the public 

focused specifically on FMLM service. 

As the Board has heard from various 

stakeholders, in recent months, crew 

shortages and other issues stemming 

from the COVID–19 pandemic and 

worldwide supply chain complications 

have heightened and added to the 

importance of the Board exploring 

FMLM service. 

The Board has received a number of 

letters about FMLM service issues. For 

example, the Rail Customer Coalition 

(RCC) wrote to the Board this year to 

request, among other things, that the 

Board ‘‘adopt new reporting metrics to 

provide a more complete and useful 

picture of rail service, including 

[FMLM] performance.’’ RCC Letter 2.6

Following the Chairman’s May 27, 2021 

letters regarding rail service to the Class 

I carriers, the American Chemistry 

Council (ACC) wrote to the Board 

regarding general service concerns, 

briefly noting local service failures, see 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES