[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 195 (Wednesday, October 7, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63325-63326]
[FR Doc No: 2020-22183]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 34041, File No. 812-15141]

Invesco Capital Management LLC, et al.

October 1, 2020.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Notice of an application for an order under section 6(c) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') for an exemption from sections
2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d) and 22(e) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the
Act, and under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from
sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act.

Applicants:  Invesco Capital Management LLC (the ``Initial Adviser''),
Invesco Distributors, Inc. (the ``Distributor''), Invesco Actively
Managed Exchange-Traded Fund Trust, and Invesco Actively Managed
Exchange-Traded Commodity Fund Trust (the ``Trusts,'' and each, a
``Trust'').

Summary of Application:  Applicants request an order (``Order'') that
permits: (a) The Funds (defined below) to issue shares (``Shares'')
redeemable in large aggregations only (``creation units''); (b)
secondary market transactions in Shares to occur at negotiated market
prices rather than at net asset value; (c) certain Funds to pay
redemption proceeds, under certain circumstances, more than seven days
after the tender of Shares for redemption; and (d) certain affiliated
persons of a Fund to deposit securities into, and receive securities
from, the Fund in connection with the purchase and redemption of
creation units. The relief in the Order would incorporate by reference
terms and conditions of the same relief of a previous order granting
the same relief sought by applicants, as that order may be amended from
time to time (``Reference Order'').\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Fidelity Beach Street Trust, et al., Investment Company Act
Rel. Nos. 33683 (Nov. 14, 2019) (notice) and 33712 (Dec. 10, 2019)
(order). Applicants are not seeking relief under Section 12(d)(1)(J)
of the Act for an exemption from Sections 12(d)(1)(A) and
12(d)(1)(B) of the Act (the ``Section 12(d)(1) Relief''), and relief
under Sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from
Sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act relating to the Section
12(d)(1) Relief, as granted in the Reference Order. Accordingly, to
the extent the terms and conditions of the Reference Order relate to
such relief, they are not incorporated by reference into the Order.

Filing Date:  The application was filed on July 8, 2020 and amended on

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 9, 2020 and September 30, 2020.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing:  An order granting the requested
relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing by emailing the Commission's
Secretary at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and serving applicants with a
copy of the request by email. Hearing requests should be received by
the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on October 26, 2020, and should be
accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an
affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule
0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the
writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing
on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested.
Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification
by emailing the Commission's Secretary at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Applicants: Adam Henkel, Esq., Invesco
Capital Management LLC<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kay M. Vobis, Senior Counsel, at (202)
551-6728 or Trace W. Rakestraw, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained via the
Commission's website by searching for the file number, or for an
applicant using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Applicants:
    1. Each Trust is a statutory trust organized under the laws of
Delaware and will consist of one or more series operating as a Fund.
Each Trust is registered as an open-end management investment company
under the Act. Applicants seek relief with respect to Funds (as defined
below), including an initial Fund (the ``Initial Fund''). The Funds
will offer exchange-traded shares utilizing active management
investment strategies as contemplated by the Reference Order.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ To facilitate arbitrage, among other things, each day a Fund
will publish a basket of securities and cash that, while different
from the Fund's portfolio, is designed to closely track its daily
performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. The Initial Adviser, a Delaware limited liability company, will
be the investment adviser to the Initial Fund. Subject to approval by
the Trusts' board of trustees, an Adviser (as defined below) will serve
as investment adviser to each Fund. The Initial Adviser is, and any
other Adviser will be, registered as an investment adviser under the
Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (``Advisers Act''). An Adviser may
enter into sub-advisory agreements with other investment advisers to
act as sub-advisers with respect to the Funds (each a ``Sub-Adviser'').
Any Sub-Adviser to a Fund will be registered under the Advisers Act.
    3. The Distributor is a Delaware corporation and a broker-dealer
registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
will act as the principal underwriter of Shares of the Funds.
Applicants request that the requested relief apply to any distributor
of Shares, whether affiliated or unaffiliated with the Adviser and/or
Sub-Adviser (included in the term ``Distributor''). Any Distributor
will comply with the terms and conditions of the Order.
    Applicants' Requested Exemptive Relief:
    4. Applicants seek the requested Order under section 6(c) of the
Act for an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d) and 22(e)
of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act, and under sections 6(c) and
17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2)
of the Act. The requested Order would permit applicants to offer Funds
that operate as contemplated by the Reference Order. Because the relief
requested is the same as certain of the relief granted by the
Commission under the Reference Order and because the Initial Adviser
has entered into a licensing agreement with Fidelity Management &
Research Company, or an affiliate thereof, in order to offer Funds that
operate as contemplated by the Reference Order,\3\ the Order would
incorporate by reference the terms and conditions of the same relief of
the Reference Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Certain aspects of how the Funds will operate (as described
in the Reference Order) are the intellectual property of Fidelity
Management & Research Company (or its affiliates).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Applicants request that the Order apply to the Initial Fund and
to any other existing or future registered open-end management
investment company or series thereof that: (a) Is advised by the
Initial Adviser or any entity controlling, controlled by, or under
common control with the Initial Adviser (any such entity included in
the term ``Adviser''); (b) offers exchange-traded shares utilizing
active management investment strategies as contemplated by the
Reference Order; and (c) complies with the terms and conditions of the
Order and the terms and conditions of the Reference Order that are
incorporated by reference into the Order (each such company or series
and the Initial Fund, a ``Fund'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ All entities that currently intend to rely on the Order are
named as applicants. Any other entity that relies on the Order in
the future will comply with the terms and conditions of the Order
and the terms and conditions of the Reference Order that are
incorporated by reference into the Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt
any person, security or transaction, or any class of persons,
securities or transactions, from any provisions of the Act, if and to
the extent that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the
public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the
purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act.
Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to exempt a proposed
transaction from section 17(a) of the Act if evidence establishes that
the terms of the transaction, including the consideration to be paid or
received, are reasonable and fair and do not involve overreaching on
the part of any person concerned, and the transaction is consistent
with the policies of the registered investment company and the general
purposes of the Act. Applicants submit that for the reasons stated in
the Reference Order the requested relief meets the exemptive standards
under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
pursuant to delegated authority.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-22183 Filed 10-6-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 113 (Monday, June 13, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34217-34220]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14508]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. IC11-520-001; IC11-561-001; and IC11-566-001]

Commission Information Collection Activities, Proposed
Collections; Comment Request; Extension

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of Section 3507 of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507, the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (Commission) has submitted the information
collections described below to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and an extension of the expiration date for these
information collection requirements. Any interested person may file
comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments
to the Commission as explained below. The Commission received one
comment in response to an earlier Federal Register notice of March 4,
2011 (76FR12091) and has made this notation in its submission to OMB.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due by July 13,
2011.

ADDRESSES: Address comments on the collection of information to the
Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Desk Officer.
Comments to OMB should be filed electronically, c/o<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and include the OMB Control Nos. as points of
reference. For comments that pertain to only one or two of the
collections, specify the appropriate collection(s) and OMB Control
Number(s). The Desk Officer may be reached by telephone at 202-395-
4638.
    A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission. Comments may be filed either electronically or
in paper format. Those persons filing electronically do not need to
make a paper filing. For paper filings, such comments should be
submitted to the Office of the Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426 and should
refer to Docket Nos. IC11-520-001; IC11-561-001; and IC11-566-001. (If
comments apply to only one or two of the collections, indicate the
corresponding docket and collection number(s).)
    Documents filed electronically via the Internet must be prepared in
an acceptable filing format and in compliance with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission's submission guidelines. Complete filing
instructions and acceptable filing formats are available at http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide/electronic-media.asp. To file the
document electronically, access the Commission's Web site and click on
Documents & Filing, E-Filing (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp), and then follow the instructions for each screen. First
time users will have to establish a user name and password. The
Commission will send an automatic acknowledgement to the sender's e-
mail address upon receipt of comments.
    All comments may be viewed, printed or downloaded remotely via the
Internet through FERC's homepage using the eLibrary link. For user
assistance, contact<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at (866)
208-3676 or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Ellen Brown may be reached by e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, by fax at (202)
273-0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Description

    The supporting statement for the information collections submitted
for

OMB review contains the following information.
    1. Collections of Information:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Information
    Information collection No.          OMB No.       collection title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERC-520..........................       1902-0083  Application to Hold
                                                     Interlocking
                                                     Directorate
                                                     Positions.
Form 561..........................       1902-0099  Annual Report of
                                                     Interlocking
                                                     Directorates.
FERC-566..........................       1902-0114  Annual Report of
                                                     Twenty Largest
                                                     Purchasers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Sponsor: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
    3. Action: The Commission is requesting that OMB approve these
information collections with a three-year extension of the expiration
dates, with no changes to the existing collections. The information
filed with the Commission is mandatory.
    4. Necessity of the Collections of Information: The Federal Power
Act (FPA), as amended by the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of
1978 (PURPA), mandates federal oversight and approval of certain
electric corporate activities to ensure that neither public nor private
interests are adversely affected. Accordingly, the FPA prescribes
related information filing requirements to achieve this goal. Such
filing requirements are found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),
specifically in 18 CFR Parts 45, 46 and section 131.31 and serve as the
basis for FERC-520, Form 561, and FERC-566. Most of the requirements
are statutorily defined and cannot be changed. The Commission can
initiate enforcement proceedings when violations and omissions of the
Act's provisions occur.
    The FERC-520 is divided into two types of applications: Full and
abbreviated. The full application, as specified in section 45.8,
implements the FPA requirement that it is unlawful for any person to
concurrently hold the positions of officer or director of more than one
public utility; or a public utility and a bank or financial institution
that underwrites or markets public utility securities; or a public
utility and an electrical equipment supplier to that public utility
unless the Commission has authorized the interlocks to be held. Before
assuming an interlocked position, an applicant must demonstrate that
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by the
holding of the position. The full application provides Commission staff
with a list of certain information required from the applicant
concerning the interlocking positions for which he/she seeks
authorization. Information provided includes, but is not limited to, a
description of duties, estimated time devoted to the position, and any
indebtedness to the public utility.
    The abbreviated application, as specified in 18 CFR 45.9 and
otherwise known as an informational report, allows an applicant to
receive automatic authorization for an interlock position upon receipt
of filing with the FERC. The abbreviated application applies only to
those individuals who seek authorization as an (1) Officer or director
of two or more public utilities where the same holding company owns,
directly or indirectly, wholly or in part, the other public utility;
(2) an officer or director of two public utilities, if one utility is
owned, wholly or in part, by the other; or (3) an officer or director
of more than one public utility, if such person is already authorized
under Part 45 to hold different positions where the interlock involves
affiliated public utilities. Information required is on a much smaller
scale than that which is required for the full application.
    Pursuant to 18 CFR 45.5, in the event that an applicant resigns or
withdraws from all Commission-authorized interlocked positions within a
corporate structure or is not re-elected or re-appointed to any
interlocked positions within that corporate structure, FERC requires
that the applicant submit a notice of change within 30 days from the
date of change.
    The information the Commission collects with Form 561 (``Annual
Report of Interlocking Positions'') responds to the FPA requirements
for annual reporting of similar types of positions public utility
officers and directors hold with financial institutions, insurance
companies, utility equipment and fuel providers, and with any of an
electric utility's twenty largest purchasers of electric energy. The
FPA specifically defines most of the information elements in the Form
561, including the information that must be filed, the required filers,
the directive to make the information available to the public, and the
filing deadline. The Commission determined administrative aspects of
the Form 561 such as the filing format and instructions for filling out
the form. The information collected by the Commission through the Form
561 is used to implement the FPA requirement that those who are
authorized to hold interlocked directorates annually disclose all the
interlocked positions they held the prior year. The Form 561 data
identifies persons holding interlocking positions between public
utilities and other entities, allows the Commission to review these and
permits identification of possible conflicts of interest.
    Finally, the FERC-566, ``Annual Report of a Utility's Twenty
Largest Purchasers,'' implements FPA requirements that each public
utility annually publish a list of the purchasers of the twenty largest
annual amounts of electric energy sold by such public utility during
any one of three previous calendar years. Similar to the statutory
detail in the FPA for the Form 561, the FPA identifies who must file
the FERC-566 report and sets the filing deadline. The FPA specifies
that those entities required to report who have a holding company
system can calculate their total volumes of energy sold by including
the amounts sold by utilities within their holding company system. The
FERC details in its regulations special rules about the information to
be provided in the FERC-566 report. For example, FERC allows required
filers to file estimates of volumes based on actual information
available to them if actual volumes are not available by the statutory
due date. However, the FERC also requires revisions of those filed
estimates with final numbers by March 1st. The public disclosure of
this information provides officers and directors with the information
necessary to determine whether any of the entities with whom they are
related are any of the largest twenty purchasers of the public utility
with which they are affiliated.
    Together, these data collections provide views into complex
electric corporate activities. They serve to safeguard public and
private interests, as the FPA requires, by disclosing business
relationships to both the public and the Commission for analyses. The
public can file a complaint with the Commission if disclosures made
under these data collections provide evidence of corporate behavior
that violates Commission policy.
    The Commission can use its enforcement authority when violations
and omissions of FPA requirements occur.

    5. Summary of Public Comment and Agency Response to Comment:
    In accordance with OMB regulations in 5 CFR 1320.8(d), the
Commission's Notice to renew its OMB approval of FERC-520, Form 561 and
FERC-566 information collections was published in the Federal Register
on March 4, 2011. The Commission received one comment in response to
this notice from the Edison Electric Institute (EEI). A summary of the
comment and the Commission's response follow.
    EEI Comment. EEI suggests the Commission modify section 45.9 of its
regulations to expand the scope of automatic authorizations issued for
FERC-520 applications. EEI believes the Commission should permit
automatic authorization of (i) all interlocks between affiliated
companies within a holding company system that includes a public
utility under section 305(b) of the Federal Power Act; (ii) all
interlocks between public utilities that do not have captive customers
or own or operate transmission facilities and unaffiliated companies;
and (iii) all interlocks between franchised public utilities and
unaffiliated companies that agree to adopt the Commission's
restrictions on non-power goods and services transactions.
    In its comments, EEI refers to various sections of the preamble to
Order No. 446 as support for its request that automatic authorizations
of certain ``informational'' applications would not adversely affect
the public interest. EEI believes automatic reauthorizations would
reduce both the reporting burden of filers and the processing burden on
FERC staff resources.
    In its comments, EEI also points out a calculation error in FERC's
burden estimate. The FERC estimates the cost of preparing the FERC-566
as $68 per respondent per year, based on an estimated 6 hours per
response, 434 respondents filing once per year, and an average annual
staff salary of $142,372. However, using the stated information, the
average cost per response would be $411 (i.e., 6 hours per response/
2080 hours per year x $142,372 average salary). Further, EEI states
that one of its members has noted that it takes them 8 hours per
response and not 6 hours. EEI indicates this would raise this average
cost per response to $548 (i.e. (8 hours/6 hours) x $411).
    FERC Response. FERC notes EEI comments and shares its interest in
identifying and implementing burden reductions to the benefit of form
filers as well as FERC staff. In fact, burden reduction has been the
primary reason FERC has undertaken specific efforts over the last
several years to make greater use of IT and electronic filing.
Nevertheless, EEI's suggestions raise issues and implications that
would require FERC to explore and address them more appropriately in a
forum and process that is better suited to full public identification
and deliberation of any possible proposed and planned changes to
regulatory activities.
    As a separate matter, FERC has made the arithmetic correction to
the burden calculation in the March 2011 notice. However, FERC will not
change the number of hours per response based on the information EEI
provides. The EEI comment clearly states that it was only one of its
members who has noted its filing time is 2 hours longer than the 6
hours FERC estimates it takes filers to comply with the requirements of
FERC-566, on average. Because the estimate is an average, it is to be
expected that some filers will have a higher reporting burden while
others will have a lower one. Therefore, FERC does not see a reason to
change the FERC-566 average completion time of 6 hours.
    6. Respondents, Estimated Burden and Estimated Cost Burden to
Respondents: \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The figures may be rounded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FERC estimates for the annual burden follow.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Number of
                                                     respondents      Number of       Average      Total annual
               FERC data collection                   annually      responses per   burden hours   burden hours
                                                      (average)      respondent     per response
                                                              (1)             (2)         (3)        (1) x (2) x
                                                                                (3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERC-520.........................................         \2\ 406  ..............  .............          12,680
                                                          (total)
[cir] Full.......................................              29               1          51.8            1,502
[cir] Informational..............................             377               1          29.5           11,122
[cir] Notice of Change...........................             222               1            .25              56
Form 561.........................................           2,431               1            .25             608
FERC-566.........................................             434               1           6              2,604
                                                  --------------------------------------------------------------
    Total........................................  ..............  ..............  .............          15,892
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Annual cost estimates for these collections follow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This number of unique respondents corresponds to the number
of filers of full applications plus the number of informational
filers.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Total annual cost
                                       Annual cost         burden to
       FERC data collection            burden  per      respondents \3\
                                        respondent            \4\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERC-520..........................             $2,138           $867,922
FERC-561..........................                 17             41,616
FERC-566..........................                411            178,239
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. Reasons for Changes in Estimated Nos. of Annual Filings. A
concern developed in 2004 that FERC-520 applications for authorizations
to hold interlocked positions were not being filed before individuals
assumed the interlocked positions, as required. In response, the
Commission issued its June 2004 interlocking directorate

policy statement in Docket No. PL04-10-000 and Order No. 664 in
September 2005. The burden estimate for the FERC-520 in this request is
based on recent Commission experience and the actual number of FERC-520
filings made between 2008 and 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Estimated number of hours an employee works each year =
2,080. Estimated average annual cost per employee (including
overhead and benefits) = $142,372.
    \4\ The estimated total cost to respondents for these three
information collections is $1,087,777. In 2008, the estimated total
annual cost for these three collections was $1,605,745.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number of informational applications has increased steadily
from 87 in 2004 to 335 in 2010. The Commission began to separate the
FERC-520 filings by type of application in its OMB clearance estimates
in 2008 because the number of each type of application filed had been
changing significantly. Breaking the data out by type of filing allows
these changes to be easily seen. The last OMB clearance package divided
the FERC-520 filings only into two categories: full and informational
filings. Decreases in the number of full and informational applications
has necessitated the separate tracking and reporting of three types of
possible applications and the burden hours each imposes. Therefore,
this OMB clearance package adds Notice of Change filings, further
breaking down the categories of FERC-520 to capture, convey and begin
to analyze all types of FERC-520s.
    The decrease in the number of FERC-520 applications may be due to
directors retaining their positions longer because of the slow economy.
The number of FERC-566 filings increased by 44% because in December
2007 FERC sent out notices to those who were expected to file a FERC-
566 but did not during previous reporting years.
    There is a change in the annual cost estimates since the last
submission in 2008 due mainly to a decrease in the number of FERC-520
filers. However, the per-hour cost estimate for each collection has
increased since 2008 because the Commission is using an updated salary
estimate.
    The reporting burden includes the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide
the information including: (1) Reviewing instructions; (2) developing,
acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the
purposes of collecting, validating, verifying, processing, maintaining,
disclosing and providing information; (3) adjusting the existing ways
to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
(4) training personnel to respond to a collection of information; (5)
searching data sources; (6) completing and reviewing the collection of
information; and (7) transmitting or otherwise disclosing the
information.
    The estimate of cost for respondents is based upon salaries for
professional and clerical support, as well as direct and indirect
overhead costs. Direct costs include all costs directly attributable to
providing this information, such as administrative costs and the cost
for information technology. Indirect or overhead costs are costs
incurred by an organization in support of its mission. These costs
apply to activities which benefit the whole organization rather than
any one particular function or activity.
    Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collections of
information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions
of the Commission, including whether the information will have
practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the
burden of the proposed collections of information, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance
the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;
and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collections of information
on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection
techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting
electronic submission of responses.

    Dated: June 6, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-14508 Filed 6-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 7, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 76018]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30562]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0001]

Third Annual Sentinel Initiative Public Workshop

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of public workshop.

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

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the following
public workshop: Third Annual Sentinel Initiative Public Workshop.
Hosted by the Engelberg Center for Health Care Reform at The Brookings
Institution, this 1-day public workshop will bring together the
stakeholder community for a productive discussion on a variety of
topics in active medical product surveillance, including an update on
Mini-Sentinel and related activities, near-term plans for FDA's
Sentinel Initiative, and opportunities for coordination with other U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services efforts that use distributed
systems of automated health care data.
    Date and Time: The public workshop will be held on January 12,
2011, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
    Location: The public workshop will be held at the Renaissance
Dupont Hotel, 1143 New Hampshire Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20037.
    Contact: Kayla Garvin, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research,
Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm.
6331, Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Registration: To attend the public workshop, please register at
http://guest.cvent.com/d/hdq5r4/1Q. When registering, provide the
following information: Your name, title, company or organization (if
applicable), address, phone number, and e-mail address. There is no fee
to register for the public workshop, but because seating is limited,
registration will be on a first-come, first-served basis. A 1-hour
lunch break is scheduled; however, food will not be provided. There are
multiple restaurants within walking distance of the hotel where
attendees can get food. If you need special accommodations due to a
disability, please contact The Brookings Institution event coordinator
at<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>at least 7 days
in advance.
    Meeting Materials: Please be advised that as soon as workshop
materials are available, they will be accessible at The Brookings
Institution events Web site at http://www.brookings.edu//health/events.

    Dated: December 1, 2010.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-30562 Filed 12-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 25, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 24697]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9960]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER12-1566-000]

 Cooper Mountain Solar 2, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Cooper Mountain Solar 2, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is May 9, 2012.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 19, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-9960 Filed 4-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 234 (Thursday, December 6, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62949-62951]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26510]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2018-0077; Notice 1]

Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Cooper Tire & Rubber Company (Cooper Tire) has determined that
certain Cooper brand tires do not fully comply with Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 139, New Pneumatic Radial Tires for
Light Vehicles. Cooper Tire filed a noncompliance report dated May 4,
2018, and subsequently petitioned NHTSA on May 21, 2018, for a decision
that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to
motor vehicle safety.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is January 7,
2019.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and be
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver comments by hand to U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. The
Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except
Federal Holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Comments may also be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
    All comments and supporting materials received before the close of
business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the
docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the fullest extent possible.
    When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will
also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated at the end of this notice.
    All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials
submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and
times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for
accessing the dockets. The docket ID number for this petition is shown
in the heading of this notice.
    DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

    Cooper Tire has determined that certain Cooper brand tires do not
fully comply with paragraph S5.5.1 of FMVSS No. 139, New Pneumatic
Radial Tires for Light Vehicles (49 CFR part 571.139). Cooper Tire
filed a noncompliance report dated May 4, 2018, pursuant to 49 CFR part
573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports, and
subsequently petitioned NHTSA on May 21, 2018, pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
30118(d) and 49 CFR part 556, for an exemption from the notification
and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

    This notice of receipt of Cooper Tire's petition is published under
49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of this petition.

II. Tires Involved

    Approximately 327 Evolution H/T size 245/70R16 tubeless radial
tires, manufactured between June 4, 2017, and June 10, 2017, are
potentially involved.

III. Noncompliance

    Cooper Tire explains that the noncompliance is that the subject
tires were molded with an incorrectly ordered serial week and year on
the outboard sidewall as required by paragraph S5.5.1(b) of FMVSS No.
139. Specifically, the subject tires were manufactured with serial week
``1723'' when they should have been manufactured with serial week
``2317.''

IV. Rule Requirements

    Paragraph S5.5.1(b) of FMVSS No. 139, includes the requirements
relevant to this petition:
     For tires manufactured on or after September 1, 2009, each
tire must be labeled with the tire identification number required by 49
CFR part 574 on the intended outboard sidewall of the tire.
     Except for retreaded tires, if a tire does not have an
intended outboard sidewall, the tire must be labeled with the tire
identification number required by 49 CFR part 574 on one sidewall and
with either the tire identification number or a partial tire
identification number, containing all characters in the tire
identification number except for the date code and, at the discretion
of the manufacturer, any optional code, on the other side wall.

V. Summary of Petition

    Cooper Tire described the subject noncompliance and stated its
belief that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety.
    In support of its petition, Cooper Tire submitted the following
arguments:
    1. While the 327 tires in the subject population contain an
incorrectly ordered week and year for the fourth grouping of TIN
numbers, they are in all other respects properly labeled and meet all
performance requirements under the FMVSS's. The serial week of
manufacture has no bearing on the performance or operation of a tire
and does not create a safety concern to either the operator of the
vehicle on which the tires are mounted, or the safety of personnel in
the tire repair, retread, and recycle industry.
    2. Tire registration and traceability will not be interrupted.
Cooper Tire's internally controlled online registration system has been
modified to be able to accept the incorrectly ordered 1723 date code.
Any tires registered with that date code and TIN will be identified
properly as having been manufactured in the 23rd week of 2017. This
will ensure that Cooper Tire is able to identify these tires in the
event they must be recalled. If a recall is necessary, Cooper Tire will
explain the date issue in any recall notice.
    3. Cooper Tire can also confirm that it will not use the same full
Tire Identification Number in year 2023. Cooper Tire uses the third
grouping of numbers within the TIN to identify the SKU or make of the
tire, as is permitted at the option of the manufacturer under the
regulations. See 49 CFR 574.5(g)(3). In this case, lJ9 is the third
grouping and indicates that this tire is a Cooper Evolution H/T. While
Cooper Tire has not yet set its year 2023 production schedule, if
Cooper Evolution H/T tires are made in year 2023, Cooper Tire will
assign another unique identifier so that the tires made in year 2017
will be distinguishable from the tires made in year 2023. This will
eliminate the potential for SKUs produced in year 2017 to be confused
with those produced in year 2023, and will allow for Cooper Tire to
readily identify the 327 tires that are the subject of this petition.
    4. NHTSA has granted a number of previous inconsequentiality
petitions relating to mislabeled TINs, provided that the mislabeling
does not affect the manufacturer's ability to identify the tires. ``The
purpose of the date code is to identify a tire so that, if necessary,
the appropriate action can be taken in the interest of public safety
such as, a safety recall notice.'' Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.; Grant
of Application, 64 FR 29080 (May 28, 1999); see also Cooper Tire &
Rubber Company, Grant of Application, 68 FR 16115 (April 2, 2003)
(same). Accordingly, NHTSA has explained in multiple instances that
``[t]he agency believes that the true measure of inconsequentiality to
motor vehicle safety in this case is the effect of the noncompliance on
the ability of the tire manufacturer to identify the tires in the event
of recall.'' Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., Grant of Application, 66 FR
45076 (August 27, 2001). As a result, NHTSA has granted petitions and
found that TIN noncompliance is inconsequential to safety in cases
where the TIN is out of sequence or mislabeled, including where the
week and/or year of manufacture is mislabeled and even where the date
code is missing altogether. See, e.g., Bridgestone Firestone North
America Tire, LLC, Grant of Petition, 71 FR 4396 (January 26, 2006)
(granting petition where date code was missing because manufacturer
could still identify and recall the tires); Cooper Tire & Rubber
Company, Grant of Application, 68 FR 16115 (April 2, 2003) (granting
petition where tires were labeled with wrong plant code, because ``the
tires have a unique DOT identification''); Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.,
Grant of Application, 66 FR 45076 (Aug. 27, 2001) (granting petition
where the date code was labeled incorrectly, because ``the information
included on the tire identification label and the manufacturer's tire
production records is sufficient to ensure that these tires can be
identified in the event of a recall''); Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.;
Grant of Application, 64 FR 29080 (May 28, 1999) (granting petition
where the wrong year was marked in the date code on the tires); Cooper
Tire & Rubber Company; Grant of Application, 63 FR 29059 (May 27, 1998)
(granting petition where the date code was missing where tires had a
unique TIN for recall purposes); Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.,[middot]
Grant of Application, 60 FR 57617 (November 16, 1995) (granting
petition where the date code was out of sequence); Uniroyal Goodrich
Tire Company; Grant of Petition, 59 FR. 64232 (December 13, 1994)
(granting petition where week and year were mislabeled on tires). As
with other cases in which NHTSA has granted petitions for a
determination of inconsequential noncompliance, Cooper Tire will be
able identify the tires that are the subject of this petition in the
event of recall. As described above, these tires will have a unique DOT
identifier that will allow for Cooper Tire to identify and recall them
in the event that any issues arise in the future.
    5. Cooper Tire has taken steps over the last two years to add
additional checks in its processes to prevent TIN errors. For example,
Cooper Tire has implemented software that allows for a specific plant
to choose only its plant code from a drop-down menu when engraving that
portion of the TIN. Date codes are updated on a weekly basis and often
produced in advance of the serial week. The serial week and year is
manually entered in the system and then engraved on a plug for use.
Cooper Tire is working to prevent future issues and evaluating the
possibility of additional technology which will restrict the selection
of date codes to a contained period of time. Cooper Tire is

also reviewing its inspection processes to ensure that errors of this
sort are identified earlier in the process.
    Cooper Tire concluded by expressing the belief that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety,
and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
    Cooper Tire's complete petition and all supporting documents are
available by logging onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS)
website at: https://www.regulations.gov and by following the online
search instructions to locate the docket number as listed in the title
of this notice.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject tires that Cooper Tire no
longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance
existed. However, any decision on this petition does not relieve
vehicle distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer
for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant tires under their control after Cooper
Tire notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

Claudia W. Covell,
Acting Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2018-26510 Filed 12-4-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 20 (Tuesday, February 2, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7909-7913]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02118]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-91000; File No. SR-CboeEDGA-2021-003]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend the Fee Schedule

January 27, 2021.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act''),\2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on January 13, 2021, Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. (the
``Exchange'' or ``EDGA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange

Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``EDGA'') is filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed
rule change to amend the fee schedule applicable to Members and non-
Members of the Exchange pursuant to EDGA Rules 15.1(a) and (c). Changes
to the fee schedule pursuant to this proposal are effective upon
filing. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/regulation/rule_filings/edga/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, 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
    The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule by (1) eliminating
certain routing fee codes and (2) amending an Add/Remove Volume
Tier.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange initially filed the proposed fee changes
January 4, 2021 (SR-CboeEDGA-2021-001). On January 13, 2021, the
Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the
Exchange is only one of 16 registered equities exchanges, as well as a
number of alternative trading systems and other off-exchange venues
that do not have similar self-regulatory responsibilities under the
Exchange Act, to which market participants may direct their order flow.
Based on publicly available information,\5\ no single registered
equities exchange has more than 16% of the market share. Thus, in such
a low-concentrated and highly competitive market, no single equities
exchange possesses significant pricing power in the execution of order
flow. The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among
the exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants
can shift order flow or discontinue to reduce use of certain categories
of products, in response to fee changes. Accordingly, competitive
forces constrain the Exchange's transaction fees, and market
participants can readily trade on competing venues if they deem pricing
levels at those other venues to be more favorable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Cboe Global Markets, U.S. Equities Market Volume
Summary, Month-to-Date (December 29, 2020), available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_statistics/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal To Remove Certain Routing Fee Codes
    The Exchange assesses fees in connection with orders routed away to
various exchanges. As a result of minimal use in the last months, the
Exchange proposes to eliminate the following routing fee codes
currently under the Fee Codes and Associated Fees section of the Fee
Schedule:
     Fee code 8, which is appended to Members' orders routed to
NYSE American that adds liquidity and assesses a charge of $0.00020 per
contract for orders in securities priced at or above $1.00 and assesses
no charge for orders in securities priced below $1.00;
     Fee code K, which is appended to Members' orders routed to
PSX using the ROUC \6\ routing strategy and assesses a charge of
$0.00290 per contract for orders in securities priced at or above $1.00
and assesses a charge of 30% of the dollar value per contract for
orders in securities priced below $1.00; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The ROUC routing strategy is a routing strategy under which
an order checks the System for available shares and then is sent to
destinations on the System routing table, Nasdaq OMX BX, and NYSE.
See Rule 11.11(g)(1); see also Cboe Routing Strategies, FIX/BOE
Routing Tags and Instructions, available at: https://cdn.cboe.com/resources/features/Cboe_USE_RoutingStrategies.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Fee code MX, which is appended to Members' orders routed
to NYSE American using the ROBB, ROCO \7\ or ROUC routing strategy and
assesses a charge of $0.00020 per contract for orders in securities
priced at or above $1.00 and assesses no charge for orders in
securities priced below $1.00.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The ROBB and ROCO routing strategies are routing strategies
which check the System for available shares and then are sent to
destinations on the System routing table. See Rule 11.11(g)(3); see
also Cboe Routing Strategies, FIX/BOE Routing Tags and Instructions,
available at: https://cdn.cboe.com/resources/features/Cboe_USE_RoutingStrategies.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has observed a minimal amount of volume in recent
months in orders yielding fee codes 8, K or MX. In particular, over the
last six months the Exchange observed that orders yielding fee code MX
accounted for approximately only 0.80% of all routed order volume,
orders yielding fee code K accounted for approximately only 0.01% of
all routed order volume, and there was only one contract executed from
an order yielding fee code 8. The Exchange believes that, because so
few Users elect to route their orders with specifications to which fee
codes 8, K or MX, the current demand does not warrant the
infrastructure and ongoing Systems maintenance required to support
these separate fee codes. Therefore, the Exchange now proposes to
delete fee codes 8, K and MX in the Fee Schedule. The Exchange notes
that Users will continue to be able to choose to route their orders
with the same specifications to which fee codes 8, K and MX currently
apply--such orders will simply be assessed the fees currently in place
for routed orders generally.\8\ That is, if any of the routed orders to
which fee code K or MX currently apply are submitted in the pre- or
post-market sessions that remove liquidity,\9\ then fee code 7 will
apply, which is appended to Members' routed orders in the pre- or post-
market sessions and assesses a charge of $0.00300 per contract for
orders in securities priced at or above $1.00 and assesses a charge of
30% of the dollar value per contract for orders in securities priced
below $1.00. Fee code X will be appended to routed orders not

submitted during the pre- or post-market sessions to which fee code K
or MX currently apply and to routed orders to which fee code 8
currently applies. Fee code X currently assesses a charge of $0.00300
per contract for orders in securities priced at or above $1.00 and
assesses a charge of 30% of the dollar value per contract for orders in
securities priced below $1.00. The Exchange notes that rates applicable
to orders yielding fee codes 7 and X are the standard routing fees
pursuant to the Standard Rates section of the Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange notes that there are other fee codes that apply
to certain other routing specifications, however, those routed
orders not otherwise specified in such other routing fee code
descriptions yield the general routing fee codes 7 or X.
    \9\ Fee code 7 is currently appended to all routed orders in the
pre- or post-market session that remove liquidity. The proposed rule
change updates the description associated with fee code 7 to clarify
in the description that such orders remove liquidity. This update
does not alter the orders to which fee code 7 currently applies but
merely makes it clear in the Fee Schedule that fee code 7 applies to
qualifying routed orders that remove liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal To Amend Add/Remove Volume Tier
    In response to the competitive environment described above, the
Exchange offers tiered pricing which provides Members opportunities to
qualify for higher rebates or reduced fees where certain volume
criteria and thresholds are met. Tiered pricing provides incremental
incentives for Members to strive for higher or different tier levels by
offering increasingly higher discounts or enhanced benefits for
satisfying increasingly more stringent criteria or different criteria.
Competing equity exchanges offer similar tiered pricing structures,
including schedules of rebates and fees that apply based upon members
achieving certain volume and/or growth thresholds, as well as assess
similar fees or rebates for similar types of orders, to that of the
Exchange. These competing pricing schedules, moreover, are presently
comparable to those that the Exchange provides.
    The Exchange currently provides for such tiers pursuant to footnote
7 of the fee schedule, which currently offers various different Add/
Remove Volume Tiers. Specifically, Tier 2 provides an opportunity for
Members to receive reduced fee of $0.0016 per contract for qualifying
liquidity adding orders (i.e., yielding fee codes 3,\10\ 4,\11\ B,\12\
V,\13\ and Y \14\), where a Member adds or removes an ADV \15\ of
greater than or equal to 65% of TCV.\16\ The Exchange proposes to amend
Add/Remove Volume Tier 2 to reduce the ADV percentage of TCV from 65%
to 60%. By reducing the percentage of ADV over TCV that a Member must
meet to receive a reduced fee under Tier 2, the proposed change eases
the difficulty of the tier's criteria by a modest amount, which, the
Exchange believes will incentive Members to increase their overall
order flow, both adding and removing orders, in order to achieve the
criteria under Tier 2 and receive the current reduced fee, which is
remaining unchanged. The Exchange believes this may further incentivize
liquidity adding Members on the Exchange to contribute to a deeper,
more liquid market, and liquidity executing Members on the Exchange to
increase transactions and take execution opportunities provided by such
increased liquidity. The Exchange believes that this, in turn, benefits
all Members by contributing towards a robust and well-balanced market
ecosystem. The Exchange notes the proposed tier continues to be
available to all Members and is competitively achievable for all
Members that submit add and/or remove order flow, in that, all firms
that submit the requisite order flow may compete to meet the tier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Appended to orders that add liquidity to EDGA, pre and post
market (Tapes A or C) and assesses a standard fee of $0.00300.
    \11\ Appended to orders that add liquidity to EDGA, pre and post
market (Tape B) and assesses a standard fee of $0.00300.
    \12\ Appended to orders that add liquidity to EDGA (Tape B) and
assesses a standard fee of $0.00300.
    \13\ Appended to orders that add liquidity to EDGA (Tape A) and
assesses a standard fee of $0.00300.
    \14\ Appended to orders that add liquidity to EDGA (Tape C) and
assesses a standard fee of $0.00300.
    \15\ ADV means daily volume calculated as the number of shares
added to, removed from, or routed by, the Exchange, or any
combination or subset thereof, per day. ADV is calculated on a
monthly basis.
    \16\ TCV means total consolidated volume calculated as the
volume reported by all exchanges and trade reporting facilities to a
consolidated transaction reporting plan for the month for which the
fees apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\17\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\18\ in particular, as it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its Members and issuers and other persons
using its facilities. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \19\
requirements that the rules of an exchange be 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 mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest, and, particularly, is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange again notes that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or incentives to be insufficient. The proposed rule change
reflects a competitive pricing structure designed to incentivize market
participants to direct their order flow to the Exchange, which the
Exchange believes would enhance market quality to the benefit of all
Members.
    In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change to
remove fee codes 8, K and MX is reasonable as the Exchange has observed
a minimal amount of volume in orders yielding these fee codes and,
therefore, the continuation of these fee codes does not warrant the
infrastructure and ongoing Systems maintenance required to support
separate fee codes for specific routed orders. As such, the Exchange
also believes that is reasonable and equitable to assess routed orders
which meet the specifications to which fee codes 8, K and MX are
currently applicable the slightly higher standard routing fee currently
in place for all other routed orders--via fee codes 7 or X, as
applicable. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because Members will continue
to have the option to elect to route their orders in the same manner
(i.e., routed to NYSE American that add liquidity, routed to PSX using
the ROUC routing strategy, routed to NYSE American using the ROBB, ROCO
or ROUC routing strategy) will be automatically and uniformly assessed
the applicable standard rates in place for generally all other routed
orders.\20\ Further, if members do not favor the Exchange's pricing for
routed orders, they can send their routable orders directly to away
markets instead of using routing functionality provided by the
Exchange. Routing through the Exchange is optional, and the Exchange
operates in a competitive environment where market participants can
readily direct order flow to competing venues or providers of routing
services if they deem fee levels to be excessive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change to amend the
criteria in Add/Remove Volume Tier 2 is reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange believes

that easing the difficulty in reaching the criteria by a modest amount
is reasonably designed to provide further incentive for Members to
submit both adding and removing order flow to the Exchange in order to
receive the reduced fee currently offered under Tier 2. The Exchange
notes that the amount of the reduced fee offered is not changing. The
Exchange believes the slight decrease in criteria difficulty under Tier
2 may further incentivize liquidity adding Members on the Exchange to
contribute to a deeper, more liquid market, and liquidity executing
Members on the Exchange to increase transactions and take execution
opportunities provided by such increased liquidity. The Exchange
believes that this, in turn, benefits all Members by contributing
towards a robust and well-balanced market ecosystem. The Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because all Members will continue to be eligible for the
Add/Remove Volume Tier 2 and will continue to have the opportunity to
meet the tier's criteria and receive the current reduced fee if such
criteria is met. Without having a view of activity on other markets and
off-exchange venues, the Exchange has no way of knowing whether this
proposed rule change would definitely result in any Members qualifying
for Add/Remove Volume Tier 2, as amended. While the Exchange has no way
of predicting with certainty how the proposed tier will impact Member
activity, the Exchange does not anticipate that the proposed criteria
would impact any of the Members that are currently able to compete for
and reach Tier 2 and would merely provide the opportunity for
additional Members to be able to compete for and reach the proposed
tier. The Exchange also notes that proposed Add/Remove Volume Tier 2
will not adversely impact any Member's pricing or their ability to
qualify for other reduced fee or enhanced rebate tiers. Should a Member
not meet the proposed criteria under the proposed tier, the Member will
merely not receive that reduced fee. As stated, the reduced fee offered
under Tier 2 remains unchanged and it will continue to uniformly apply
to all Members that meet the required criteria, as amended, under Tier
2.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not
believe the proposed rule change to remove fee codes 8, K or MX will
impose any burden on intramarket competition because all Members orders
that would yield current fee codes 8, K or MX, will automatically and
uniformly be assessed the fees already in place for routed orders
generally,\21\ as applicable (i.e., fee codes 7 or X). Further, the
Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change to amend Add/
Remove Volume Tier 2 will impose any burden on intramarket competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act because the proposed change applies to all Members equally in
that all Members will continue to be eligible for the proposed Add/
Remove Volume Tier 2, have a reasonable opportunity to meet the tier's
criteria, as amended, and will all receive the current reduced fee if
such criteria is met. As describe above, the proposed Tier 2 criteria
is designed to attract additional order flow to the Exchange,
incentivizing market participants to direct liquidity and executing
order flow to the Exchange, bringing with it improved price
transparency and more trading opportunities to the benefit of all
market participants on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange
again notes that orders that meet the specifications to which fee codes
8, K or MX would currently apply, will yield the same fee codes and be
assessed the same corresponding rates that are already in place in the
Fee Schedule for routed orders generally, as previously filed with the
Commission. In addition to this, the Exchange also notes again that
competing equity exchanges offer similar tiered pricing structures,
including schedules of rebates and fees that apply based upon members
achieving certain volume and/or growth thresholds, as well as assess
similar fees or rebates for similar types of orders, to that of the
Exchange. Also, as previously discussed, the Exchange operates in a
highly competitive market. Members have numerous alternative venues
that they may participate on and director their order flow, including
15 other options exchanges and off-exchange venues. Additionally, the
Exchange represents a small percentage of the overall market. Based on
publicly available information, no single options exchange has more
than 16% of the market share.\22\ Therefore, no exchange possesses
significant pricing power in the execution of option order flow.
Indeed, participants can readily choose to send their orders to other
exchange and off-exchange venues if they deem fee levels at those other
venues to be more favorable. Moreover, the Commission has repeatedly
expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention
in determining prices, products, and services in the securities
markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted
the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues
and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system
``has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its
broader forms that are most important to investors and listed
companies.'' \23\ The fact that this market is competitive has also
long been recognized by the courts. In NetCoalition v. Securities and
Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit stated as follows: ``[n]o one
disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC
explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of
securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing
agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for
execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share
percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly,
regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker
dealers'. . . .''.\24\ Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe its
proposed fee change imposes any burden on competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See supra note 5.
    \23\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
    \24\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \25\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \26\ thereunder, because it establishes a due,

fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \26\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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) \27\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 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-CboeEDGA-2021-003 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-CboeEDGA-2021-003. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CboeEDGA-2021-003, and should be
submitted on or before February 23, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\28\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-02118 Filed 2-1-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


                                 Attachment E

     Work Sheets used to Calculate EPA and Federal Government Labor Costs
This attachment is available as part of the electronic docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0266 and is part of the ICR's Supporting Statement

NAICS: 999100
Federal Executive Branch
Labor Category:
Formula
                                  Managerial
                                   Technical
                                   Clerical
Unloaded Hourly Rate1
 = W
                                    $59.25
                                    $37.63
                                    $21.37
Benefits Percentage2
Lb = B/W
                                     46.5%
                                     46.5%
                                     46.5%
Benefits per hour
B = W*Lb
                                    $27.53
                                    $17.49
                                    $9.93
Loaded Hourly Rate
Wb = W + B = W(1+Lb)
                                    $86.78
                                    $55.12
                                    $31.30
Overhead Percentage3
Lo = OH/Wb
                                      50%
                                      50%
                                      50%
Overhead per hour
OH = Wb*Lo
                                    $43.39
                                    $27.56
                                    $15.65
Fully Loaded Hourly Rate
Wf = Wb + OH
 = W + B + OH
                                   $130.17
                                    $82.67
                                    $46.95

1.  Data Source:  BLS http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_999100.htm     May 2017 data
     NAICS  999100 -  Federal Executive Branch
     Standard Occupational Codes:
       Management:   11-0000, Management Occupations
       Technical:        19-0000, Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations
       Clerical:           43-0000, Office and Administrative Support Occupations
2. Fringe benefits/wage per hour.
3. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, Sixth Edition, EPA-452-02-001, January 2002, pg. 2-34.  The loading for indirect costs is within the range of 20-70% of the load labor rate (wage + benefits) suggested in EPA guidance.