[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 20, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28582-28586]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13146]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0187; FRL-9979-62--Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; Tennessee; Regional Haze Plan and Prong 4
(Visibility) for the 2012 PM2.5, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to take
the following four actions regarding the Tennessee State Implementation
Plan (SIP): approve Tennessee's November 22, 2017, SIP submittal
seeking to change reliance from the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) for certain regional haze
requirements; convert EPA's limited approval/limited disapproval of
Tennessee's regional haze plan to a full approval; remove EPA's Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) for Tennessee which replaced reliance on CAIR
with reliance on CSAPR to address the deficiencies identified in the
limited disapproval of Tennessee's regional haze plan; and convert the
conditional approvals of the visibility prong of Tennessee's
infrastructure SIP submittals for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter
(PM2.5), 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), and 2010
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) to full approvals.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 20, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No EPA-R04-
OAR-2018-0187 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michele Notarianni, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Ms. Notarianni can be reached by telephone at (404) 562-
9031 or via electronic mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Regional Haze Plans and Their Relationship With CAIR and CSAPR

    Section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requires
states to submit regional haze plans that contain such measures as may
be necessary to make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility
goal, including a requirement that certain categories of existing major
stationary sources built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and
operate Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) as determined by the
state. Under the Regional Haze Rule (RHR), states are directed to
conduct BART determinations for such ``BART-eligible'' sources that may
be anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a
Class I area. Rather than requiring source-specific BART controls,
states also have the flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program
or other alternative program as long as the alternative provides
greater reasonable progress towards improving visibility than BART. See
40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). EPA provided states with this flexibility in the
RHR, adopted in 1999, and further refined the criteria for assessing
whether an alternative program provides for greater reasonable progress
in two subsequent rulemakings. See 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999); 70 FR
39104 (July 6, 2005); 71 FR 60612 (October 13, 2006).
    EPA demonstrated that CAIR would achieve greater reasonable
progress than BART in revisions to the regional haze program made in
2005.\1\ See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). In those revisions, EPA
amended its regulations to provide that states participating in the
CAIR cap-and-trade programs pursuant to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP or
states that remain subject to a CAIR FIP need not require affected
BART-eligible electric generating units (EGUs) to install, operate, and
maintain BART for emissions of SO2 and nitrogen oxides
(NOX). As a result of EPA's determination that CAIR was
``better-than-BART,'' a number of states in the CAIR region, including
Tennessee, relied on the CAIR cap-and-trade programs as an alternative
to BART for EGU emissions of SO2 and NOX in
designing their regional haze plans. These states also relied on CAIR
as an element of a long-term strategy (LTS) for achieving their
reasonable progress goals (RPGs) for their regional haze programs.
However, in 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) remanded CAIR to EPA without vacatur
to preserve the environmental benefits provided by CAIR. North Carolina
v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008). On August 8, 2011 (76 FR
48208), acting on the D.C. Circuit's remand, EPA promulgated CSAPR to
replace CAIR and issued FIPs to implement the rule in CSAPR-subject
states.\2\ Implementation of CSAPR was scheduled to begin on January 1,
2012, when CSAPR would have superseded the CAIR program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ CAIR created regional cap-and-trade programs to reduce
SO2 and NOx emissions in 27 eastern states (and the
District of Columbia), including Tennessee, that contributed to
downwind nonattainment or interfered with maintenance of the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS or the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    \2\ CSAPR requires 28 eastern states to limit their statewide
emissions of SO2 and/or NOX in order to
mitigate transported air pollution unlawfully impacting other
states' ability to attain or maintain four NAAQS: The 1997 ozone
NAAQS, the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The CSAPR
emissions limitations are defined in terms of maximum statewide
``budgets'' for emissions of annual SO2, annual
NOX, and/or ozone-season NOX by each covered
state's large EGUs. The CSAPR state budgets are implemented in two
phases of generally increasing stringency, with the Phase 1 budgets
applying to emissions in 2015 and 2016 and the Phase 2 budgets
applying to emissions in 2017 and later years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to the D.C. Circuit's 2008 ruling that CAIR was ``fatally
flawed'' and its resulting status as a temporary measure following that
ruling, EPA could not fully approve regional haze plans to the extent
that they relied on CAIR to satisfy the BART requirement and the
requirement for a LTS sufficient to achieve the state-adopted RPGs. On
these grounds, on June 7, 2012 (77 FR 33642), EPA promulgated a FIP to
replace reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR to address the
deficiencies in Tennessee's regional haze plan. EPA finalized a limited
approval and a limited disapproval of Tennessee's regional haze plan on
April 24, 2012 (77 FR 24392). EPA's limited approval finalized the
determination that Tennessee's regional haze plan met the remaining
applicable regional haze requirements set forth in the CAA and the
RHR.\3\ EPA's limited disapproval was issued due to the deficiencies in
Tennessee's regional haze plan created by the plan's reliance on CAIR
for certain regional haze requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In the April 24, 2012, final rule, EPA took action on the
entire Tennessee regional haze plan submitted on April 4, 2008,
except for the BART determination for Eastman Chemical Company
(Eastman). On November 27, 2012, EPA finalized approval of the BART
requirements for Eastman that were provided in the State's April 4,
2008, regional haze plan, as later modified and supplemented on May
14, 2012, and May 25, 2012. See 77 FR 70689.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the June 7, 2012, action, EPA also amended the RHR to provide
that participation by a state's EGUs in a CSAPR trading program for a
given pollutant--either a CSAPR federal trading program implemented
through a CSAPR FIP or an integrated CSAPR state trading program
implemented through an approved CSAPR SIP revision--qualifies as a BART
alternative for those EGUs for that pollutant. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4).
Since EPA promulgated this amendment, numerous states covered by CSAPR
have come to rely on the provision through either SIPs or FIPs.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EPA has promulgated FIPs relying on CSAPR participation for
BART purposes for Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan,
Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia,
and West Virginia, 77 FR at 33654, and Nebraska, 77 FR 40150, 40151
(July 6, 2012). EPA has approved SIPs from several states relying on
CSAPR participation for BART purposes. See, e.g., 82 FR 47393
(October 12, 2017) for Alabama; 77 FR 34801 (June 12, 2012) for
Minnesota; and 77 FR 46952 (August 7, 2012) for Wisconsin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Numerous parties filed petitions for review of CSAPR in the D.C.
Circuit, and on August 21, 2012, the court issued its ruling, vacating
and remanding CSAPR to EPA and ordering continued implementation of
CAIR. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir.
2012). The D.C. Circuit's vacatur of CSAPR was reversed by the United
States Supreme Court on April 29, 2014, and the case was remanded to
the D.C. Circuit to resolve remaining issues in accordance with the
high court's ruling. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct.
1584 (2014). On remand, the D.C. Circuit affirmed CSAPR in most
respects, but invalidated without vacating some of the CSAPR budgets to
a number of states. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d
118 (D.C. Cir. 2015). The remanded budgets include the Phase 2
SO2 emissions budgets for Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, and
Texas and the Phase 2 ozone-season NOx budgets for 11 states. This
litigation ultimately delayed implementation of CSAPR for three years,
from January 1, 2012, when CSAPR's cap-and-trade programs were
originally scheduled to replace the CAIR cap-and-trade programs, to
January 1, 2015. Thus, the rule's Phase 2 budgets that were originally
promulgated to begin on January 1, 2014, began on January 1, 2017.
    On September 29, 2017 (82 FR 45481), EPA issued a final rule
affirming the continued validity of the Agency's 2012 determination
that participation in CSAPR meets the RHR's criteria for an alternative
to the application of source-

specific BART.\5\ EPA has determined that changes to CSAPR's geographic
scope resulting from the actions EPA has taken or expects to take in
response to the D.C. Circuit's budget remand do not affect the
continued validity of participation in CSAPR as a BART alternative,
because the changes in geographic scope would not have adversely
affected the results of the air quality modeling analysis upon which
EPA based the 2012 determination. EPA's September 29, 2017,
determination was based, in part, on EPA's final action approving a SIP
revision from Alabama (81 FR 59869 (August 31, 2016)) adopting Phase 2
annual NOX and SO2 budgets equivalent to the
federally-developed budgets and on SIP revisions submitted by Georgia
and South Carolina to also adopt Phase 2 annual NOX and
SO2 budgets equivalent to the federally-developed
budgets.\6\ Since that time, EPA has approved the SIP revisions from
Georgia and South Carolina. See 82 FR 47930 (October 13, 2017) and 82
FR 47936 (October 13, 2017), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Legal challenges to this rule are pending. Nat'l Parks
Conservation Ass'n v. EPA, No. 17-1253 (D.C. Cir. filed November 28,
2017).
    \6\ EPA proposed to approve the Georgia and South Carolina SIP
revisions adopting CSAPR budgets on August 16, 2017 (82 FR 38866),
and August 10, 2017 (82 FR 37389), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tennessee's November 22, 2017, SIP submittal seeks to correct the
deficiencies identified in the April 24, 2012, limited disapproval of
its regional haze plan submitted on April 4, 2008, by replacing
reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR. EPA is proposing to approve
Tennessee's request that EPA amend the State's regional haze plan by
replacing its reliance on CAIR with CSAPR. EPA is proposing to approve
this SIP submittal and amend the SIP accordingly.

B. Infrastructure SIPs

    By statute, plans meeting the requirements of sections 110(a)(1)
and (2) of the CAA are to be submitted by states within three years (or
less, if the Administrator so prescribes) after promulgation of a new
or revised NAAQS to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of the new or revised NAAQS. EPA has historically referred
to these SIP submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the
requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure
SIP'' submissions. Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require states to address
basic SIP elements such as for monitoring, basic program requirements,
and legal authority that are designed to assure attainment and
maintenance of the newly established or revised NAAQS. More
specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing
requirements for infrastructure SIP submissions. Section 110(a)(2)
lists specific elements that states must meet for the infrastructure
SIP requirements related to a newly established or revised NAAQS. The
contents of an infrastructure SIP submission may vary depending upon
the data and analytical tools available to the state, as well as the
provisions already contained in the state's implementation plan at the
time in which the state develops and submits the submission for a new
or revised NAAQS.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D) has two components: 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and
110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four distinct
components, commonly referred to as ``prongs,'' that must be addressed
in infrastructure SIP submissions. The first two prongs, which are
codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), are provisions that prohibit
any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from
contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another
state (prong 1) and from interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in
another state (prong 2). The third and fourth prongs, which are
codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are provisions that prohibit
emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures required
to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in another state
(prong 3) or from interfering with measures to protect visibility in
another state (prong 4). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to
include provisions ensuring compliance with sections 115 and 126 of the
Act, relating to interstate and international pollution abatement.
    Through this action, EPA is proposing to convert the conditional
approvals of the prong 4 portions of Tennessee's infrastructure SIP
submissions for the 2010 1-hour NO2, 2010 1-hour
SO2, and 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS to full
approvals, as discussed in section III of this document.\7\ All other
applicable infrastructure SIP requirements for these SIP submissions
have been or will be addressed in separate rulemakings. A brief
background regarding the NAAQS relevant to this proposal is provided
below. For comprehensive information on these NAAQS, please refer to
the Federal Register documents cited in the following subsections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ On June 15, 2017, EPA conditionally approved the prong 4
portions of Tennessee's infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010
1-hour NO2, 2010 1-hour SO2, and 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. See 82 FR 27428.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
    On June 2, 2010, EPA revised the 1-hour primary SO2
NAAQS to an hourly standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb) based on a 3-
year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum
concentrations. See 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). States were required
to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than June 2, 2013. Tennessee
submitted an infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS on March 13, 2014. This proposed action only
addresses the prong 4 element of that submission.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ With the exception of the interstate transport requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1, 2, and 4), the
other portions of Tennessee's March 13, 2014, 2010 1-hour
SO2 infrastructure submission were addressed in a
separate action. See 81 FR 85410 (November 28, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS
    On January 22, 2010, EPA promulgated a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for
NO2 at a level of 100 ppb, based on a 3-year average of the
98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum
concentrations. See 75 FR 6474 (February 9, 2010). States were required
to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 1-hour
NO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than January 22, 2013. Tennessee
submitted an infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 1-hour
NO2 NAAQS on March 13, 2014. This proposed action only
addresses the prong 4 element of that submission.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ With the exception of the PSD permitting requirements for
major sources of sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i), and (J),
and the interstate transport provisions of prong 4 of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i), the other portions of Tennessee's March 13, 2014,
2010 1-hour NO2 infrastructure submission were addressed
in a separate action. See 82 FR 3639 (January 12, 2017). On March
18, 2015, EPA approved Tennessee's March 13, 2014, infrastructure
SIP submission regarding the PSD permitting requirements for major
sources of sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i), and (J) for the
2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. See 80 FR 14019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
    On December 14, 2012, EPA revised the annual primary
PM2.5 NAAQS to 12.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\).
See 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013). States were required to submit
infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS to
EPA no later than December 14, 2015. Tennessee submitted an
infrastructure SIP submission for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS on
December 16, 2015. This proposed

action only addresses the prong 4 element of that submission.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ With the exception of the interstate transport requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1, 2, and 4), the
other portions of Tennessee's December 16, 2015, PM2.5
infrastructure submission were addressed in a separate action. See
82 FR 21706 (May 10, 2017). No action has been taken with respect to
prongs 1 and 2 for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What are the prong 4 requirements?

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires a state's implementation
plan to contain provisions prohibiting sources in that state from
emitting pollutants in amounts that interfere with any other state's
efforts to protect visibility under part C of the CAA (which includes
sections 169A and 169B). EPA most recently issued guidance for
infrastructure SIPs on September 13, 2013 (2013 Guidance).\11\ The 2013
Guidance states that these prong 4 requirements can be satisfied by
approved SIP provisions that EPA has found to adequately address any
contribution of that state's sources that impacts the visibility
program requirements in other states. The 2013 Guidance also states
that EPA interprets this prong to be pollutant-specific, such that the
infrastructure SIP submission need only address the potential for
interference with protection of visibility caused by the pollutant
(including precursors) to which the new or revised NAAQS applies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan
(SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2),'' Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2013 Guidance lays out how a state's infrastructure SIP
submission may satisfy prong 4. One way that a state can meet the
requirements is via confirmation in its infrastructure SIP submission
that the state has an approved regional haze plan that fully meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 or 51.309. 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309
specifically require that a state participating in a regional planning
process include all measures needed to achieve its apportionment of
emission reduction obligations agreed upon through that process. A
fully approved regional haze plan will ensure that emissions from
sources under an air agency's jurisdiction are not interfering with
measures required to be included in other air agencies' plans to
protect visibility.
    Alternatively, in the absence of a fully approved regional haze
plan, a state may meet the requirements of prong 4 through a
demonstration in its infrastructure SIP submission that emissions
within its jurisdiction do not interfere with other air agencies' plans
to protect visibility. Such an infrastructure SIP submission would need
to include measures to limit visibility-impairing pollutants and ensure
that the reductions conform with any mutually agreed regional haze RPGs
for mandatory Class I areas in other states.

III. What is EPA's analysis of how Tennessee addressed prong 4 and
regional haze?

    As noted in the infrastructure SIP portion of Tennessee's November
22, 2017, SIP revision, the State's March 13, 2014, 2010 1-hour
NO2 and 2010 1-hour SO2 submission, and December
16, 2015, 2012 annual PM2.5 submission rely on the State
having a fully approved regional haze plan to satisfy its prong 4
requirements. However, EPA has not fully approved Tennessee's regional
haze plan as the Agency issued a limited disapproval of the State's
original regional haze plan on April 24, 2012, due to its reliance on
CAIR. On December 7, 2016, Tennessee submitted a commitment letter to
EPA to submit a SIP revision that revises its regional haze plan to
replace reliance on CAIR with CSAPR for certain regional haze
provisions.\12\ In its letter, Tennessee committed to providing this
SIP revision within one year of EPA's final conditional approval of the
prong 4 portions of the infrastructure SIP revisions. On June 15, 2017
(82 FR 27428), EPA conditionally approved the prong 4 portion of
Tennessee's infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 1-hour
NO2, 2010 1-hour SO2, and 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS based on this commitment letter from the State.
In accordance with the State's December 7, 2016, commitment letter,
Tennessee submitted a SIP revision on November 22, 2017, to replace
reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR for certain regional haze
provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Tennessee's December 7, 2016, commitment letter is included
in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is proposing to approve the State's November 22, 2017, SIP
revision replacing reliance on CAIR with CSAPR, and to convert EPA's
previous action on Tennessee's regional haze plan from a limited
approval/limited disapproval to a full approval because final approval
of the SIP revision would correct the deficiencies that led to EPA's
limited approval/limited disapproval of the State's regional haze plan.
Specifically, EPA's approval of Tennessee's November 22, 2017, SIP
revision would satisfy the SO2 and NOX BART
requirements and first implementation period SO2 reasonable
progress requirements for EGUs formerly subject to CAIR and the
requirement that a LTS include measures as necessary to achieve the
state-adopted RPGs. Thus, EPA is also proposing to remove EPA's FIP for
Tennessee which replaced reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR to
address the deficiencies identified in the limited disapproval of
Tennessee's regional haze plan. Because a state may satisfy prong 4
requirements through a fully approved regional haze plan, EPA is
therefore also proposing to convert the conditional approvals to full
approvals of the prong 4 portion of Tennessee's March 13, 2014, 2010 1-
hour NO2 and 2010 1-hour SO2 submission, and
December 16, 2015, 2012 annual PM2.5 submission.

IV. Proposed Action

    As described above, EPA is proposing to take the following actions:
(1) Approve Tennessee's November 22, 2017, SIP submission to change
reliance from CAIR to CSAPR in its regional haze plan; (2) convert
EPA's limited approval/limited disapproval of Tennessee's April 4,
2008, regional haze plan to a full approval; (3) remove EPA's FIP for
Tennessee which replaced reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR to
address the deficiencies identified in the limited disapproval of
Tennessee's regional haze plan; and (4) convert EPA's June 15, 2017,
conditional approvals to full approvals of the prong 4 portion of
Tennessee's March 13, 2014, 2010 1-hour NO2 and 2010 1-hour
SO2 submission, and December 16, 2015, 2012 annual
PM2.5 submission. All other applicable infrastructure
requirements for the infrastructure SIP submissions have been or will
be addressed in separate rulemakings.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. These actions merely
propose to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and remove
a FIP and do not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. For that reason, these proposed actions:
     Are not significant regulatory actions subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

     Are not Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory actions because these actions are either exempted or
not significant under Executive Order 12866;
     Do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Are certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not economically significant regulatory actions based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not significant regulatory actions subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the proposed
actions do not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order
13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will they impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: June 8, 2018.
Onis ``Trey'' Glenn, III,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2018-13146 Filed 6-19-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 214 (Friday, November 4, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76889-76891]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26654]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2016-0963]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Tchefuncta River, Madisonville,
LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to modify the operating schedule that
governs the State Route 22 Bridge (Madisonville (SR22) swing span
bridge) across the Tchefuncta River, mile 2.5, at Madisonville, St.
Tammany Parish, Louisiana. The Louisiana Department of Transportation
and Development requested changes to the present drawbridge operating
regulations governing the SR 22 swing span bridge, to enhance the flow
of vehicle traffic across the bridge.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before January 18, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2016-0963 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email David Frank, Bridge Administrator, at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
SNPRM Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking
Pub. L. Public Law
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code
LTOTD Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development
SR State Route
MHW Mean High Water

II. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis

    Local governmental officials from St. Tammany Parish and the City
of Madisonville, in conjunction with the Louisiana Department of
Transportation and Development (LDOTD), requested that the operating
regulation of the SR 22 Bridge, a swing span bridge, be changed in
order to better accommodate the increased vehicular traffic crossing
the bridge especially during the peak, weekday rush hours. Currently,
this bridge is governed under 33 CFR 117.500. The current regulation
was created to allow for improved vehicular traffic flow during peak
rush hours due to the increased population of the western portions of
St. Tammany Parish.
    Based on a recent study of the current vehicle traffic crossing the
bridge, public officials and LDOTD requested that the operating
regulation be changed to better meet current bridge use.
    The traffic study conducted by the LDOTD determined that the
existing vehicular traffic at the intersection of SR 22 and SR 21/SR
1077 is over capacity at peak hours and causes unacceptable levels of
delay to roadway traffic. This situation is compounded by the opening
of the bridge during these peak hours. A combination of modifications
to the

operating schedule of the bridge and modifications to the traffic
controls at this intersection will improve traffic flow and reduce
traffic delays. As the largest commercial facility upstream of the
bridge is no longer in service, most of the vessels that request
openings are recreational powerboats and sailboats that routinely
transit this waterway and should be able to adjust their schedules to
coincide with the proposed drawbridge operating schedule. The SR 22
swing bridge has a vertical clearance of 6.2 feet above Mean High Water
(MHW) in the closed-to-navigation position and unlimited clearance in
the open-to-navigation position.
    Concurrent with the publication of the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM), a Test Deviation [USCG-2016-0963] has been issued to
allow the LDOTD to test the proposed schedule and to obtain data and
public comments. The test period will be in effect during the entire
NPRM comment period. The Coast Guard will review the logs of the
drawbridge, the traffic counts provided by LDOTD, and evaluate public
comments from this NPRM and the above referenced Temporary Deviation to
determine if the requested change to the permanent special drawbridge
operating regulation is warranted.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The rule proposes to amend 33 CFR 117.500. The proposed rule change
would extend the time between openings from 30 minutes to an hour,
between 6 a.m. and 7 p.m., and not require the bridge to open for the
passage of vessels at 8 a.m., 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. during the weekday rush
hours. This additional time would allow commuters and school buses to
cross the bridge freely and prevent vehicular traffic from backing up
for over a mile on SR 22. The bridge will open at any time in the case
of an emergency.
    Approximately 7,500 vehicles cross the bridge daily between the
hours of 6 a.m. and 7 p.m. Vessel openings for the month of July
indicate that the bridge opened to pass vessels 118 times during the
week and 202 times during the weekend. Vessel openings for the month of
August dropped to 68 openings during the week and 85 openings during
the weekend.
    Traffic studies have indicated a significant increase in highway
traffic delays caused by bridge openings, consisting of mainly
recreational traffic that presently passes through the bridge on
scheduled openings, and can adjust their schedules to work with the
needs of land transportation. There are no alternate routes available
for vessels that wish to transit the bridge site; however, if vessels
have a vertical clearance requirement of less than 6.2 feet above MHW,
they may transit the bridge site at any time.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on these statutes and Executive Orders and we discuss
First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing
rules, and of promoting flexibility. This NPRM has not been designated
a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management
and Budget.
    This regulatory action determination is based on a reduction of
commercial vessel traffic on this waterway, and the recreational
powerboats and sailboats that routinely transit this waterway can still
transit the bridge under the proposed schedule. And, those vessels with
a vertical clearance requirement of less than 6.2 feet above MHW, they
may transit the bridge site at any time. This regulatory action takes
into account the reasonable needs of vessel and vehicular traffic.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. While some owners or operators of
vessels intending to transit the bridge may be small entities, for the
reasons stated in section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have
a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT, above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Government

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect 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. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act
addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local,
or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of
$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though
this proposed rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do
discuss the effects of this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have
made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category
of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule simply promulgates
the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. Normally such
actions are categorically excluded from further review, under figure 2-
1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.
    Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are not required for this rule. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).
    Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public comments, are in
our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by
following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the
online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when
comments are posted or a final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Revise Sec.  117.500 to read as follows:

Sec.  117.500  Tchefuncta River

    The draw of the SR 22 Bridge, mile 2.5, at Madisonville, shall open
on signal from 7 p.m. to 6 a.m. From 6 a.m. to 7 p.m., the draw need
only open on the hour, except that the draw need not open for the
passage of vessels at 8 a.m., 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. Monday through Friday
except federal holidays. The bridge will open at any time an emergency.

    Dated: October 31, 2016.
David R. Callahan,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2016-26654 Filed 11-3-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 135 (Wednesday, July 15, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41532-41538]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17295]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75407; File No. SR-BYX-2015-30]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
the Market Data Section of Its Fee Schedule

July 9, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on July 1, 2015, BATS Y-Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BYX'') 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 prepared by the Exchange. The
Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one establishing or
changing a member due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange
under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed rule change 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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the Market Data section of
its fee schedule to: (i) Adopt User fees, an Enterprise fee, and a
Digital Media Enterprise fee for the BYX Top and BYX Last Sale feeds;
and (ii) make a non-substantive change to the description of the BATS
One Feed Enterprise Fee as well as correct a cross-reference within the
definition of ``Non-Professional User''.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for

the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant 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 the Market Data section of its fee
schedule to: (i) Adopt User fees, an Enterprise fee, and a Digital
Media Enterprise fee for the BYX Top and BYX Last Sale feeds; and (ii)
make a non-substantive change to the description of the BATS One Feed
Enterprise Fee as well as correct a cross-reference within the
definition of ``Non-Professional User''.
BYX Top and Last Sale Fees
    BYX Top is a market data feed that includes top of book quotations
and execution information for all equity securities traded on the
Exchange.\5\ BYX Last Sale is a market data feed that includes last
sale information for all equity securities traded on Exchange.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Exchange Rule 11.22(d).
    \6\ See Exchange Rule 11.22(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the Exchange only charges fees for both internal and
external distribution of the BYX Last Sale and BYX Top feeds. The cost
of BYX Last Sale for an Internal Distributor \7\ is $500 per month.
Likewise, the cost of BYX Top for an Internal Distributor is also $500
per month. The Exchange currently does not charge per User \8\ fees for
either BYX Last Sale or BYX Top. Therefore, the Exchange does not
currently require an External Distributor \9\ of BYX Last Sale or BYX
Top to count, classify (e.g., professional or non-professional), or
report to the Exchange information regarding the customers to which
they provide the data. Instead, the Exchange charges an External
Distributor of BYX Last Sale a flat fee of $1,250 per month. The
Exchange also separately charges an External Distributor of BYX Top a
flat fee of $1,250 per month. End Users currently do not pay the
Exchange for BYX Last Sale or BYX Top, nor are End Users required to
enter into contracts with the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ An ``Internal Distributor'' is defined as ``a Distributor
that receives the Exchange Market Data product and then distributes
that data to one or more Users within the Distributor's own
entity.'' See the Exchange Fee Schedule available at http://batstrading.com/support/fee_schedule/byx/. A ``Distributor'' is
defined as ``any entity that receives the Exchange Market Data
product directly from the Exchange or indirectly through another
entity and then distributes it internally or externally to a third
party.'' Id.
    \8\ A ``User'' is defined as ``a natural person, a
proprietorship, corporation, partnership, or entity, or device
(computer or other automated service), that is entitled to receive
Exchange data.'' Id.
    \9\ An ``External Distributor'' is defined as ``a Distributor
that receives the Exchange Market Data product and then distributes
that data to a third party or one or more Users outside the
Distributor's own entity.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subscribers to either BYX Top or BYX Last Sale are able to receive,
upon request and at no additional cost, BYX Last Sale or BYX Top, as
applicable. The Exchange also offers a New External Distributor Credit
under which new External Distributors of BYX Top or BYX Last Sale will
not be charged a Distributor Fee for their first three (3) months.
    The Exchange now proposes to amend its fee schedule to incorporate
additional fees related to the BYX Top or BYX Last Sale feeds.\10\
These fees include the following, each of which are described in detail
below: (i) Usage Fees for both Professional \11\ and Non-Professional
\12\ Users; \13\ (ii) Enterprise Fees; \14\ and (iii) a Digital Media
Enterprise Fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Exchange notes that EDGA Exchange, Inc. (``EDGA''),
EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX'') and BATS Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'',
together with the Exchange, EDGA and EDGX, the ``BATS Exchanges'')
also filed proposed rule changes with Commission to adopt similar
fees for their respective Top and Last Sale market data product. See
File Nos. SR-EDGA-2015-25, SR-EDGX-2015-28, and SR-BATS-2015-48. The
Exchange represents that the proposed fees will not cause the
combined cost of subscribing to each of the BATS Exchanges'
individual Top and Last Sale feeds to be greater than those
currently charged to subscribe to the BATS One Feed. See Securities
Exchange Act Release Nos. 74285 (February 18, 2015), 80 FR 9828
(February 24, 2015) (SR-BATS-2015-11); 74283 (February 18, 2015), 80
FR 9809 (February 24, 2015) (SR-EDGA-2015-09); 74282 (February 17,
2015), 80 FR 9487 (February 23, 2015) (SR-EDGX-2015-09); and 74284
(February 18, 2015), 80 FR 9792 (February 24, 2015) (SR-BYX-2015-09)
(``Initial BATS One Feed Fee Filings''). In these filings, the
Exchange represented that the cost of subscribing to each of the
underlying individual feeds necessary to create the BATS One Feed
would not be greater than the cost of subscribing to the BATS One
Feed. Id.
    \11\ A ``Professional User'' is defined as ``any User other than
a Non-Professional User.'' See the Exchange Fee Schedule available
at http://batstrading.com/support/fee_schedule/byx/.
    \12\ A ``Non-Professional User'' is defined as ``a natural
person who is not: (i) Registered or qualified in any capacity with
the Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, any state
securities agency, any securities exchange or association, or any
commodities or futures contract market or association; (ii) engaged
as an ``investment adviser'' as that term is defined in Section
[202(a)(11)] of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (whether or not
registered or qualified under that Act); or (iii) employed by a bank
or other organization exempt from registration under federal or
state securities laws to perform functions that would require
registration or qualification if such functions were performed for
an organization not so exempt.'' Id.
    \13\ The Exchange notes that User fees as well as the
distinctions based on professional and non-professional users have
been previously filed with or approved by the Commission by the BATS
Exchanges and the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq''). See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59582 (March 16, 2009), 74 FR
12423 (March 24, 2009) (Order approving SR-Nasdaq-2008-102). See
also the Initial BATS One Feed Fee Filings, supra note 11 [sic].
    \14\ The Exchange notes that Enterprise fees have been
previously filed with or approved by the Commission by the Exchange,
EDGA, EDGX, BZX, Nasdaq, NYSE, and the CTA/CQ Plans. See Nasdaq Rule
7047. Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 71507 (February 7, 2014),
79 FR 8763 (February 13, 2014) (SR-NASDAQ-2014-011); 70211 (August
15, 2013), 78 FR 51781 (August 21, 2013) (SR-NYSE-2013-58); and
70010 (July 19, 2013) (File No. SR-CTA/CQ-2013-04). See also the
Initial BATS One Feed Fee Filings, supra note 11 [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    User Fees. The Exchange proposes to charge those who receive either
BYX Top or BYX Last Sale from External Distributors different fees for
both their Professional Users and Non-Professional Users. The Exchange
will assess a monthly fee for Professional Users of $2.00 per User.
Non-Professional Users will be assessed a monthly fee of $0.05 per
User.\15\ The Exchange does not propose to charge per User fees to
Internal Distributors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The Exchange notes that EDGA, EDGX and BZX also filed
proposed rule changes with Commission to adopt User fees for their
respective Top and Last Sale market data product. See File Nos. SR-
EDGA-2015-25, SR-EDGX-2015-28 and SR-BATS-2015-48 (proposing a
monthly fee of $2.00 per Professional User and of $0.05 per Non-
Professional User for EDGA and EDGX and a monthly fee of $4.00 per
Professional User and of $0.10 per Non-Professional User for BZX). A
vendor that wishes to create a product like the BATS One Summary
Feed could subscribe to each of the BATS Exchanges' Top and Last
Sale feeds. See the Initial BATS One Feed Fee Filings, supra note 11
[sic]. Should a vendor subscribe to each of the BATS Exchanges' Top
and Last Sale feeds, it would be charged a total of $10.00 per month
per Professional User and $0.25 per month per Non-Professional User.
This amount is equal to, and not greater than the User Fees charged
for the BATS One Summary Feed. Id. (adopting fees of $10.00 per
month per Professional User and $0.25 per month per Non-Professional
User as well as a separate $1,000 per month Data Consolidation Fee
for the BATS One Summary Feed).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    External Distributors would be required to count every Professional
User and Non-Professional User to

which they provide BYX Top and/or BYX Last Sale, the requirements for
which are identical to that currently in place for the BATS One
Feed.\16\ Thus, the External Distributor's count will include every
person and device that accesses the data regardless of the purpose for
which the individual or device uses the data. External Distributors
must report all Professional and Non-Professional Users in accordance
with the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See the Initial BATS One Feed Fee Filings, supra note 11
[sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     In connection with an External Distributor's distribution
of BYX Top or BYX Last Sale, the Distributor should count as one User
each unique User that the Distributor has entitled to have access to
BYX Top or BYX Last Sale. However, where a device is dedicated
specifically to a single individual, the Distributor should count only
the individual and need not count the device.
     The External Distributor should identify and report each
unique User. If a User uses the same unique method to gain access to
BYX Top or BYX Last Sale, the Distributor should count that as one
User. However, if a unique User uses multiple methods to gain access to
BYX Top or BYX Last Sale (e.g., a single User has multiple passwords
and user identifications), the External Distributor should report all
of those methods as an individual User.
     External Distributors should report each unique individual
person who receives access through multiple devices as one User so long
as each device is dedicated specifically to that individual.
     If an External Distributor entitles one or more
individuals to use the same device, the External Distributor should
include only the individuals, and not the device, in the count.
    Each External Distributor will receive a credit against its monthly
Distributor Fee for BYX Top or BYX Last Sale equal to the amount of its
monthly Usage Fees up to a maximum of the Distributor Fee for BYX Top
or BYX Last Sale. For example, an External Distributor will be subject
to a $1,250 monthly Distributor Fee where they elect to receive BYX
Top. If that External Distributor reports User quantities totaling
$1,250 or more of monthly usage of BYX Top, it will pay no net
Distributor Fee, whereas if that same External Distributor were to
report User quantities totaling $1,000 of monthly usage, it will pay a
net of $250 for the Distributor Fee. External Distributors will remain
subject to the per User fees discussed above. The same would apply to
receipt of BYX Last Sale.
    Enterprise Fee. The Exchange also proposes to establish a $10,000
per month Enterprise Fee that will permit a recipient firm who receives
BYX Top or BYX Last Sale from an External Distributor to receive the
data for an unlimited number of Professional and Non-Professional
Users.\17\ For example, if a recipient firm had 15,000 Professional
Users who each receive BYX Top or BYX Last Sale at $2.00 per month,
then that recipient firm will pay $30,000 per month in Professional
Users fees. Under the proposed Enterprise Fee, the recipient firm will
pay a flat fee of $10,000 for an unlimited number of Professional and
Non-Professional Users for BYX Top or BYX Last Sale. A recipient firm
must pay a separate Enterprise Fee for each External Distributor that
controls display of BYX Top or BYX Last Sale if it wishes such User to
be covered by an Enterprise Fee rather than by per User fees. A
recipient firm that pays the Enterprise Fee will not have to report its
number of such Users on a monthly basis. However, every six months, a
recipient firm must provide the Exchange with a count of the total
number of natural person users of each product, including both
Professional and Non-Professional Users. Lastly, the proposed
Enterprise Fee would be counted towards the Distributor Fee credit
described above, under which an External Distributor receives a credit
towards its Distributor Fee equal to the amount of its monthly BYX Top
or BYX Last Sale usage fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The Exchange notes that EDGA, EDGX and BZX also filed
proposed rule changes with Commission to adopt Enterprise Fees for
their respective Top and Last Sale market data product. See File
Nos. SR-EDGA-2015-25, SR-EDGX-2015-28 and SR-BATS-2015-48 (proposing
a monthly Enterprise Fee of $10,000 for EDGA Top and EDGA Last Sale
and $15,000 for EDGX Top and Last Sale as well as BZX Top and Last
Sale). A vendor that wishes to create a product like the BATS One
Summary Feed could subscribe to each of the BATS Exchanges' Top and
Last Sale feeds. See the Initial BATS One Feed Fee Filings, supra
note 11 [sic]. Should a vendor subscribe to each of the BATS
Exchanges' Top and Last Sale feeds, it would be charged a total
monthly Enterprise Fee of $50,000. This amount is equal to, and not
greater than the Enterprise Fee charged for the BATS One Summary
Feed. Id. (adopting a monthly Enterprise Fee of $50,000 as well as a
separate $1,000 per month Data Consolidation Fee for the BATS One
Summary Feed).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Digital Media Enterprise Fee. The Exchange proposes to adopt a
Digital Media Enterprise Fee of $2,500 per month for BYX Top and BYX
Last Sale.\18\ As an alternative to proposed User fees discussed above,
a recipient firm may purchase a monthly Digital Media Enterprise
license to receive BYX Top and BYX Last Sale from an External
Distributor to distribute to an unlimited number of Professional and
Non-Professional Users for viewing via television, Web sites, and
mobile devices for informational and non-trading purposes only without
having to account for the extent of access to the data or the report
the number of Users to the Exchange. Lastly, the proposed Digital Media
Enterprise Fee would be counted towards the Distributor Fee credit
described above, under which an External Distributor receives a credit
towards its Distributor Fee equal to the amount of its monthly BYX Top
and/or BYX Last Sale usage fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The Exchange notes that EDGA, EDGX and BATS also filed
proposed rule changes with Commission to adopt a Digital Media
Enterprise Fee for their respective Top and Last Sale market data
product. See File Nos. SR-EDGA-2015-25, SR-EDGX-2015-28 and SR-BATS-
2015-48 (proposing a monthly Digital Media Enterprise Fee of $2,500
for their respective Top and Last Sale feeds). A vendor that wishes
to create a product like the BATS One Summary Feed could subscribe
to each of the BATS Exchanges' Top and Last Sale feeds. See the
Initial BATS One Feed Fee Filings, supra note 11 [sic]. Should a
vendor subscribe to each of the BATS Exchanges' Top and Last Sale
feeds, it would be charged a total monthly Digital Media Enterprise
Fee of $10,000. This amount is less than the Digital Media
Enterprise Fee charged for the BATS One Summary Feed. See Securities
Exchange Act Release Nos. 74598 (March 27, 2015), 80 FR 17791 (April
2, 2015) (SR-BATS-2015-24); 74599 (March 27, 2015), 80 FR 17812
(April 2, 2015) (SR-BYX-2015-19); 74600 (March 27, 2014), 80 FR
17797 (April 2, 2015) (SR-EDGA-2015-14); and 74601 (March 27, 2015),
80 FR 17804 (April 2, 2015) (SR-EDGX-2015-14) (adopting a monthly
Digital Media Enterprise Fee of $15,000 for the BATS One Summary
Feed).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Non-Substantive, Corrective Changes
    The Exchange proposes to make a non-substantive change to the
description of the BATS One Feed Enterprise Fee as well as correct a
cross-reference within the definition of ``Non-Professional User''.
    First, the proposed change to the description of the BATS One Feed
\19\ Enterprise Fee is intended to align with the descriptions of the
Enterprise Fees

for BYX Top and BYX Last Sale proposed above. The fee schedule
currently states that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ In sum, the BATS One Feed is a data feed that disseminates,
on a real-time basis, the aggregate best bid and offer (``BBO'') of
all displayed orders for securities traded on BYX and its affiliated
exchanges and for which the BATS Exchanges report quotes under the
Consolidated Tape Association (``CTA'') Plan or the Nasdaq/UTP Plan.
The BATS One Feed also contains the individual last sale information
for the BATS Exchanges (collectively with the aggregate BBO, the
``BATS One Summary Feed''). In addition, the BATS One Feed contains
optional functionality which enables recipients to receive
aggregated two-sided quotations from the BATS Exchanges for up to
five (5) price levels (``BATS One Premium Feed''). See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 73918 (December 23, 2014), 79 FR 78920
(December 31, 2014) (File Nos. SR-EDGX-2014-25; SR-EDGA-2014-25; SR-
BATS-2014-055; SR-BYX-2014-030) (Notice of Amendments No. 2 and
Order Granting Accelerated Approval to Proposed Rule Changes, as
Modified by Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, to Establish a New Market Data
Product called the BATS One Feed) (``BATS One Approval Order'').

[a]s an alternative to User fees, a recipient firm may purchase a
monthly Enterprise license to receive the BATS One Feed from an
External Distributor to an unlimited number of Professional and Non-
Professional Users. A recipient firm must pay a separate Enterprise
Fee for each External Distributor that controls the display of the
BATS One Feed if it wishes such User to be covered by the Enterprise
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fee. The Enterprise Fee is in addition to the Distributor Fee.

The Exchange proposes to delete the last sentence of the above
description stating that the Enterprise Fee is in addition to the
Distributor Fee. The original purpose of this sentence was to clarify
that the Distributor Fee and Enterprise Fee were separate fees.
However, the Exchange understands that this sentence has led to
confusion for the following reason. As is the case for the proposed
Enterprise Fees for BYX Top and BYX Last Sale described above, the BATS
One Feed Enterprise Fee is counted towards the Distributor Fee credit,
under which an External Distributor receives a credit towards its
Distributor Fee equal to the amount of its monthly BATS One Feed Usage
Fees. Stating that the Enterprise and Distributor fees were separate
fees has caused confusion regarding the application of the Distributor
Fee Usage Fee credit. Therefore, the Exchange proposes to delete the
last sentence stating that the Enterprise Fee is in addition to the
Distributor Fee. Deleting this sentence does not alter the manner in
which the Enterprise Fee is charged. Rather, it is intended to avoid
confusion and align the description with that of the proposed
Enterprise Fees for BYX Top and BYX Last Sale described above.
    Second, the Exchange proposes to correct a cross-reference within
the definition of ``Non-Professional User''. In part, a ``Non-
Professional User'' is currently defined as ``a natural person who is
not: . . . engaged as an ``investment adviser'' as that term is defined
in Section 201(11) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (whether or
not registered or qualified under that Act) . . .'' The definition
incorrectly states that the term ``investment adviser is defined under
Section 201(11) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, when it is, in
fact, defined under Section 202(a)(11) of the Investment Advisers Act
of 1940. Therefore, the Exchange proposes to replace the reference to
Section 201(11) with Section 202(a)(11) within the definition of Non-
Professional User.
Implementation Date
    The Exchange proposes to implement the proposed changes to its fee
schedule on July 1, 2015.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\20\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\21\ in particular, as it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its members and other recipients of
Exchange data. The Exchange believes that the proposed rates are
equitable and non-discriminatory in that they apply uniformly to all
recipients of Exchange data. The Exchange believes the proposed fees
are competitive with those charged by other venues and, therefore,
reasonable and equitably allocated to recipients. Lastly, the Exchange
also believes that the proposed fees are reasonable and non-
discriminatory because they will apply uniformly to all recipients of
Exchange data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 11(A) of the Act \22\ in that it supports (i)
fair competition among brokers and dealers, among exchange markets, and
between exchange markets and markets other than exchange markets and
(ii) the availability to brokers, dealers, and investors of information
with respect to quotations for and transactions in securities.
Furthermore, the proposed rule change is consistent with Rule 603 of
Regulation NMS,\23\ which provides that any national securities
exchange that distributes information with respect to quotations for or
transactions in an NMS stock do so on terms that are not unreasonably
discriminatory. In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted
self-regulatory organizations and broker-dealers increased authority
and flexibility to offer new and unique market data to the public. It
was believed that this authority would expand the amount of data
available to consumers, and also spur innovation and competition for
the provision of market data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \23\ See 17 CFR 242.603.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the proposed fees would not permit unfair
discrimination because all of the Exchange's customers and market data
vendors will be subject to the proposed fees on an equivalent basis.
BYX Last Sale and BYX Top are distributed and purchased on a voluntary
basis, in that neither the Exchange nor market data distributors are
required by any rule or regulation to make this data available.
Accordingly, Distributors and Users can discontinue use at any time and
for any reason, including due to an assessment of the reasonableness of
fees charged. Firms have a wide variety of alternative market data
products from which to choose, such as similar proprietary data
products offered by other exchanges and consolidated data. Moreover,
the Exchange is not required to make any proprietary data products
available or to offer any specific pricing alternatives to any
customers.
    In addition, the fees that are the subject of this rule filing are
constrained by competition. As explained below in the Exchange's
Statement on Burden on Competition, the existence of alternatives to
BYX Top and BYX Last Sale further ensures that the Exchange cannot set
unreasonable fees, or fees that are unreasonably discriminatory, when
vendors and subscribers can elect such alternatives. That is, the
Exchange competes with other exchanges (and their affiliates) that
provide similar market data products. If another exchange (or its
affiliate) were to charge less to consolidate and distribute its
similar product than the Exchange charges to consolidate and distribute
BYX Top or BYX Last Sale, prospective Users likely would not subscribe
to, or would cease subscribing to, the BYX Top or BYX Last Sale.
    The Exchange notes that the Commission is not required to undertake
a cost-of-service or rate-making approach. The Exchange believes that,
even if it were possible as a matter of economic theory, cost-based
pricing for non-core market data would be so complicated that it could
not be done practically.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The Exchange believes that cost-based pricing would be
impractical because it would create enormous administrative burdens
for all parties, including the Commission, to cost-regulate a large
number of participants and standardize and analyze extraordinary
amounts of information, accounts, and reports. In addition, it is
impossible to regulate market data prices in isolation from prices
charged by markets for other services that are joint products. Cost-
based rate regulation would also lead to litigation and may distort
incentives, including those to minimize costs and to innovate,
leading to further waste. Under cost-based pricing, the Commission
would be burdened with determining a fair rate of return, and the
industry could experience frequent rate increases based on
escalating expense levels. Even in industries historically subject
to utility regulation, cost-based ratemaking has been discredited.
As such, the Exchange believes that cost-based ratemaking would be
inappropriate for proprietary market data and inconsistent with
Congress's direction that the Commission use its authority to foster
the development of the national market system, and that market
forces will continue to provide appropriate pricing discipline. See
Appendix C to NYSE's comments to the Commission's 2000 Concept
Release on the Regulation of Market Information Fees and Revenues,
which can be found on the Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov/rules/concept/s72899/buck1.htm. See also Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 73816 (December 11, 2014), 79 FR 75200
(December 17, 2014) (SR-NYSE-2014-64) (Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Establish an
Access Fee for the NYSE Best Quote and Trades Data Feed, Operative
December 1, 2014).

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

    User Fees. The Exchange believes that implementing the Professional
and Non-Professional User fees for BYX Top and BYX Last Sale is
equitable and reasonable because it will result in greater availability
to Professional and Non-Professional Users. Moreover, introducing a
modest Non-Professional User fee for BYX Top and BYX Last Sale is
reasonable because it provides an additional method for retail
investors to access BYX Top and BYX Last Sale data by providing the
same data that is available to Professional Users. The Exchange
believes that the proposed fees are equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because they will be charged uniformly to recipient
firms and Users. The fee structure of differentiated Professional and
Non-Professional fees is utilized by the Exchange for the BATS One Feed
and has long been used by other exchanges for their proprietary data
products, and by the Nasdaq UTP and the CTA and CQ Plans in order to
reduce the price of data to retail investors and make it more broadly
available.\25\ Offering BYX Top and BYX Last Sale to Non-Professional
Users with the same data available to Professional Users results in
greater equity among data recipients.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See the Initial BATS One Feed Fee Filings, supra note 11
[sic]. See also, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 20002,
File No. S7-433 (July 22, 1983) (establishing nonprofessional fees
for CTA data); Nasdaq Rules 7023(b), 7047.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the proposed fees are reasonable when compared to
similar fees for comparable products offered by the NYSE. Specifically,
NYSE offers NYSE BBO, which includes best bid and offer for NYSE traded
securities, for a monthly fee of $4.00 per professional subscriber and
$0.20 per non-professional subscriber.\26\ NYSE also offers NYSE
Trades, which is a data feed that provides the last sale information
for NYSE traded securities, for the same price as NYSE BBO. The
Exchange's proposed per User Fees for BYX Top and BYX Last Sale are
less than the NYSE's fees for NYSE Trades and NYSE BBO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See NYSE Market Data Pricing dated May 2015 available at
http://www.nyxdata.com/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Enterprise Fee. The proposed Enterprise Fee for BYX Top and BYX
Last Sale are equitable and reasonable as the fees proposed are less
than the enterprise fees currently charged for NYSE Trades and NYSE
BBO. The NYSE charges a separate enterprise fee of $190,000 per month
for NYSE Trades and NYSE BBO.\27\ In addition, the Enterprise Fee
proposed by the Exchange could result in a fee reduction for recipient
firms with a large number of Professional and Non-Professional Users.
If a recipient firm has a smaller number of Professional Users of BYX
Top or BYX Last Sale, then it may continue using the per User structure
and benefit from the per User Fee reductions. By reducing prices for
recipient firms with a large number of Professional and Non-
Professional Users, the Exchange believes that more firms may choose to
receive and to distribute the BYX Top or BYX Last Sale, thereby
expanding the distribution of this market data for the benefit of
investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further believes that the proposed Enterprise Fee is
reasonable because it will simplify reporting for certain recipients
that have large numbers of Professional and Non-Professional Users.
Firms that pay the proposed Enterprise Fee will not have to report the
number of Users on a monthly basis as they currently do, but rather
will only have to count natural person users every six months, which is
a significant reduction in administrative burden. Finally, the Exchange
believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to
establish an Enterprise Fee because it reduces the Exchange's costs and
the Distributor's administrative burdens in tracking and auditing large
numbers of Users.
    Digital Media Enterprise Fee. The Exchange believes that the
proposed Digital Media Enterprise Fee for BYX Top and BYX Last Sale
provides for an equitable allocation of reasonable fees among
recipients of the data and is not designed to permit unfair
discrimination among customers, brokers, or dealers. In establishing
the Digital Media Enterprise Fee, the Exchange recognizes that there is
demand for a more seamless and easier-to-administer data distribution
model that takes into account the expanded variety of media and
communication devices that investors utilize today. The Exchange
believes the Digital Media Enterprise Fee will be easy to administer
because data recipients that purchase it would not be required to
differentiate between Professional and Non-Professional Users, account
for the extent of access to the data, or report the number of Users.
This is a significant reduction on a recipient firm's administrative
burdens and is a significant value to investors. For example, a
television broadcaster could display BYX Top and/or BYX Last Sale data
during market-related programming and on its Web site or allow viewers
to view the data via their mobile devices, creating a more seamless
distribution model that will allow investors more choice in how they
receive and view market data, all without having to account for and/or
measure who accesses the data and how often they do so.
    The proposed Digital Media Enterprise Fee is equitable and
reasonable because it will also enable recipient firms to more widely
distribute data from BYX Top and BYX Last Sale to investors for
informational purposes at a lower cost than is available today. For
example, a recipient firm may purchase an Enterprise license in the
amount of $10,000 per month for to receive BYX Top and/or BYX Last Sale
from an External Distributor for an unlimited number of Professional
and Non-Professional Users, which is greater than the proposed Digital
Media Enterprise Fee. The Exchange also believes the amount of the
Digital Media Enterprise Fee is reasonable as compared to the existing
enterprise fees discussed above because the distribution of BYX Top and
BYX Last Sale data is limited to television, Web sites, and mobile
devices for informational purposes only, while distribution of BYX Top
and BYX Last Sale data pursuant to an Enterprise license contains no
such limitation. The Exchange also believes that the proposed Digital
Media Enterprise Fee is equitable and reasonable because it is less
than similar fees charged by other exchanges.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ The Nasdaq Stock Market offers proprietary data products
for distribution over the internet and television under alternative
fee schedules that are subject to maximum fee of $50,000 per month.
See Nasdaq Rule 7039(b). The NYSE charges a Digit Media Enterprise
fee of $40,000 per month for the NYSE Trade Digital Media product.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69272 (April 2, 2013), 78 FR
20983 (April 8, 2013) (SR-NYSE-2013-23).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Non-Substantive, Corrective Changes. The Exchange believes that the
proposed non-substantive, corrective changes are consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act,\29\ in general, and Section 6(b)(4) of the
Act,\30\ in particular, in that they provide for an equitable
allocation

of reasonable fees among recipients of the data and is not designed to
permit unfair discrimination among customers, brokers, or dealers.
These proposed changes are equitable and reasonable because the changes
are designed to clarify the fee schedule and avoid potential investor
confusion. The amendment to the BATS One Enterprise Fee is also
intended to align the description with that of the proposed Enterprise
Fees for BYX Top and BYX Last Sale described above. The proposed
changes are also non-discriminatory as they would apply to all
recipient firms uniformly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \30\ 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
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.
BYX Top and BYX Last Sale
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. The
Exchange's ability to price BYX Last Sale and BYX Top are constrained
by: (i) Competition among exchanges, other trading platforms, and Trade
Reporting Facilities (``TRF'') that compete with each other in a
variety of dimensions; (ii) the existence of inexpensive real-time
consolidated data and market-specific data and free delayed data; and
(iii) the inherent contestability of the market for proprietary data.
    The Exchange and its market data products are subject to
significant competitive forces and the proposed fees represent
responses to that competition. To start, the Exchange competes
intensely for order flow. It competes with the other national
securities exchanges that currently trade equities, with electronic
communication networks, with quotes posted in FINRA's Alternative
Display Facility, with alternative trading systems, and with securities
firms that primarily trade as principal with their customer order flow.
    In addition, BYX Last Sale and BYX Top compete with a number of
alternative products. For instance, BYX Last Sale and BYX Top do not
provide a complete picture of all trading activity in a security.
Rather, the other national securities exchanges, the several TRFs of
FINRA, and Electronic Communication Networks (``ECN'') that produce
proprietary data all produce trades and trade reports. Each is
currently permitted to produce last sale information products, and many
currently do, including Nasdaq and NYSE. In addition, market
participants can gain access to BYX last sale prices and top-of-book
quotations, though integrated with the prices of other markets, on
feeds made available through the SIPs.
    In sum, the availability of a variety of alternative sources of
information imposes significant competitive pressures on Exchange data
products and the Exchange's compelling need to attract order flow
imposes significant competitive pressure on the Exchange to act
equitably, fairly, and reasonably in setting the proposed data product
fees. The proposed data product fees are, in part, responses to that
pressure. The Exchange believes that the proposed fees would reflect an
equitable allocation of its overall costs to users of its facilities.
    In addition, when establishing the proposed fees, the Exchange
considered the competitiveness of the market for proprietary data and
all of the implications of that competition. The Exchange believes that
it has considered all relevant factors and has not considered
irrelevant factors in order to establish fair, reasonable, and not
unreasonably discriminatory fees and an equitable allocation of fees
among all Users. The existence of alternatives to BYX Last Sale and BYX
Top, including existing similar feeds by other exchanges, consolidated
data, and proprietary data from other sources, ensures that the
Exchange cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees that are unreasonably
discriminatory, when vendors and subscribers can elect these
alternatives or choose not to purchase a specific proprietary data
product if its cost to purchase is not justified by the returns any
particular vendor or subscriber would achieve through the purchase.
Non-Substantive, Corrective Changes
    The proposed non-substantive, corrective changes to the fee
schedule will not have any impact on completion. The proposed changes
are designed to clarify the fee schedule and avoid potential investor
confusion.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \31\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\32\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend
such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \32\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-BYX-2015-30 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BYX-2015-30. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for

inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BYX-2015-30, and should be
submitted on or before August 5, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-17295 Filed 7-14-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 59 (Monday, March 28, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 17378]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06420]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-789, OMB Control No. 3235-0731]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Extension for Generic
ICR: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on
Agency Service Delivery

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549-2736

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    The information collection activity will garner qualitative
customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner, in
accordance with the Administration's commitment to improving service
delivery. By qualitative feedback we mean information that provides
useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but are not statistical
surveys that yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the
population of study. This feedback will provide insights into customer
or stakeholder perceptions, experiences and expectations, provide an
early warning of issues with service, or focus attention on areas where
communication, training or changes in operations might improve delivery
of products or services. These collections will allow for ongoing,
collaborative and actionable communications between the SEC and its
customers and stakeholders. It will also allow feedback to contribute
directly to the improvement of program management.
    Feedback collected under this generic clearance will provide useful
information, but it will not yield data that can be generalized to the
overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative
information will not be used for quantitative information collections
that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as
monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance.
Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have,
such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic
mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.
    Below is the projected average annual estimates each year for the
next three years:
    Expected Annual Number of activities: [20].
    Respondents: [20,000].
    Annual responses: [20,000].
    Frequency of Response: Once per request.
    Average minutes per response: [10].
    Annual burden hours: [3,500].
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology. An
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.
    The public may view the background documentation for this
information collection at the following website, www.reginfo.gov.
Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to:
[email protected] and [email protected]; and (ii)
David Bottom, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and
Exchange Commission, c/o John Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 or send an email to: [email protected]. Comments must be
submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice April 27, 2022.

    Dated: March 23, 2022.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-06420 Filed 3-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P