[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 87 (Thursday, May 5, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27015-27017]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10577]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 110

[Docket Number USCG-2015-0825]
RIN 1625-AA01

Anchorage Regulations; Delaware River, Philadelphia, PA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is amending the geographic coordinates and
modifying the regulated use of anchorage ``10'' in the Delaware River
in the vicinity of the Navy Yard in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The
change alters the size and use of the anchorage, reducing the anchorage
in size and allowing the anchorage to be used as a general anchorage
ground in the Delaware River.

DATES: This rule is effective June 6, 2016.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2015-0825 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant Brennan Dougherty, U.S. Coast
Guard Sector Delaware Bay, Chief Waterways Management Division;
telephone<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
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code
COTP Captain of the Port

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On December 12, 1967, the Coast Guard published a final rule (32 FR
17726, 17749) establishing an anchorage ground on the Delaware River in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 33 CFR part 110. The anchorage ground
established is contained in 33 CFR 110.157(a)(11). The anchorage
currently remains unused by the Navy Yard. Removing the restrictions on
anchorage ``10'' will alleviate congestion within the port, allowing
the anchorage to be used as a general anchorage for commercial traffic.
    On January 5, 2016, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) titled Anchorage Regulations, Delaware River;
Philadelphia, PA (81 FR 194). It proposed to change the shape and the
dimensions of anchorage ``10'', and to remove the ``restricted naval
anchorage'' verbiage from Sec.  110.157(a)(11). We invited comments on
this proposed change. During the comment period that ended February 4,
2016, we received no public comments, but we did receive a comment from
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) which we discuss
below.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
471, 1221 through 1236, and 2071; and in 33 CFR 1.05-1.
    This rule changes the shape and the dimensions of anchorage ``10.''
The anchorage currently remains unused by the Navy Yard. Removing the
restrictions on anchorage ``10'' will alleviate congestion within the
port by allowing the anchorage to be used as a general anchorage ground
for commercial traffic.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received no public comments on our NPRM
published January 5, 2016. Based on comments from NOAA, however, we
make two changes in the regulatory text of this rule from our proposed.
    The first change identifies the horizontal reference datum for the
latitudes and longitudes of the boundaries of the anchorage grounds as
the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS 84). The second change replaces the
verbiage ``West Horseshoe Range'' with ``Eagle Point Range'' within the
anchorage rule text. The original anchorage regulation, 33 CFR
110.157(a)(11) Anchorage 10, uses ``West Horseshoe Range'' as a
boundary reference, however, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) Nautical Charts identifies the range as ``Eagle
Point Range''. Therefore, we changed the boundary reference in our rule
from ``West Horseshoe Range'' to ``Eagle Point Range.''
    The revised anchorage ground runs parallel to the north side of the
channel along Eagle Point range, is narrower north to south, and is
slightly longer east to west than the existing anchorage ground.
Additionally, as proposed, we removed the ``restricted naval
anchorage'' verbiage from the regulation. This permits commercial and
other vessels to anchor within its bounds. The regulatory text appears
at the end of this document.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    E.O.s 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.
E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has
not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
    This rule is not a significant regulatory action because it will
not interfere with existing maritime activity on the Delaware River.
Moreover, it enhances navigational safety along the Delaware River by
providing an additional anchorage for commercial and recreational
vessels. The anchorage maintains the same parallel distance along the
channel boundaries as the existing anchorage. The impacts to
navigational safety are expected to be minimal because the anchorage
area will not unnecessarily restrict traffic, as it is located outside
of the established navigation channel. Vessels may navigate in, around,
and through the anchorage.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 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 received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or
use the anchorage may be small entities, for the reasons stated in
section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    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 rule. If the rule does 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
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against

small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy
or action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    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 rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive
Order13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does 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 rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

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 rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary
determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do
not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves the alteration of the size and use of
anchorage ``10,'' restricted Naval Anchorage. It is categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph 34(f) of Figure 2-1 of
Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. An environmental analysis checklist
supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination
are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek
any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a
significant environmental impact from this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110

    Anchorage grounds.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 110 as follows:

PART 110--ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 110 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2071; 33 CFR 1.05-
1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Revise Sec.  110.157(a)(11) to read as follows:

Sec.  110.157  Delaware Bay and River.

    (a) * * *
    (11) Anchorage 10 at Naval Base, Philadelphia. On the north side of
the channel along Eagle Point Range, bounded as follows: Beginning off
of the southeasterly corner of Pier 1 at 39[deg]53'07'' N.,
075[deg]10'30'' W., thence south to the to the north edge of the
channel along Eagle Point Range to 39[deg]52'58'' N., 075[deg]10'29''
W., thence east along the edge of the channel to 39[deg]52'56'' N.,
075[deg]09'53'' W., thence north to 39[deg]53'07'' N., 075[deg]09'54''
W., thence continuing west to the beginning point at 39[deg]53'07'' N.,
075[deg]10'30'' W. These coordinates are based on WGS 84.
* * * * *

    Dated: April 22, 2016.
Robert J. Tarantino,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, Fifth Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2016-10577 Filed 5-4-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: August 12, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 156)]
[Notices]
[Page 46908-46909]
[DOCID:fr12au08-60]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8702-8; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-1145]

Draft Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen and
Sulfur--Environmental Criteria; Second External Review Draft

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of Public Comment Period on Draft Integrated Science
Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen and Sulfur--Environmental Criteria.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing
the availability of the second external review draft of a document
titled, ``Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen and
Sulfur--Environmental Criteria; Second External Review Draft'' (EPA/
600/R-08/082).
    EPA is releasing this draft document solely for the purpose of
seeking public comment and for review by the Clean Air Scientific
Advisory Committee (CASAC) (meeting date and location to be specified
in a separate Federal Register notice). It does not represent and
should not be construed to represent any Agency policy, viewpoint, or
determination. EPA will consider any public comments submitted in
accordance with this notice when revising the document.

DATES: The public comment period begins on or about August 11, 2008.
Comments must be received on or before October 1, 2008.

ADDRESSES: The ``Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen
and Sulfur--Environmental Criteria; Second External Review Draft'' will
be available primarily via the Internet on the National Center for
Environmental Assessment's home page under the Recent Additions and
Publications menus at http://www.epa.gov/ncea. A limited number of CD-
ROM or paper copies will be available. Contact Ms. Ellen Lorang by
phone<PHONE_NUMBER>), fax<PHONE_NUMBER>), or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>to request either of these, and please provide
your name, your mailing address, and the document title, ``Integrated
Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen and Sulfur--Environmental
Criteria; Second External Review Draft'' (EPA/600/R-08/082) to
facilitate processing of your request.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information, contact Dr.
Tara Greaver, NCEA; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Information About the Document

    Section 108 (a) of the Clean Air Act directs the Administrator to
identify certain pollutants which ``cause or contribute to air
pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health
and welfare'' and to issue air quality criteria for them. These air
quality criteria are to ``accurately reflect the latest scientific
knowledge useful in indicating the kind and extent of all identifiable
effects on public health or welfare which may be expected from the
presence of [a] pollutant in the ambient air* * *.'' Under section 109
of the Act, EPA is then to establish national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) for each pollutant for which EPA has issued criteria.
Section 109(d) of the Act subsequently requires periodic review and, if
appropriate, revision of existing air quality criteria to reflect
advances in scientific knowledge on the effects of the pollutant on
public health and welfare. EPA is also to revise the NAAQS, if
appropriate, based on the revised air quality criteria.
    Oxides of nitrogen and sulfur are two of six principal (or
``criteria'') pollutants for which EPA has established air quality
criteria and NAAQS. EPA periodically reviews the scientific basis for
these standards by preparing an Integrated Science Assessment (ISA)
(formerly called an Air Quality Criteria Document). The ISA and
supplementary annexes, in conjunction with additional technical and
policy assessments, provide the scientific basis for EPA decisions on
the adequacy of a current NAAQS and the appropriateness of new or
revised standards. The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC),
an independent science advisory committee established pursuant to
section 109 of the Clean Air Act and part of the EPA's Science Advisory
Board (SAB), provides independent scientific advice on NAAQS matters,
including advice on EPA's draft ISAs.
    EPA formally initiated its current review of the criteria for
oxides of nitrogen and sulfur in December 2005 (70 FR 73236) and May
2006 (71 FR 28023) respectively, requesting the submission of recent
scientific information on specified topics. In the initial stages of
the criteria reviews, EPA recognized the merit of integrating the
science assessment for these two pollutants due to their combined
effects on atmospheric chemistry, deposition processes, and
environment-related public welfare effects. In July 2007 (72 FR 34004),
a workshop was held to discuss, with invited scientific experts,
initial draft materials prepared in the development of the ISA and
supplementary annexes for oxides of nitrogen and sulfur. EPA's ``Draft
Plan for Review of the Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for Nitrogen Dioxide and Sulfur Dioxide'' was made available in
September 2007 for public comment and was discussed by the Clean Air
Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) via a publicly accessible
teleconference consultation on October 30, 2007 (72 FR 57568). The Plan
was made available on EPA's Web site http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/
standards/no2so2sec/cr_pd.html. The draft ``Integrated Science
Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen and Sulfur--Environmental Criteria;
First External Review Draft'' was released for review on December 21,
2007 (72 FR 72719). The CASAC reviewed the draft document at a public
peer review meeting on April 2-3, 2008; comments from the CASAC and the
public have been addressed in this second external review draft
document. The draft ``Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of
Nitrogen and Sulfur--Environmental Criteria; Second External Review
Draft'' will be discussed by CASAC at a future public meeting; public
comments that have been received prior to the public meeting will be
provided to the CASAC review panel. A future Federal Register notice
will inform the public of the exact date and time of that CASAC
meeting.

II. How To Submit Technical Comments to the Docket at http://
www.regulations.gov

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-
1145, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket
(Mail Code: 2822T), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. The phone number is 202-
566-1752.
     Hand Delivery: The OEI Docket is located in the EPA
Headquarters Docket Center, Room 3334 EPA West Building, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Such deliveries are only accepted during
the docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements

should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    If you provide comments by mail or hand delivery, please submit
three copies of the comments. For attachments, provide an index, number
pages consecutively with the comments, and submit an unbound original
and three copies.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-007-
1145. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the
specified comment period. Comments received after the closing date will
be marked ``late,'' and may only be considered if time permits. It is
EPA's policy to include all comments it receives in the public docket
without change and to make the comments available online at http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless a comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-
mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous
access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the
EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: Documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other materials,
such as copyrighted material, are publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the OEI Docket in the
EPA Headquarters Docket Center.

    Dated: August 1, 2008.
Rebecca Clark,
Acting Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment.
[FR Doc. E8-18610 Filed 8-11-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 161 (Wednesday, August 19, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51089-51093]
[FR Doc No: 2020-18098]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-89540; File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2020-039]

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

August 13, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on August

3, 2020, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``EDGX'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``EDGX'') is filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed
rule change to amend the fee schedule. The text of the proposed rule
change is provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/options/regulation/rule_filings/edgx/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule in connection with
its Retail Volume Tiers.
    The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the
Exchange is only one of 13 registered equities exchanges, as well as a
number of alternative trading systems and other off-exchange venues
that do not have similar self-regulatory responsibilities under the
Exchange Act, to which market participants may direct their order flow.
Based on publicly available information, no single registered equities
exchange has more than 20% of the market share.\4\ Thus, in such a low-
concentrated and highly competitive market, no single equities exchange
possesses significant pricing power in the execution of order flow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Cboe Global Markets, U.S. Equities Market Volume
Summary, Month-to-Date (July 29, 2020), available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_statistics/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange in particular operates a ``Maker-Taker'' model whereby
it pays credits to members that add liquidity and assesses fees to
those that remove liquidity. The Exchange's Fees Schedule sets forth
the standard rebates and rates applied per share for orders that
provide and remove liquidity, respectively. Particularly, for
securities at or above $1.00, the Exchange provides a standard rebate
of $0.0017 per share for orders that add liquidity and assesses a fee
of $0.0027 per share for orders that remove liquidity, and for
securities below $1.00, the Exchange provides a standard rebate of
$0.00003 per share for orders that add liquidity and assesses a
standard fee of 30% of dollar value per share for orders that remove
liquidity. The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share
among the exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market
participants can shift order flow, or discontinue to reduce use of
certain categories of products, in response to fee changes.
Accordingly, competitive forces constrain the Exchange's transaction
fees, and market participants can readily trade on competing venues if
they deem pricing levels at those other venues to be more favorable.
    In response to the competitive environment, the Exchange also
offers tiered pricing which provides Members opportunities to qualify
for higher rebates or reduced fees where certain volume criteria and
thresholds are met. Tiered pricing provides incremental incentives for
Members to strive for higher or different tier levels by offering
increasingly higher discounts or enhanced benefits for satisfying
increasingly more stringent criteria or different criteria. Pursuant to
footnote 3 of the fee schedule, the Exchange currently offers Retail
Volume Tiers which provide Retail Member Organizations (``RMOs'') \5\
an opportunity to receive an enhanced rebate from the standard rebate
for Retail Orders \6\ that add liquidity (i.e., yielding fee code
``ZA'' \7\). Currently, the Retail Volume Tiers offer three levels of
criteria difficulty and incentive opportunities in which RMOs may
qualify for enhanced rebates for Retail Orders. The tier structures are
designed to encourage RMOs to increase their order flow in order to
receive an enhanced rebate on their liquidity adding orders, and the
Exchange now proposes to amend existing Retail Volume Tier 2 in
footnote 3 of the fee schedule and renumber it to Retail Volume Tier 3.
Additionally the Exchange proposes to renumber existing Retail Volume
Tier 3 to Retail Volume Tier 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A ``Retail Member Organization'' or ``RMO'' is a Member (or
a division thereof) that has been approved by the Exchange under
this Rule to submit Retail Orders. See EDGX Rule 11.21(a)(1).
    \6\ A ``Retail Order'' is an agency or riskless principal order
that meets the criteria of FINRA Rule 5320.03 that originates from a
natural person and is submitted to the Exchange by a Retail Member
Organization, provided that no change is made to the terms of the
order with respect to price or side of market and the order does not
originate from a trading algorithm or any other computerized
methodology. See EDGX Rule 11.21(a)(2).
    \7\ Appended to Retail Orders that add liquidity to EDGX and
offered a rebate of $0.0032 per share.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, Retail Volume Tier 2 provides a rebate of $0.0037 per
share to RMOs that add a Retail Order Average Daily Volume (``ADV'')
\8\ (i.e., yielding fee code ZA) of equal to or greater than 0.50% of
the Total Consolidated Volume (``TCV'').\9\ Now, the Exchange proposes
to increase the rebate to $0.0038 per share. The proposed criteria
under existing Retail Volume Tier 2 is designed to encourage RMOs to
increase retail order flow on the Exchange. The Exchange notes that the
proposed Retail Volume Tier 3 is available to all RMOs and is
competitively achievable for all RMOs that submit liquidity adding
retail order flow, in that, all firms that submit the requisite
liquidity adding retail order flow could compete to meet the tier.
Additionally, the Exchange proposes to renumber existing Retail Volume
Tier 3 to Retail Volume Tier 2, and renumber the amended Retail Volume
Tier 2 to Retail Volume Tier 3. Such renumbering will provide the
Retail Volume Tiers in order from smallest rebate to largest rebate,
which is consistent with the organization of the Exchange's Fee
Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ ADV means average daily volume calculated as the number of
shares added to, removed from, or routed by, the Exchange, or any
combination or subset thereof, per day. ADV is calculated on a
monthly basis.
    \9\ TCV means total consolidated volume calculated as the volume
reported by all exchanges and trade reporting facilities to a
consolidated transaction reporting plan for the month for which the
fees apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed opportunity to receive an
enhanced rebate on qualifying Retail Orders incentivizes an increase in
overall order flow to the Exchange. It provides liquidity adding RMOs
on the Exchange a further incentive to contribute to a deeper, more
liquid market, and liquidity executing Members on the Exchange a
further incentive to increase transactions and take execution
opportunities provided by such increased liquidity, together providing
for overall enhanced price discovery and price improvement
opportunities on the Exchange. As such, this benefits all Members by
contributing towards a robust and well-balanced market ecosystem.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with

the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\10\ in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\11\ in particular, as it is designed
to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among its Members and issuers and other persons using its
facilities. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \12\ requirements
that the rules of an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest, and, particularly, is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or incentives to be insufficient. The proposed rule change
reflects a competitive pricing structure designed to incentivize market
participants to direct their order flow to the Exchange, which the
Exchange believes would enhance market quality to the benefit of all
Members.
    In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed amendment is
reasonable because it provides an opportunity for RMOs to receive an
enhanced rebate on qualifying orders by means of liquidity adding
orders and removing or Retail Orders. The Exchange notes that relative
volume-based incentives and discounts have been widely adopted by
exchanges,\13\ including the Exchange,\14\ and are reasonable,
equitable and non-discriminatory because they are open to all RMOs on
an equal basis and provide additional benefits or discounts that are
reasonably related to (i) the value to an exchange's market quality and
(ii) associated higher levels of market activity, such as higher levels
of liquidity provision and/or growth patterns. Additionally, as noted
above, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. The
Exchange is only one of several equity venues to which market
participants may direct their order flow, and it represents a small
percentage of the overall market. It is also only one of several maker-
taker exchanges. Competing equity exchanges offer similar tiered
pricing structures to that of the Exchange, including schedules of
rebates and fees that apply based upon members achieving certain volume
thresholds. These competing pricing schedules, moreover, are presently
comparable to those that the Exchange provides, including the pricing
of comparable tiers.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See e.g., Nasdaq PSX Price List, Rebate to Add Displayed
Liquidity (Per Share Executed), which provides rebates to members
for adding displayed liquidity over certain thresholds of TCV
ranging between $0.0020 and $0.0026; Cboe BZX U.S. Equities Exchange
Fee Schedule, Footnote 1, Add Volume Tiers, which provides similar
incentives for liquidity adding orders and offers rebates ranging
between $0.0018 and $0.0032; Nasdaq Price List, Rebate to Add
Displayed Designated Retail Liquidity, which offer rebates of
$0.00325 and $0.0033 for Add Displayed Designated Retail Liquidity.
    \14\ See generally, Cboe EDGX U.S. Equities Exchange Fee
Schedule, Footnote 1, Add Volume Tiers, which provides incentives
for ADV/ADAV order flow as a percentage of TCV and for criteria
based on certain other threshold components (i.e. Step-Up Add TCV,
average OCV, and AIM and Customer orders); and Footnote 3, Retail
Volume Tiers, which provides incentives for Retail Step-Up Add TCV
and Retail Order ADV as a percentage of TCV.
    \15\ See supra note 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, the Exchange believes the proposed amendment is
reasonable because it is designed to encourage overall order flow, that
is, both adding and removing orders as a result of the proposed
amendment to proposed Retail Volume Tier 3. Indeed, the Exchange notes
that greater add volume order flow provides for deeper, more liquid
markets and execution opportunities, and greater remove volume order
flow increases transactions on the Exchange, which incentivizes
liquidity providers to submit additional liquidity and execution
opportunities, thus, providing an overall increase in price discovery
and transparency on the Exchange. Also, an increase in Retail Order
flow, which generally are submitted in smaller sizes, tends to attract
Market-Makers, as smaller size orders are easier to hedge. Increased
Market-Maker activity facilitates tighter spreads, signaling additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants,
which contributes towards a robust, well-balanced market ecosystem.
Increased overall order flow benefits all investors by deepening the
Exchange's liquidity pool, potentially providing even greater execution
incentives and opportunities, offering additional flexibility for all
investors to enjoy cost savings, supporting the quality of price
discovery, promoting market transparency and improving investor
protection.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal represents an equitable
allocation of rebates and is not unfairly discriminatory because all
RMOs will continue to be eligible for proposed Retail Volume Tier 3.
The proposed tier is designed as an incentive to any and all RMOs
interested in meeting the tier criteria to submit additional adding and
removing, or Retail, order flow to the Exchange. RMOs will have the
opportunity to submit the requisite order flow and will receive the
applicable enhanced rebate if the tier criteria is met. The Exchange
additionally notes that while the proposed Retail Volume tier is
applicable only to RMOs, the Exchange does not believe this application
is discriminatory as the Exchange offers similar rebates to non-RMO
order flow.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Such as the 15 other Add Volume Tiers and the Tape B Volume
Tier which provide opportunities to all Members to submit the
requisite order flow to receive an enhanced rebate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Without having a view of activity on other markets and off-exchange
venues, the Exchange has no way of knowing whether this proposed rule
change would definitely result in any RMOs qualifying for the proposed
amended tier. While the Exchange has no way of predicting with
certainty how the proposed change will impact RMO activity, the
Exchange anticipates that at least two RMOs will be able to compete for
and reach proposed Retail Volume Tier 3. The Exchange also notes that
the proposed amended tier will not adversely impact any RMO's pricing
or their ability to qualify for other rebate tiers. Rather, should a
RMO not meet the criteria for proposed Retail Volume Tier 3, the RMO
will merely not receive the corresponding proposed enhanced rebate.
Furthermore, the proposed rebate would uniformly apply to all RMOs that
meet the required criteria.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intramarket or intermarket competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Rather, as discussed above, the Exchange believes that the proposed
change would encourage the submission of additional order flow to a
public exchange, thereby promoting market depth, execution incentives
and enhanced execution opportunities, as well as price discovery and
transparency for all Members. As a

result, the Exchange believes that the proposed change furthers the
Commission's goal in adopting Regulation NMS of fostering competition
among orders, which promotes ``more efficient pricing of individual
stocks for all types of orders, large and small.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808, 70 FR 37495,
37498-99 (June 29, 2005) (S7-10-04) (Final Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not impose any
burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Particularly, the proposed
change applies to all RMOs equally in that all RMOs are eligible for
the proposed amended tier, have a reasonable opportunity to meet the
tier's criteria and will all receive the proposed rebate if such
criteria is met. As indicated above, the Exchange does not believe that
offering RMOs, specifically, opportunities to meet certain tier
criteria for enhanced rebates imposes a burden on intramarket
competition as the Exchange offers many similar rebate opportunities
for non-RMOs.\18\ Overall, the proposed change is designed to attract
additional order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the
proposal to increase the proposed Retail Volume Tier 3 rebate would
incentivize market participants to direct liquidity removing order flow
to the Exchange and, as a result, increase execution opportunities,
which would further incentivize the provision of liquidity and
continued order flow and improve price transparency on the Exchange.
Greater overall order flow and pricing transparency benefits all market
participants on the Exchange by generally providing more trading
opportunities, enhancing market quality, and continuing to encourage
Members to send orders, thereby contributing towards a robust and well-
balanced market ecosystem, which benefits all market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See supra note 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As previously
discussed, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market.
Members have numerous alternative venues that they may participate on
and direct their order flow, including 12 other equities exchanges and
off-exchange venues and alternative trading systems. Additionally, the
Exchange represents a small percentage of the overall market. Based on
publicly available information, no single equities exchange has more
than 20% of the market share.\19\ Therefore, no exchange possesses
significant pricing power in the execution of order flow. Indeed,
participants can readily choose to send their orders to other exchange
and off-exchange venues if they deem fee levels at those other venues
to be more favorable. Moreover, the Commission has repeatedly expressed
its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in
determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets.
Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the
importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and,
also, recognized that current regulation of the market system ``has
been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its
broader forms that are most important to investors and listed
companies.'' \20\ The fact that this market is competitive has also
long been recognized by the courts. In NetCoalition v. Securities and
Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit stated as follows: ``[n]o one
disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC
explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of
securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing
agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for
execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share
percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly,
regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker
dealers'. . . .''.\21\ Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe its
proposed fee change imposes any burden on competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See supra note 6 [sic].
    \20\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
    \21\ Net Coalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
21).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from Members or other interested
parties.

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \22\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \23\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange. At any time within 60 days of the
filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) \24\
of the Act to determine whether the proposed rule change should be
approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \23\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2020-039 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2020-039. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the

Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do
not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
CboeEDGX-2020-039 and should be submitted on or before September 9,
2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-18098 Filed 8-18-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: November 18, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 222)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 70664-70665]
[DOCID:fr18no10-18]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 136, 260, 423, 430, and 435

[EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0192; FRL-9228-6]

Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of
Pollutants Under the Clean Water Act; Analysis and Sampling Procedures;
Extension of Comment Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of the public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: On September 23, 2010, EPA proposed changes to analysis and
sampling test procedures in wastewater regulations. These changes will
help provide additional flexibility to the regulated community and
laboratories in their selection of analytical methods (test procedures)
for use in Clean Water Act programs. EPA requested that public comments
on the proposal be submitted on or before November 22, 2010 (a 60-day
comment period). Since publication, the Agency has received several
requests for additional time to submit comments. EPA is extending the
period of time in which the Agency will accept public comments on the
proposal for an additional 30 days.

DATES: The comment period for the proposed rule published September 23,
2010, at 75 FR 58024 is extended. Comments must be received on or
before December 22, 2010. Comments postmarked after this date may not
be considered.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2010-0192, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; EPA Docket
Center (EPA/DC) Water Docket, MC 28221T; 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., EPA West, Room 3334, Washington, DC. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-
0921. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA

cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For
additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket
Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Office of Water
Docket/EPA/DC, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., EPA West, Room 3334,
Washington, DC. This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. until 4:30
p.m., EST, Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the Office of Water Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lemuel Walker, Engineering and
Analysis Division (4303T), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460;<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: November 9, 2010.
Nancy K. Stoner,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Water.
[FR Doc. 2010-29145 Filed 11-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 243 (Wednesday, December 20, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 88184-88186]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27918]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-99176; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2023-053]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Equity 7, Section 114(f)

December 14, 2023.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on December 1, 2023, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's schedule of rebates
at Equity 7, Section 114(f) as described further below. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at https://istingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/nasdaq/rules, at the principal office
of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's
schedule of credits at Equity 7, Section

114(f) applicable to the Designated Liquidity Provider (``DLP'') \3\
Program. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend the Additional
Tape C ETP Incentives at Equity 7, Section 114(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Equity 7, Section 114(f)(2) defines a ``Designated Liquidity
Provider'' or ``DLP'' as a registered Nasdaq market maker for a
Qualified Security that has committed to maintain minimum
performance standards. A DLP shall be selected by Nasdaq based on
factors including, but not limited to, experience with making
markets in exchange-traded products, adequacy of capital,
willingness to promote Nasdaq as a marketplace, issuer preference,
operational capacity, support personnel, and history of adherence to
Nasdaq rules and securities laws. Nasdaq may limit the number of
DLPs in a security, or modify a previously established limit, upon
prior written notice to members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the Additional Tape C ETP Incentives in Equity 7,
Section 114(f)(5)(B) are provided to an eligible member for each
displayed share that adds liquidity in a Tape C ETP that meets the
criteria of Equity 7, Section 114(f)(1)(A) and only apply to the MPID
where a member is a DLP. In addition, Equity 7, Section 114(f)(4)
provides monthly performance criteria related to Additional Tape C ETP
Incentives, which requires that the average time the DLP is at the NBBO
for each assigned ETP averages at least 20%, and the average liquidity
provided by the DLP for each assigned ETP average at least 5% of the
liquidity provided on the Exchange in the respective ETP.
    As set forth in in Equity 7, Section 114(f)(5)(B), the Exchange
provides an Incremental Tape C ETP Rebate for Tier 1 (applicable to
members with a minimum monthly average of 10 assigned ETPs as a DLP) of
$0.0002 per executed share. The Exchange provides an Incremental Tape C
ETP Rebate for Tier 2 (applicable to members with a minimum monthly
average of 25 assigned ETPs as a DLP) of $0.0003 per executed share.
The Exchange provides an Incremental Tape C ETP Rebate for Tier 3
(applicable to members with a minimum monthly average of 50 assigned
ETPs as a DLP) of $0.0004 per executed share. Finally, the Exchange
provides an Incremental Tape C ETP Rebate for Tier 4 (applicable to
members with a minimum monthly average of 100 assigned ETPs as a DLP)
of $0.0005 per executed share.
    The Exchange proposes to limit the category of DLPs that may
qualify for the Additional Tape C ETP Incentives to Primary DLPs. Under
the proposed rule change, Secondary DLPs \4\ would not be eligible for
Additional Tape C ETP Incentives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Equity 7, Section 114(f)(4) provides that, if there are two
DLP assignments for a Nasdaq-listed ETP, the Secondary DLP will be
determined by using the factors in Section 114(f)(2). Such factors
include experience with making markets in exchange-traded products,
adequacy of capital, willingness to promote Nasdaq as a marketplace,
issuer preference, operational capacity, support personnel, and
history of adherence to Nasdaq rules and securities laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to effectuate this proposed modification, the Exchange
proposes to modify Equity 7, Section 114(f)(4) to indicate that the
Additional Tape C ETP Incentives are for Primary DLPs and relatedly,
update the performance criteria related to such rebates by adding
``Primary'' where DLP is referenced. In addition, the Exchange proposes
to modify Equity 7, Section 114(f)(5) to specify, in both the
introductory language as well as in Section 114(f)(5)(B), that the DLP
must be a Primary DLP to qualify for the Additional Tape C ETP
Incentives.
    The Exchange believes it is appropriate to update the Tape C ETP
Incentives to apply solely to Primary DLPs because Primary DLPs bear
the majority of the responsibility for providing high quality markets
in the ETPs, whereas Secondary DLPs provide additional support. In
return for serving as Primary DLPs, the Exchange believes it is
appropriate to compensate Primary DLPs with incentives reserved for
Primary DLPs. The Exchange has limited resources to devote to incentive
programs, and it is appropriate for the Exchange to reallocate these
incentives periodically in a manner that best achieves the Exchange's
overall mix of objectives, including by maximizing the net impact of
such incentives on the Exchange, market quality, and participants.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\5\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and issuers and other persons using any facility, and is
not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers. The Exchange also notes that its ETP
listing business operates in a highly competitive market in which
market participants, which include both DLPs and ETP issuers, can
readily transfer their listings or opt not to participate,
respectively, if they deem fee levels, liquidity incentive programs, or
any other factor at a particular venue to be insufficient or excessive.
The DLP Program, including the proposed rule change, reflects a
competitive pricing structure designed to incentivize issuers to list
new products and transfer existing products to the Exchange and market
participants to enroll and participate as DLPs on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly
discriminatory to limit the category of DLPs that may qualify for the
Additional Tape C ETP Incentives to Primary DLPs. The Exchange believes
it is appropriate to update the Tape C ETP Incentives to apply solely
to Primary DLPs because Primary DLPs bear the majority of the
responsibility for providing high quality markets in the ETPs, whereas
the Secondary DLPs provide additional support. The Exchange has limited
resources to devote to incentive programs, and it is appropriate for
the Exchange to reallocate these incentives periodically in a manner
that best achieves the Exchange's overall mix of objectives. In return
for serving as Primary DLPs, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to
compensate Primary DLPs with incentives reserved exclusively for
Primary DLPs. The Exchange believes that the proposed revisions to the
Additional Tape C ETP Incentives are an equitable allocation and are
not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will apply the same
criteria for the Additional Tape C ETP Incentives to all Primary DLPs.
The Exchange also believes that amending the DLP Program as proposed is
an equitable allocation of rebates and is not unfairly discriminatory
because it will allocate its rebates fairly among its market
participants (i.e., the Exchange will offer more rebates to Primary
DLPs that are responsible for providing high quality markets in the
ETPs).

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange notes that it
operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants
can readily favor competing venues if they deem rebates or fee levels
at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities
available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment,
the Exchange must continually adjust its rebates and fees to remain
competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems
that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards
applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their
own rebates and fees in

response, and because market participants may readily adjust their
order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which
rebate and fee changes in this market may impose any burden on
competition is extremely limited.
    In this instance, the Exchange is proposing to limit the category
of DLPs that may qualify for the Additional Tape C ETP Incentives in
the DLP Program to Primary DLPs in an effort to exclusively reward
Primary DLPs with such incentives. The proposal is reflective of the
greater responsibility borne by Primary DLPs.
    The Exchange uses incentives, such as the rebates of the DLP
program, to incentivize market participants to improve the market. The
Exchange must, from time to time, assess the effectiveness of
incentives and adjust them when they are not as effective as the
Exchange believes they could be. Moreover, the Exchange is ultimately
limited in the amount of rebates it may offer. The proposal is
reflective of such an analysis.
    The Exchange notes that participation in the DLP program is
entirely voluntary and, to the extent that registered market makers
determine that the rebates are not in line with the level of market-
improving behavior the Exchange requires, a DLP may elect to deregister
as such with no penalty. The Exchange does not believe that the
proposed change places an unnecessary burden on competition and, in
sum, if the changes proposed herein are unattractive to market makers,
it is likely that the Exchange will lose participation in the DLP
program as a result. Thus, the Exchange does not believe that the
proposal represents a burden on competition among Exchange members, or
that the proposal will impair the ability of members or competing order
execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the
financial markets.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: (i)
necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

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 (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
file number SR-NASDAQ-2023-053 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to file number SR-NASDAQ-2023-053. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not
include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We
may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted
material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All
submissions should refer to file number SR-NASDAQ-2023-053 and should
be submitted on or before January 10, 2024.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-27918 Filed 12-19-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 42 (Thursday, March 3, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11848-11853]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4785]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0001]

Reports, Forms, and Recordkeeping Requirements

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

ACTION: Request for extension of a currently approved collection of
information.

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

SUMMARY: This document solicits public comments on continuation of the
requirements for the collection of information entitled ``Consolidated
Child Restraint System Registration, Labeling and Defect
Notifications'' (OMB Control Number: 2127-0576).
    Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from the
public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit
public comment on proposed collections of information, including
extensions and reinstatement of previously approved collections.

DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that
Docket Management receives them no later than May 2, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments (identified by the DOT Docket ID
Number above) by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001 between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should mention the
docket number of this document. You may call the Docket at (202) 366-
9324. Please identify the proposed collection of information for which
a comment is provided, by referencing its OMB clearance number. It is
requested, but not required, that two copies of the comment be
provided.
    Note that all comments received will be posted without change to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the street
address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Complete copies of each request for
collection of information may be obtained at no charge from Cristina
Echemendia, US. Department of

Transportation, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Room
W43-447, NVS-113, Washington, DC 20590. Mrs. Cristina Echemendia's
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER> and fax number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Please identify the relevant collection of information by referring to
its OMB Control Number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB
for approval, it must first publish a document in the Federal Register
providing a 60-day comment period and otherwise consult with members of
the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of
information. The OMB has promulgated regulations describing what must
be included in such a document. Under OMB's regulation (at 5 CFR
1320.8(d)), an agency must ask for public comment on the following:
    (i) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected;
    (iv) How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic
submission of responses.
    In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public
comments on the following proposed collection of information:
    Title: ``Consolidated Child Restraint System Registration, Labeling
and Defect Notifications.''
    OMB Control Number: 2127-0576.
    Requested Expiration Date of Approval: Three years from the
approval date.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Affected Public: Business, Individuals and Households.
    Summary of the Collection of Information: Child restraint
manufacturers are required to provide an owner's registration card for
purchasers of child safety seats in accordance with title 49 of the
Code of Federal Regulation (CFR), part 571-section 213, ``Child
Restraint Systems.'' The registration card is perforated into two-parts
(see Figures 1 and 2). The top part contains a message and suitable
instructions to be retained by the purchaser. The bottom part is to be
returned to the manufacturer by the purchaser. The bottom part includes
prepaid return postage, the pre-printed name/address of the
manufacturer, the pre-printed model and date of manufacture, and spaces
for the purchaser to fill in his/her name and address. Optionally,
child restraint manufacturers are permitted to add to the registration
form: (a) Specified statements informing CRS owners that they may
register online; (b) the Internet address for registering with the
company; (c) revisions to statements reflecting use of the Internet to
register; and (d) a space for the consumer's e-mail address. For those
CRS owners with access to the Internet, online registration may be a
preferred method of registering a CRS.
    In addition to the registration card supplied by the manufacturer,
NHTSA has implemented a CRS registration system to assist those
individuals who have either lost the registration card that came with
the CRS or purchased a previously owned CRS. Upon the owner's request,
NHTSA provides a substitute registration form that can be obtained
either by mail or from the Internet \1\ (see Figure 3). When the
completed registration is returned to the agency, it is then submitted
to the CRS manufacturers. In the absence of a substitute registration
system, many owners of child passenger safety seats, especially any
second-hand owners, might not be notified of safety defects and non
compliances, and would not have the defects and noncompliances
remedied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/recalls/register/childseat/csregfrm.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Child seat owner registration information is retained in the event
that owners need to be contacted for defect recalls or replacement
campaigns. Chapter 301 of title 49 of the United States Code specifies
that if either NHTSA or a manufacturer determines that motor vehicles
or items of motor vehicle equipment contain a defect that relates to
motor vehicle safety or fail to comply with an applicable Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard, the manufacturer must notify owners and
purchasers of the defect or noncompliance and must provide a remedy
without charge. In title 49 of the CFR, part 577, defect and
noncompliance notification for equipment items, including child
restraint systems, must be sent by first class mail to the most recent
purchaser known to the manufacturer.
    Child restraint manufacturers are also required to provide a
printed instructions brochure with step-by-step information on how the
restraint is to be used. Without proper use, the effectiveness of these
systems is greatly diminished. Each child restraint system must also
have a permanent label. A permanently attached label gives
``quicklook'' information on whether the restraint meets the safety
requirements, recommended installation and use, and warnings against
misuse.
    Estimated Annual Burden: 39,247 hours.
    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the
proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility
and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize
the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including
the use of automated collection techniques of other forms of
information technology.
BILLION CODE 4910-59-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03MR11.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03MR11.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03MR11.010

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3506(c); delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.50.

    Issued on: February 28, 2011.
Joseph S. Carra,
Acting, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2011-4785 Filed 3-2-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C