[Federal Register: March 5, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 42)]
[Notices]
[Page 9828-9830]
[DOCID:fr05mr07-101]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55358; File No. SR-Phlx-2007-14]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Extending the Dividend, Merger, and Short Stock Interest Strategies Fee
Cap Program

February 27, 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 February 21, 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 the
Exchange. Phlx has designated this proposal as one establishing or
changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by a self-regulatory
organization pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which

renders the proposal 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)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Phlx proposes to extend for a period of one year, until March 1,
2008, the pilot programs for: (1) The $1,000 and $25,000 fee caps on
equity option transaction and comparison charges on dividend,\5\
merger,\6\ and short stock interest \7\ strategies; and (2) the license
fee of $0.05 per contract side imposed on dividend and short stock
interest strategies, as described below. The current fee caps and $0.05
per contract side license fee are in effect as a pilot program that is
scheduled to expire on March 1, 2007.\8\ Other than extending the pilot
program for an additional one-year period until March 1, 2008, no other
changes to the Exchange's current dividend, merger and short stock
interest strategy program, which includes the $0.05 per contract side
license fee, are being proposed at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For purposes of this proposal, the Exchange defines a
``dividend strategy'' as transactions done to achieve a dividend
arbitrage involving the purchase, sale, and exercise of in-the-money
options of the same class, executed prior to the date on which the
underlying stock goes ex-dividend. See, e.g., Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 54174 (July 19, 2006), 71 FR 42156 (July 25, 2006)
(SR-Phlx-2006-40).
    \6\ For purposes of this proposal, the Exchange defines a
``merger strategy'' as transactions done to achieve a merger
arbitrage involving the purchase, sale and exercise of options of
the same class and expiration date, executed prior to the date on
which shareholders of record are required to elect their respective
form of consideration, i.e., cash or stock. Id.
    \7\ For purposes of this proposal, the Exchange defines a
``short stock interest strategy'' as transactions done to achieve a
short stock interest arbitrage involving the purchase, sale and
exercise of in-the-money options of the same class. Id.
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 54381 (August 29,
2006), 71 FR 52598 (September 6, 2006) (SR-Phlx-2006-50) and 54424
(September 11, 2006), 71 FR 54699 (September 18, 2006) (SR-Phlx-
2006-55).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site (http://www.phlx.com/exchange/phlx_rule_fil.html), at the

Exchange'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, 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
    Currently, the Exchange imposes a fee cap on equity option
transaction and comparison charges on dividend, merger, and short stock
interest strategies executed on the same trading day in the same
options class. Specifically, Registered Options Trader (``ROT'') and
specialist net equity option transaction and comparison charges are
capped at $1,000 for dividend, merger, and short stock interest
strategies executed on the same trading day in the same options
class.\9\ In addition, there is a $25,000 per member organization fee
cap on equity option transaction and comparison charges incurred in one
month for dividend, merger, and short stock interest strategies
combined. The $1,000 and $25,000 fee caps are implemented after any
applicable rebates are applied to ROT and specialist equity option
transaction and comparison charges occurring as part of a dividend,
merger, or short stock interest strategy.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54424 (September 11,
2006), 71 FR 54699 (September 18, 2006) (SR-Phlx-2006-55).
    \10\ Currently, the Exchange rebates $0.08 per contract side for
ROT executions and $0.07 per contract side for trades occurring as
part of a dividend, merger, or short stock interest strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange assesses a license fee of $0.05 per
contract side for dividend and short stock interest strategies in
connection with certain products that carry license fees, if
applicable.\11\ The applicable license fee is assessed on every
transaction and is not subject to the $1,000 or $25,000 fee caps
described above, nor does it count towards reaching the $1,000 or
$25,000 fee caps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For a complete list of these product symbols, see the
Exchange's $60,000 Firm-Related Equity Option and Index Option Cap
Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange represents that the purpose of extending the pilot
program for the fee caps on equity option transaction and comparison
charges on dividend, merger, and short stock interest strategies and
the $0.05 per contract fee imposed on dividend and short stock interest
strategies until March 1, 2008 is to continue to attract additional
liquidity to the Exchange and to remain competitive with other options
exchanges in connection with these types of options strategies. In
addition, the Exchange also represents that the purpose of extending
the pilot is to recoup the license fees owed in connection with the
trading of products that carry license fees. Even with the assessment
of the $0.05 license fee per contract side, the Exchange believes that
the fee caps and rebates should continue to encourage specialists and
ROTs to provide liquidity for these types of options strategies.
    This proposal is scheduled to become effective for trades settling
on or after March 1, 2007 and will remain in effect as a pilot program
until March 1, 2008.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its schedule of
fees is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,\12\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\13\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees
and other charges among Exchange members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

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 proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \14\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder
\15\ because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by the Exchange. 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 purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \15\ 17 CFR 19b-4(f)(2).

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

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

File No. SR-Phlx-2007-14 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2007-14. 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 Commissions 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 the filing also will 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 Number SR-Phlx-2007-14
and should be submitted on or before March 26, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-3763 Filed 3-2-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 126 (Monday, July 1, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 39434]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15668]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

Norstra Energy Inc.; Order of Suspension of Trading

June 26, 2013.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Norstra Energy Inc. (``Norstra''). Norstra is a Nevada corporation
based in South Lake, Texas, and its stock is currently quoted on OTC
Link, operated by OTC Markets Group, Inc. under the symbol NORX.
Questions have arisen concerning the adequacy and accuracy of press
releases and other public statements concerning Norstra's business
operations.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of Norstra.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the
above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT, on
June 26, 2013 through 11:59 p.m. EDT, on July 10, 2013.

    By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-15668 Filed 6-26-13; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 18, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 118)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 34676-34678]
[DOCID:fr18jn08-20]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0231; FRL-8582-7]
RIN 2060-AP18

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Revision of Refrigerant
Recovery Only Equipment Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
update motor vehicle refrigerant recovery only equipment standards.
Under Clean Air Act Section 609, motor vehicle air-conditioning (MVAC)
refrigerant handling equipment must be certified by the Administrator
or an independent organization approved by the Administrator and, at a
minimum, must be as stringent as the standards of the Society of
Automotive Engineers (SAE) in effect as of the date of the enactment of
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. In 1997, EPA promulgated
regulations that required the use of SAE Standard J1732, HFC-134a
Recycling Equipment for Mobile Air Conditioning Systems for
certification of MVAC refrigerant handling equipment. SAE has replaced
Standard J1732 with J2810, HFC-134a Refrigerant Recovery Equipment for
Mobile Air Conditioning Systems. EPA is updating its reference to the
new SAE standard for MVAC refrigerant recovery equipment used for MVAC
servicing and MVAC disposal. This action reflects a change in industry
standard practice.

DATES: Written comments must be received by July 18, 2008. If anyone
contacts us requesting a public hearing by June 30, 2008, the hearing
will be held on July 3, 2008. If a public hearing is requested, the
record for this action will remain open until August 4, 2008 to
accommodate submittal of information related to the public hearing. For
additional information on the public hearing, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No EPA-HQ-OAR-
2008-0231, by mail to Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode 6102T,
EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20460. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand
delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in the
ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule located in the rules section
of this Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Thundiyil, Stratospheric
Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs (MC 6205J),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number
(202) 343-2363; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of
this Federal Register, we are updating the existing motor vehicle
refrigerant recovery only equipment standards, as a direct final rule
without a prior proposed rule. If we receive no adverse comment, we
will not take further action on this proposed rule. If a public hearing
is held, it will be at EPA Headquarters in Washington, DC.

I. Why Is EPA Issuing This Proposed Rule?

    This document proposes to take action on motor vehicle air-
conditioning refrigerant recovery only equipment standards. We have
published a direct final rule updating EPA's motor vehicle refrigerant
recovery only equipment standards in the ``Rules and Regulations''
section of this Federal Register because we view this as a
noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. We have
explained our reasons for this action in the preamble to the direct
final rule and are not repeating those here.
    If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action
on this proposed rule. If we receive adverse comment, we will withdraw
the direct final rule and it will not take effect. We would address all
public comments in any subsequent final rule based on this proposed
rule. We do not intend to institute a second comment period on this
action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.
For further information, please see the information provided in the
ADDRESSES section of this document.

II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and
is therefore not subject to review under the EO.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden.
The recordkeeping and reporting requirements included in this action
are already included in an existing information collection burden. This
action does not make any changes that would affect burden. However, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the
information collection requirements contained in the existing
regulations, 40 CFR part 82, under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control
number 2060-0247. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40
CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, we certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact

on a substantial number of small entities. The requirements of this
proposed rule do not require an immediate replacement of existing
equipment with equipment certified to the new SAE standard. Rather,
MVAC service shop owners will purchase equipment certified to the new
SAE standard to replace existing refrigerant handling equipment as it
approaches the end of its life. We continue to be interested in the
potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome
comments on issues related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
    EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private
sector in any one year. This proposed rule does not affect State,
local, or tribal governments. The impact of this proposed rule on the
private sector will be less than $100 million per year. Thus, this
proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and
205 of the UMRA. EPA has determined that this rule contains no
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. This regulation does not apply to governmental
entities.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. This proposed rule applies directly
to facilities that use these substances and not to governmental
entities. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed
rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not
have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It
does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian
tribal governments, because this regulation applies directly to
facilities that use these substances and not to governmental entities.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the
potential to influence the regulation. This proposed rule is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based on technology
performance and not on health or safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it
is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law No. 104-113, section 12(d) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This
rulemaking explicitly references technical standards; EPA proposes to
use SAE Standard J2810 which is the

revised version of SAE Standard J1732. These standards can be obtained
from http://www.sae.org/technical/standards/.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. This action updates a regulatory reference to an obsolete
standard to avoid confusion on the part of refrigerant handling
equipment manufacturers, service technicians, automobile dismantling
operators, and A/C service shop owners.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82

    Environmental protection, Motor vehicle air-conditioning, Recover/
recycle equipment, Recover/recycle/recharge equipment, Reporting and
certification requirements, Stratospheric ozone layer.

    Dated: June 12, 2008.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E8-13754 Filed 6-17-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 104 (Thursday, May 30, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25100-25105]
[FR Doc No: 2019-11237]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85930; File No. SR-NYSE-2019-26]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change of
New Rule 7.44 To Operate Its Retail Liquidity Program on Pillar, the
Exchange's New Technology Trading Platform

May 23, 2019.
    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 13, 2019, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or the
``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 new Rule 7.44 to operate its Retail Liquidity
Program on Pillar, the Exchange's new technology trading platform. The
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
www.nyse.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 self-regulatory organization
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 those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    Rule 107C sets forth the Exchange's Retail Liquidity Program (the
``Program''). To support the transition of NYSE-listed securities to
the Exchange's Pillar trading platform, the Exchange proposes to
relocate the substance of Rule 107C to Rule 7.44. As part of the
transition of the Program to Pillar, the Exchange proposes the
following substantive differences: (i) Define Retail Price Improvement
Orders using Pillar terminology based on text used by NYSE Arca, Inc.,
the Exchange's affiliate, and new proposed rule text that uses Pillar
terminology to describe the existing offset functionality and rank such
orders as Priority 3--Non-Display Orders; (ii) remove unused
functionality by adopting a single category of Retail Order and
eliminating the Type 2 and Type 3 Retail Orders; and (iii) trade Retail
Orders against eligible contra-side orders at the best available prices
rather than a single ``clean-up price'' and allocate resting orders at
the same price pursuant to the Exchange's established Pillar parity
allocation process under Rule 7.37(b).
    The Exchange established the Program on a pilot basis to attract
retail order flow to the Exchange, and allow such order flow to receive
potential price improvement.\3\ The Program is limited to trades in
NYSE-listed securities occurring at prices equal to and greater than
$1.00 a share and was recently approved by the Commission to operate on
a permanent, rather than pilot, basis.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67347 (July 3,
2012), 77 FR 40673 (July 10, 2012) (SR-NYSE-2011-55) (``RLP Pilot
Approval Order'').
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85160 (February 15,
2019), 84 FR 5754 (February 22, 2019) (SR-NYSE-2018-28) (``RLP
Permanent Approval Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under Rule 107C, a class of market participant called Retail
Liquidity Providers (``RLPs'') and non-RLP member organizations are
able to provide potential price improvement to retail investor orders
in the form of a non-displayed order that is priced at least $0.001
better than the best protected bid or offer (``PBBO''), called a Retail
Price Improvement Order (``RPI'').\5\ When there is an RPI in a
particular security, the Exchange disseminates an indicator, known as
the Retail Liquidity Identifier (``RLI''), that such interest exists.
Retail Member Organizations (``RMOs'') can submit a Retail Order to the
Exchange, which interacts, to the extent possible, with available
contra-side RPIs and orders with a working price between the PBBO. The
segmentation in the Program allows retail order flow to receive
potential price improvement as a result of their order flow being
deemed more desirable by liquidity providers.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Rule 107C(a)(4). The Program also allows for RLPs to
register with the Exchange. However, any firm can enter RPI orders
into the system.
    \6\ RLP Pilot Approval Order, 77 FR at 40679-40680.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule 7.44, Retail Liquidity Program
    The Exchange proposes that Rule 7.44 would set forth the Program
under the Exchange's Pillar Platform Rules and would use Pillar
terminology based on NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'') Rule 7.44-E.
Except for the differences described below, proposed Rule 7.44 is
substantively based on Rule 107C: Proposed Rules 7.44(a)(1)-(3),
7.44(b), 7.44(c), 7.44(d), 7.44(e), 7.44(f), 7.44(g), 7.44(h), 7.44(i),
and 7.44(j) are based on current rules 107C(a)(1)-(3), 107C (b), 107C
(c), 107C (d), 107C (e), 107C (f), 107C (g), 107C (h), 107C (i), and
107C (j), respectively, with only minor non-substantive differences to
replace the term ``shall'' with ``will'' and update internal cross-
references to the Pillar rule. Proposed Rule 7.44(m) is based on the
last sentence of current Rule 107C(l).

    The Exchange proposes non-substantive differences for proposed
Rules 7.44(a)(3) and 7.44(a)(4)(E), which are based on Rule 107C(a)(3)
and the last sentence of Rule 107C(a)(4), respectively, to replace the
term ``PRL'' with the term ``mixed lot'' to conform to Pillar
terminology. Both a PRL and a mixed lot are an order of any amount
greater than one round lot that is not a multiple of a round lot.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Rules 7.5 and 61(a)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further proposes a non-substantive difference for
proposed Rule 7.44(c)(3), which is based on Rule 107C(c)(3), to not
include references to mnemonics, which will not be used on the Pillar
trading platform for RLPs. Proposed Rule 7.44(c)(3) would continue to
require an RLP to use Exchange-supplied designations that identify to
the Exchange RLP trading activity in assigned RLP securities. This
proposed rule text is based on NYSE Arca Rule 7.44-E(c)(3).
    The Exchange also proposes a non-substantive difference for
proposed Rule 7.44(i)(2), which is based on current Rule 107C(i)(2), to
reference the ``Exchange's Chief Regulatory Officer'' rather than the
``NYSE's Chief Regulatory Officer,'' and to use the phrase ``two
qualified Exchange employees'' instead of ``officers of the Exchange
designated by the Co-Head of U.S. Listings and Cash Execution.'' The
Exchange proposes not to include specific titles, other than Chief
Regulatory Officer, in Pillar rules because the Exchange has
restructured and no longer has the position of Co-Head of U.S. Listings
and Cash Executions. In addition, as a result of the restructuring, the
title of ``officer'' is no longer used by employees who were previously
designated for this role. The Exchange believes that the term
``qualified Exchange employees'' would provide the Exchange with
discretion to delegate this responsibility to appropriate Exchange
staff. As amended, proposed Rule 7.44(i)(2) is based on NYSE Arca Rule
7.44-E(i)(2).
    The Exchange also proposes a non-substantive difference for
proposed Rule 7.44(j), which is based on current Rule 107C(j), to
replace the phrase ``or as appropriate'' with ``and'' in the first
sentence. The first sentence of Rule 107C(j) provides that a Retail
Liquidity Identifier is ``disseminated through proprietary data feeds
or as appropriate through the Consolidation Quotation System when RPI
interest priced at least $0.001 better than the PBB or PBO for a
particular security is available in Exchange systems'' (emphasis
added). This non-substantive change would clarify that the Exchange
disseminates the Retail Liquidity Identifier through both its
proprietary data feeds and the Consolidated Quotation System.
    Because proposed Rule 7.44 would have identical requirements to be
approved as either an RMO (proposed Rule 7.44(b)) or a Retail Liquidity
Provider (proposed Rule 7.44(c)-(d)) as under current Rules 107C(b) and
(c)-(d), the Exchange further proposes that any member organizations
that are approved as either an RMO or RLP under current Rule 107C would
be deemed approved as either an RMO or RLP under proposed Rule 7.44 and
would not have to re-apply. The Exchange believes this will promote
continuity for the RLP Program when NYSE-listed securities transition
to the Pillar trading platform and will reduce the administrative
burden on member organizations that are already approved as either an
RMO or RLP.
    Currently, all member organizations communicate with the Exchange
using Pillar phase I protocols, which support trading both on the
Pillar trading platform and in Exchange-listed securities. The Exchange
notes that currently on the Pillar trading platform, orders with a
limit price of less than $1.00 in securities that are priced at
$100,000 or above, are rejected if not entered with an MPV of $0.01.
The Exchange further notes that this functionality is only applicable
to one security traded on the Exchange. The Exchange proposes to codify
this functionality as it applies to the Program in proposed Commentary
.01 to Rule 7.44, which would provide that when using Pillar phase 1
protocols, for securities that trade at prices of $100,000 or above,
RPI Orders would be rejected if not entered with an MPV of $0.01.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Pursuant to its authority under Rule 612(c) of Regulation
NMS, 17 CFR 242.612(c), the Commission grants the Exchange a limited
exemption from Rule 612 of Regulation NMS, 17 CFR 242.612, (the
``Sub-Penny Rule'') to operate the Program. See Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 85160 (February 15, 2019), 84 FR 5754 (February 22,
2019) (SR-NYSE-2018-28).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Retail Price Improvement Orders
    Proposed Rule 7.44(a)(4) would define the RPI. The rule text is
based on current Rule 107C(a)(4), and the Exchange is not proposing any
substantive changes to the definition of RPI Orders. However, the
proposed rule would include non-substantive differences to use Pillar
terminology to describe RPIs.
    As proposed, new Rule 7.44(a)(4) would provide that an RPI would be
non-displayed interest that would trade at prices better than the PBB
or PBO by at least $0.001 and that is identified as such. This rule
text is based on the first sentence of current Rule 107C(a)(4), with
non-substantive differences to use the terms PBB and PBO and delete the
reference to Regulation NMS definition as redundant of the definition
of PBB/PBO in Rule 1.1(o). The Exchange also proposes to replace the
term ``is priced better than'' the PBB or PBO to ``would trade at
prices better than'' the PBB or PBO. Because RPI interest does not need
to be priced better than the PBB or PBO on arrival, but could trade in
sub-penny increments, the Exchange believes the proposed non-
substantive difference describes how RPIs would operate in Pillar. This
proposed rule text also uses Pillar terminology that is based on NYSE
Arca Rule 7.44-E(a)(4).
    Proposed Rule 7.44(a)(4)(A) would provide that an RPI would remain
non-displayed in its entirety and would be ranked Priority 3--Non-
Display Orders. This proposed rule text is based on the third sentence
of current Rule 107C(a)(4), which provides that an RPI remains non-
displayed in its entirety and uses Pillar terminology to describe the
priority category to which RPIs would belong. The proposed rule also
uses Pillar terminology that is based on NYSE Arca Rule 7.44-
E(a)(4)(A).
    Proposed Rule 7.44(a)(4)(B) would provide that Exchange systems
would monitor whether RPI buy or sell interest would be eligible to
trade with incoming Retail Orders and if it is priced at or outside the
PBBO, the RPI would not be eligible to trade with an incoming Retail
Order. The rule would further provide that an RPI to buy (sell) with a
limit price at or below (above) the PBB (PBO) or at or above (below)
the PBO (PBB) would not be eligible to trade with incoming Retail
Orders to sell (buy) and that if not cancelled, an RPI to buy (sell)
with a limit price that is no longer at or below (above) the PBB (PBO)
or at or above (below) the PBO (PBB) would again be eligible to trade
with incoming Retail Orders. This rule text is based on Rule
107C(a)(4), which provides that an RPI must be priced better than the
PBB or PBO and that the Exchange monitors whether such orders are
eligible to trade, with non-substantive differences to use Pillar
terminology. This proposed rule text also uses Pillar terminology that
is based on NYSE Arca Rule 7.44-E(a)(4)(B) with one difference to
account for a proposed change to the definition of Retail Order
described below. The proposed rule text would, therefore, not include
text from NYSE Arca Rule 7.44-E(a)(4)(B) that provides for the
cancellation of an RPI if a Retail Order

to sell (buy) trades with all displayed liquidity at the PBB (PBO).
    Proposed Rule 7.44(a)(4)(C) would provide that an RPI may include
an optional offset, which may be specified up to three decimals. As
further proposed, the working price of an RPI to buy (sell) with an
offset would be the lower (higher) of the PBB (PBO) plus (minus) the
offset or the limit price of the RPI; an RPI with an offset would not
be eligible to trade if the working price is below $1.00, and if an RPI
to buy (sell) with an offset would have a working price that is more
than three decimals, the working price would be truncated to three
decimals. This proposed rule text is based on the second and third
sentences of current Rule 107C(a)(4), which provide that an RPI may be
adjusted by any offset subject to a ceiling or floor price and that the
offset is non-displayed. Proposed Rule 7.44(a)(4)(C) uses Pillar
terminology to describe this existing offset functionality, which the
Exchange believes promotes transparency and clarity in its rules.
    The Exchange proposes to make a related change to Rule
7.16(f)(5)(C) to specify that, like Pegged Orders and MPL Orders, RPIs
with an offset would use the National Best Bid (``NBB'') instead of the
PBB as the reference price when a Short Sale Price Test is triggered
pursuant to Rule 201 of Regulation SHO.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 242.201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 7.44(a)(4)(D) would provide that, for securities to
which it is assigned, an RLP may only enter an RPI in its RLP capacity,
and that an RLP would be permitted, but not required, to submit RPI
Orders for securities to which it is not assigned, and would be treated
as a non-RLP member organization for those particular securities.
Additionally, the rule would provide that member organizations other
than RLPs would be permitted, but not required, to submit RPI Orders.
This proposed rule text is based on the fifth and sixth sentences of
current Rule 107C(a)(4) without any substantive differences. This
proposed rule text also uses Pillar terminology that is based on NYSE
Arca Rule 7.44-E(a)(4)(C).
    Proposed Rule 7.44(a)(4)(E) would provide that an RPI may be an odd
lot, round lot, or mixed lot and will interact with incoming Retail
Orders only. This proposed text is based on the last sentence of Rule
107C(a)(4), with the non-substantive difference described above to use
the term ``mixed lot'' instead of ``PRL,'' as described above. The
Exchange also proposes to provide greater specificity that RPIs would
interact with incoming Retail Orders only, which is how RPIs currently
function. This proposed rule text is based in part on NYSE Arca Rule
7.44-E(a)(4)(D).
Retail Orders
    Pursuant to Rule 107C(k), Retail Orders may be designated as Type
1, Type 2, or Type 3. Proposed Rule 7.44(k) would be based on Rule
107C(k) with two substantive differences. The first substantive
difference would be to remove unused functionality by eliminating the
Type 2 and Type 3 Retail Orders. The second substantive difference
would be to expand the scope of contra-side orders against which a
Retail Order may trade to include all orders between the PBBO, not just
RPI Orders and MPL Orders.
    To date, the Exchange has not received a Retail Order designated as
Type 2 or Type 3 and, therefore, proposes to no longer support this
functionality. On Pillar, the Exchange would offer a single category of
Retail Orders under proposed Rule 7.44(k) that would operate in a
substantially similar manner as the current Type 1 Retail Order, but
would be described using Pillar terminology. The title of Rule 7.44
would therefore differ from Rule 107C to replace the word
``Designation'' with ``Operation'' to reflect the availability of a
single type of Retail Order.
    As proposed, ``Retail Order,'' as defined in proposed Rule 7.44(k),
would be described as:

    A Retail Order to buy (sell) is a Limit IOC Order that will
trade only with available Retail Price Improvement Orders to sell
(buy) and all other orders to sell (buy) with a working price below
(above) the PBO (PBB) on the Exchange Book and will not route. The
quantity of a Retail Order to buy (sell) that does not trade with
eligible orders to sell (buy) will be immediately and automatically
cancelled. A Retail Order will be rejected on arrival if the PBBO is
locked or crossed. A Retail Order may not be designated with an MTS
Modifier.

    This proposed functionality is based on the Type-1 designated
Retail Order, as described in Rule 107C(k)(1), with a substantive
difference that Retail Orders would no longer be limited to interact
only with contra-side RPI and MPL Orders. The Exchange believes that
this proposed difference would increase the potential for a Retail
Order to receive an execution as such orders would be eligible to trade
with any orders between the PBBO. The Exchange further proposes to
specify that a Retail Order may not be designated with an MTS
Modifier.\10\ This proposed rule text uses Pillar terminology to
describe current functionality. The proposed text of Rule 7.44(k) is
otherwise substantially similar to current Rule 107C(k)(1) with minor
changes to confirm to Pillar terminology and to remove references to
``Type 1.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Pursuant to Rule 7.31(i)(3), a Limit IOC Order may be
designated with an MTS Modifier. Because a Retail Order is a type of
Limit IOC Order, the Exchange proposes to specify that, unlike a
Limit IOC Order, Retail Orders may not be designated with an MTS
Modifier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 7.44(l), Priority and Order Allocation
    Similar to Rule 107C(l), proposed Rule 7.44(l) would set forth the
priority and allocation rules for the Program. With Pillar, the
Exchange proposes to simplify the operation of the Program and rank and
allocate RPIs with all other interest at the same price as Priority 3--
Non-Display Orders. In addition, incoming Retail Orders would trade
with contra-side interest between the PBBO at each price point, rather
than at a single clean-up price. At each price point between the PBBO,
resting orders would be allocated consistent with Rule 7.37(b)
(including, for example, odd lot orders ranked Priority 2--Display
Orders). With these proposed changes, the allocation of Retail Orders
in the Program would be aligned with the allocation of orders outside
of the Program under the Exchange's established Pillar allocation
process.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Rule 7.37(b), Allocation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To effect these differences, proposed Rule 7.44(l) would provide
that RPIs in the same security would be ranked together with all other
interest at that price ranked as Priority 3--Non-Display Orders and
would be allocated with other resting orders at that price pursuant to
Rule 7.37(b). This would be new functionality for the Program and is
consistent with how all other orders are allocated on the Exchange. The
Exchange believes that the proposed substantive difference to the
priority and allocation of orders in the Program would reduce potential
confusion because the Program would no longer have different allocation
rules as compared to how orders trade outside the Program.
    The Exchange proposes to make a related amendment to Rule
7.37(b)(2)(D), which describes the circumstances when a Participant
would be moved to the last position on an allocation wheel.\12\ Because
RPIs are only eligible to trade with Retail Orders,

they would be skipped on an allocation wheel for the allocation of an
Aggressing Order that is not a Retail Order. The Exchange proposes that
if an RPI has been skipped in an allocation because it was not eligible
to trade, the Participant that entered such order would be moved to the
last position on an allocation wheel if such Participant has no other
orders at that price. This proposed rule change would be applicable to
RPIs that are priced the same as other Priority 3--Non-Display Orders
and have been skipped in an allocation. This proposed rule text is
consistent with how Rule 7.37(b)(2)(D) currently operates with respect
to a Participant that has an order that receives a new working time or
cancels and replaces an order, and such Participant does not have any
other orders at that price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Rule 7.37(b)(2)(D) provides that if an order receives a new
working time or is cancelled and replaced at the same working price,
the Participant that entered such order will be moved to the last
position on an allocation wheel if that Participant has no other
orders at that price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 7.44(l) would further provide that any remaining
unexecuted RPI interest would remain available to trade with other
incoming Retail Orders and that any remaining unfilled quantity of the
Retail Order would cancel in accordance with proposed Rule 7.44(k).
This proposed rule text is based in part on Rule Arca Rule 7.44-E(l).
This proposed rule text is also consistent with the proposed change,
described above, that Retail Orders would, by definition, have an IOC
time-in-force condition.
    Because the Exchange proposes that allocations in the Program would
not differ from how orders are allocated outside the Program, the
Exchange proposes that unlike Rule 107C(l), proposed Rule 7.44(l) no
longer needs to include examples of how executions in the Program would
operate. The Exchange included those examples in Rule 107C because
allocations in that version of the Program differed from the Exchange's
regular allocation process. Those concerns are now moot.
Implementation of Proposed Rule Change
    Subject to effectiveness of this proposed rule change, the Exchange
proposes to implement this proposed change when the Exchange
transitions NYSE-listed securities to its Pillar trading platform.\13\
To promote transparency of which rule relating to the Program would
govern trading on the Exchange both before and after the Pillar
transition, the Exchange proposes to amend the preamble to Rule 107C to
provide that such rule would not be applicable to trading on the Pillar
trading platform, and delete the reference to UTP Securities in that
preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Exchange has announced that, subject to rule approvals,
the Exchange will begin transitioning Exchange-listed securities to
Pillar on August 5, 2019, available here: https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/nyse/Revised_Pillar_Migration_Timeline.pdf.
The Exchange will publish by separate Trader Update a complete
symbol migration schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\14\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Sections 6(b)(5) of the Act,\15\ in particular, because it is designed
to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of,
a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest and because it is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change seeks to provide for the Program on
Pillar, the Exchange's new technology trading platform. The proposed
non-substantive differences between proposed Rule 7.44 and Rule 107C to
use Pillar terminology would remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a fair and orderly market because the proposed differences
would promote transparency through the use of consistent terminology in
Pillar rules. The Exchange believes that proposed Rule 7.44(a)(4),
describing RPIs, would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system because the
proposed rule text would use Pillar terminology to describe existing
functionality. The Exchange believes that the use of Pillar terminology
promotes transparency and clarity in Exchange rules.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed Commentary .01 to Rule 7.44
to reject RPIs in securities that are priced at $100,000 or above if
not entered with an MPV of $0.01 would remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system because it provides transparency of the circumstances when an
RPI would be rejected depending on the communication protocol used by
the member organization and the MPV in which it is entered.
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to eliminate the Type 2 and
Type 3 Retail Orders would remove impediments to, and perfect the
mechanisms of, a free and open market and a national market system by
simplifying and streamlining the operation of Retail Orders. To date,
the Exchange has not received a Retail Order designated as Type 2 or
Type 3 for participation in the Program. Therefore, no longer offering
the Type 2 or Type 3 Retail Orders should not impact market
participants' trading activity and would serve to remove unused
functionality from the Program and the Exchange's rules. The Proposal
would also simplify the operation of the Program and allow the Exchange
to no longer support functionality that is not utilized. The Exchange
further believes that the proposed substantive difference that Type 1
Retail Orders, which would simply be referred to as ``Retail Orders,''
would be eligible to trade with all contra-side orders on the Exchange
Book would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free
and open market and a national market system because it would increase
the potential that a Retail Order would receive an execution on the
Exchange.
    The proposed substantive difference to allow Retail Orders to
execute at the best available prices under proposed Rule 7.44(l) rather
than a single clean-up price would remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system
because it would align how a Retail Order would trade under the Program
with how incoming orders outside of the Program trade on the Exchange.
In addition, the proposed substantive difference that RPIs would be
ranked Priority 3--Non-Display Orders, and all resting orders at a
price would be allocated on parity pursuant to Rule 7.37(b), would
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a fair and orderly
market because it would align the allocation of orders in the Program
with the allocation of orders outside of the Program. This proposed
substantive difference would therefore promote transparency in Exchange
rules and reduce potential confusion because the Program would no
longer operate differently from the allocation of orders outside the
Program.
    The Exchange further believes that the proposed amendment to Rule
7.37(b)(2)(D) to specify that the Participant that entered an order
that is skipped in an allocation because it would not be eligible to
trade would be

moved to the last position on the allocation wheel if such Participant
has no other orders at that price would remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system because it would promote transparency in Exchange rules
regarding how the Exchange determines the position of a Participant on
an allocation wheel. The Exchange further believes it would remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system to move a Participant to the last position on
the allocation wheel because it would simplify how such orders are
processed; if an order is skipped, other orders at that price may be
fully executed or cancelled or new orders may be added and it would be
difficult to assess in such fluid circumstances the exact position of
that Participant on the allocation wheel if that Participant does not
have any other orders at that price. Moving such Participant to the
last position on the wheel also promotes consistency with current Rule
7.37(b)(2)(D) regarding how a Participant is moved on an allocation
wheel if its order receives a new working time or is cancelled and
replaced at the same working price and such Participant does not have
any other orders at that price.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed amendment to Rule
7.16(f)(5)(C) to specify that during a Short Sale Period, RPIs with an
offset would use the NBBO rather than the PBBO as the reference price
would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and
open market and a national market system because it would ensure
compliance with Rule 201 of Regulation SHO.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\16\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. The proposed change is to adopt new rules to
support continuity of the Program when Exchange-listed securities
transition to the Exchange's new Pillar trading platform. As discussed
in detail above, the Exchange proposes to adopt rules for Pillar
relating to the Retail Liquidity Program that are be based on current
rules, with both substantive and non-substantive differences. The
proposed substantive differences proposed for Rule 7.44 as compared to
Rule 107C would promote competition because they streamline the
operation of the Program by eliminating unused order types and aligning
the allocation of orders in the Program with the allocation of orders
outside of the Program. The proposed non-substantive differences
include using new Pillar terminology to describe the Program and are
based on NYSE Arca Rule 7.44-E. The Exchange believes that the proposed
rule change would promote consistent use of terminology to support the
Pillar trading platform, making the Exchange's rules easier to
navigate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal to eliminate Type 2 and Type 3 Retail Orders are not
intended to have a competitive impact. These changes simply remove
functionality from the Program that has not been used at all to date.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \17\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\18\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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 under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \19\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-NYSE-2019-26 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-NYSE-2019-26. 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 offices 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-NYSE-2019-26, and should be submitted on
or before June 20, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-11237 Filed 5-29-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 229 (Friday, November 27, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76071-76072]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26184]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0585; FRL-10017-03]

Glyphosate Registration Review; Draft Endangered Species Act
Biological Evaluations; Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA or the Agency) draft biological evaluation
(BE) for the registration review of the pesticide glyphosate and opens
a public comment period on this document.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 26, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0585, through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information
you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. To make special
arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please
follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is closed to visitors with
limited exceptions. The staff continues to provide remote customer
service via email, phone, and webform. For the latest status
information on EPA/DC services and docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tracy Perry, Pesticide Re-evaluation
Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry;
pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale,
distribution, or use of pesticides and/or the potential impacts of
pesticide use on threatened or endangered (listed) species and
designated critical habitat. Since others also may be interested, the
Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may
be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all the information
that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that
you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then
identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific
information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version
of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the
comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be
submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked
will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides
discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

II. What action is the Agency taking?

A. Authority

    The Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires federal agencies, such as
EPA, to ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of species listed as threatened or endangered under
the ESA or destroy or adversely modify the designated critical habitat
of such species. The final registration review determination of
reevaluating a pesticide under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) constitutes an EPA ``action'' under the ESA. If
EPA determines a pesticide may affect a listed species or its
designated critical habitat, EPA must initiate informal or formal
consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or the
National Marine Fisheries Service (collectively referred to as the
Services), as appropriate. EPA initiates formal consultation with the
Services through the conduct and transmittal of a biological
evaluations (BE) with its findings.

B. Background

    The schedule for conducting the atrazine and simazine BEs was
negotiated as part of a partial settlement agreement pursuant to a
joint stipulation filed on October 18, 2019 and entered by the court on
October 22, 2019, in Center for Biological Diversity et al. v. EPA et
al. (N.D. Ca) (3:11-cv-00293). EPA stated in this settlement that it
would also include the herbicides propazine and glyphosate in this
group of effects determinations. The Agency has completed a
comprehensive, nationwide draft BE for the use of glyphosate relative
to the potential effects on listed species and their designated
critical habitats.
    The glyphosate BE follows the Revised Method for National Level
Listed Species Biological Evaluations of Conventional Pesticides (see
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0185-0084 at www.regulations.gov). EPA
utilized the Revised Method for the first time when conducting the
methomyl and carbaryl draft BEs, which were posted for public comment
on March 17, 2020 (85 FR 15168). EPA is currently evaluating public
comments received and will take them into consideration for the final
BEs for these pesticides. Comments received on carbaryl and methomyl
that are applicable to the broader BE methodology will also be
incorporated into the final BE for glyphosate as applicable.
    After reviewing comments received during the public comment period
on the glyphosate draft BE, EPA will issue a final BE and a response to
public comments document. If EPA determines that glyphosate may affect
listed species and/or their designated critical habitats, EPA will
initiate consultation with the

Services. Based on the BE, the Services will then develop a Biological
Opinion for glyphosate.

C. Public Comments Sought

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.53(c) and consistent with the enhanced
stakeholder engagement practices (see docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-
0442), EPA is providing an opportunity, through this notice of
availability, for interested parties to provide comments and input
concerning the Agency's draft BE for glyphosate. Such comments could
address, among other things, the application of the Agency's revised
risk assessment methodologies to and assumptions for this draft BE.
    The file size of the glyphosate draft BE exceeds the docket
system's file size limitation, therefore it is not posted to this BE
docket. Instead, the BE is posted on EPA's endangered species web page
(see web link provided in the Table below). Commenters are instructed
to post comments on the BE to this BE docket (EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0585) in
www.regulations.gov, as indicated in the Table below.

   Table--Pesticide Docket ID Number for Posting Comments on the Glyphosate Draft BE and Link to the Draft BE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Pesticide docket ID No.
               Document                   for public comments                 Link to the draft BE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glyphosate BE........................  EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0585...  https://www.epa.gov/endangered-species/draft-national-level-listed-species-biological-evaluation-glyphosate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Other related information. Additional information on endangered
species risk assessment and the National Academy of Sciences report
recommendations are available at https://www.epa.gov/endangered-species/implementing-nas-report-recommendations-risk-assessment-methodology-endangered. Information on the Agency's registration review
program and its implementing regulation is available at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-reevaluation.
    2. Information submission requirements. Anyone may submit data or
information in response to this document. To be considered during a
pesticide's registration review, the submitted data or information must
meet the following requirements:
     To ensure that EPA will consider data or information
submitted, interested persons must submit the data or information
during the comment period. The Agency may, at its discretion, consider
data or information submitted later.
     The data or information submitted must be presented in a
legible and useable form. For example, an English translation must
accompany any material that is not in English and a written transcript
must accompany any information submitted as an audio graphic or video
graphic record. Written material may be submitted in paper or
electronic form.
     Submitters must clearly identify the source of any
submitted data or information.
     Submitters may request the Agency to reconsider data or
information that the Agency rejected in a previous review. However,
submitters must explain why they believe the Agency should reconsider
the data or information in the pesticide's registration review.
    As provided in 40 CFR 155.58, the registration review docket for
each pesticide case will remain publicly accessible through the
duration of the registration review process; that is, until all actions
required in the final decision on the registration review case have
been completed.

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: November 18, 2020.
Alexandra Dapolito Dunn,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2020-26184 Filed 11-25-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Assessing the Effect of Five Gasoline Properties on Exhaust Emissions from Light-Duty Vehicles certified to Tier-2 Standards

                       Analysis of Data from EPA Phase 3

                                (EPAct/V2/E-89)

                                 Appendix I.2d
                              Final Model Fitting
                   Non-Methane Organic Gases (NMOG) (Bag 1)

No. Observations:			956
No. Vehicles:		  		  15
No. censored measurements:		    0
No. missing measurements:		    0
No. measurements removed:		    0
Model Type:				Mixed model

I.2d.1   Model fitting with respect to the 11-term design model.
Design Model (11-terms):  Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) vs. number of terms in model (p) for all possible models respecting hierarchy.

Design Model (11-terms):  Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) vs. number of terms in model (p) for all possible models respecting hierarchy (CLOSEUP of previous figure).

Design Model (11-terms):  Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) vs. number of terms in model (p) for all possible models respecting hierarchy (CLOSEUP of previous figure).

NMOG (Bag 1):  Number of terms (p), Goodness-of-fit (BIC) and terms included in the 35 best-fitting candidate models (out of a total of 294 possible models with hierarchy).  (Terms included in models ranked 1-8 comprise the "superset" for final model-fitting).

     Models fit for NMOG (Bag 1): (all models include an intercept term).
Model Term
                                   Notation
                                     Model

                                   Superset
                                    SM2[1]
                                     etOH
Ze
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                     Arom
Za
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      RVP
Zr
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      T50
Z5
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      T90
Z9
                                      ●
                                      x
                                 etOH x etOH
ZZee
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                  T50 x T50
ZZ55
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                 etOH x Arom
ZZea
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                  etOH x RVP
ZZer
                                      ---
                                      ---
                                  etOH x T50
ZZe5
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                  etOH x T90
ZZe9
                                      ●
                                      x
[1] denotes "Superset minus 2."

NMOG (Bag 1): Model fitting history, starting with the 10-term superset model.
                                Fit Parameters

                             Test with respect to
                                Previous Model
Model
                                                                              p
-2lnL
BIC[1]

                                                                           Dev.
                                                                              d
                                                                    Pr>χ[2]
Superset[2]
                                                                             11
311.321
346.525

SM2
                                                                              9
318.083
347.871

                                                                          6.762
                                                                              2
                                                                          0.034

[1] A lower value indicates a better fit.
[2] Best fit with respect to the 11-term design model.

NMOG (Bag 1): Coefficients  and Tests of Effect for the Superset and Reduced Models, with respect to the 11-term design model.
Effect

                                Superset Model

                           Reduced Model (Superset)

Estimate
Std.Err.
d.f.
t-value
Pr> t

                                                                       Estimate
Std.Err.
d.f.
t-value
Pr> t
Intercept

                                                                        -0.9520
                                                                        0.09077
                                                                             15
                                                                         -10.49
                                                                     <0.0001

Ze

                                                                        0.07981
                                                                        0.01326
                                                                            941
                                                                           6.02
                                                                     <0.0001

Za

                                                                        0.08789
                                                                        0.00929
                                                                            941
                                                                           9.46
                                                                     <0.0001

Zr

                                                                       -0.04595
                                                                        0.01053
                                                                            941
                                                                          -4.36
                                                                     <0.0001

Z5

                                                                         0.1344
                                                                        0.01329
                                                                            941
                                                                          10.12
                                                                     <0.0001

Z9

                                                                        0.01593
                                                                        0.00925
                                                                            941
                                                                           1.72
                                                                         0.0855

                        Reduced Model = Superset Model
ZZee

                                                                        0.04594
                                                                        0.01760
                                                                            941
                                                                           2.61
                                                                        0.00918

ZZ55

                                                                        0.07680
                                                                        0.01336
                                                                            941
                                                                           5.75
                                                                     <0.0001

ZZea

                                                                        0.01635
                                                                        0.00906
                                                                            941
                                                                           1.80
                                                                         0.0714

ZZer

                                                                              -
                                                                              -
                                                                              -
                                                                              -
                                                                              -

ZZe5

                                                                        0.04754
                                                                        0.01893
                                                                            941
                                                                           2.51
                                                                         0.0122

ZZe9

                                                                        0.01961
                                                                        0.00902
                                                                            941
                                                                           2.17
                                                                         0.0300

                                                                         0.1224

                                                                        0.07538

I.2d.2	Model Fitting with respect to the 16-term extended Model.
Extended Model (16-terms):  Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) vs. number of terms in model (p) for all possible models respecting hierarchy.

Extended Model (16-terms):  Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) vs. number of terms in model (p) for subset of models respecting hierarchy (CLOSEUP of previous figure).

Extended Model (16-terms):  Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) vs. number of terms in model (p) for subset of models respecting hierarchy (CLOSEUP of previous figure).

NMOG (Bag 1):  Number of terms (p), Goodness-of-fit (BIC) and terms included in the 35 best-fitting candidate models (out of a total of 2,964 possible models with hierarchy).  (Terms included in models ranked 1-8 comprise the "superset" for final model-fitting).

     Models fit for NMOG (Bag 1): (all models include an intercept term).
Model Term
                                   Notation
                                     Model

                                   Superset
                                    SM3[1]
                                      SM7
                                     etOH
Ze
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                     Arom
Za
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      RVP
Zr
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      T50
Z5
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      T90
Z9
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      x
                                 etOH x etOH
ZZee
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                  T50 x T50
ZZ55
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                 etOH x Arom
ZZea
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                  etOH x RVP
ZZer
                                      ●
                                      x

                                  etOH x T50
ZZe5
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                  etOH x T90
ZZe9
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      x

                                  Arom x RVP
ZZar
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                  Arom x T50
ZZa5
                                      ●
                                      x

                                  Arom x T90
ZZa9
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      x
                                  T50 x T90
ZZ59
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      x
                                  RVP x T90
ZZr9
                                      ●
                                      x

[1] denotes "Superset minus 3, etc."

 NMOG (Bag 1): Model fitting history, starting with the 9-term superset model.
                                Fit Parameters

                             Test with respect to
                                Previous Model
Model
                                                                              p
-2lnL
BIC[1]

                                                                           Dev.
                                                                              d
                                                                    Pr>χ[2]
Superset
                                                                             17
282.156
333.609

SM3[2]
                                                                             14
285.473
328.802

                                                                          3.317
                                                                              3
                                                                          0.345
SM7
                                                                             10
313.769
346.266

                                                                         28.296
                                                                              4
                                                                       0.000011

[1] A lower value indicates a better fit.
[2] Best fit with respect to the 16-term extended model.

NMOG (Bag 1): Coefficients and Tests of Effect for the Superset and Reduced Models, with respect to the 16-term extended model.