[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 233 (Wednesday, December 4, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66361-66363]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26145]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0162; FRL-10002-85-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Virginia; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2015 Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision formally submitted
by the Commonwealth of Virginia. Whenever EPA promulgates a new or
revised national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS or standard), the
Clean Air Act (CAA) requires states to make SIP submissions to provide
for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. The
infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that the structural
components of each state's air quality management program are adequate
to meet the state's responsibilities under the CAA. Virginia has
formally submitted a SIP revision addressing the following
infrastructure elements, or portions thereof, of section 110(a) of the
CAA for the 2015 ozone NAAQS: CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C),
(D)(i)(II), D(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). EPA is
proposing to approve Virginia's submittal addressing the infrastructure
requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS in accordance with the
requirements of section 110(a) of the CAA.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before January 3, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2019-0162 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, 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, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara Calcinore, Planning &
Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone number is (215) 814-
2043. Ms. Calcinore can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Under the CAA, EPA establishes NAAQS for criteria pollutants to
protect human health and the environment. In response to scientific
evidence linking ozone exposure to adverse health effects, EPA
promulgated the first ozone NAAQS, the 0.12 parts per million (ppm) 1-
hour ozone NAAQS, in 1979. 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979). The CAA
requires EPA to review and reevaluate the NAAQS every five years in
order to consider updated information regarding the effects of the
criteria pollutants on human health and the environment. On July 18,
1997, EPA promulgated a revised ozone NAAQS, referred to as the 1997
ozone NAAQS, of 0.08 ppm averaged over eight hours. 62 FR 38855. This
8-hour ozone NAAQS was determined to be more protective of public
health than the previous 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS. In 2008, EPA
strengthened the 8-hour ozone NAAQS from 0.08 to 0.075 ppm, referred to
as the 2008 ozone NAAQS. See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). On October
26, 2015, EPA issued a final rule strengthening both the primary and
secondary ozone NAAQS for ground-level ozone to 0.070 ppm, based on the
fourth-highest maximum daily 8-hour ozone concentration per year,
averaged over three years. 80 FR 65291.

    Whenever EPA promulgates a new or revised NAAQS, CAA section
110(a)(1) requires states to make SIP submissions to provide for the
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. This
particular type of SIP submission is commonly referred to as an
``infrastructure SIP.'' These submissions must meet the various
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2), as applicable. Due to ambiguity
in some of the language of CAA section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it
is appropriate to interpret these provisions in the specific context of
acting on infrastructure SIP submissions. EPA has previously provided
comprehensive guidance on the application of these provisions through a
guidance document for infrastructure SIP submissions and through
regional actions on infrastructure submissions.\1\ Unless otherwise
noted below, EPA is following that existing approach in acting on
Virginia's submission. In addition, in the context of acting on such
infrastructure submissions, EPA evaluates the submitting state's SIP
for facial compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements, not
for the state's implementation of its SIP.\2\ EPA has other authority
to address any issues concerning a state's implementation of the rules,
regulations, consent orders, etc. that comprise its SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA explains and elaborates on these ambiguities and its
approach to address them in ``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 (also referred to as ``2013 Infrastructure
Guidance''), included in the docket for this rulemaking action
available at www.regulations.gov, Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2019-
0162, as well as in numerous agency actions, including EPA's prior
action on Virginia's infrastructure SIP to address the interstate
transport requirements for the 2012 fine particulate matter NAAQS
(83 FR 21233, May 9, 2018).
    \2\ See U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision in
Montana Environmental Information Center v. EPA, No. 16-71933 (Aug.
30, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    On January 28, 2019, the Commonwealth of Virginia formally
submitted, through the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
(VADEQ), a SIP revision to satisfy the infrastructure requirements of
CAA section 110(a) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS (referred to as
``Virginia's submittal''). Virginia's submittal addresses the following
infrastructure elements, or portions thereof, for the 2015 ozone NAAQS:
CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), D(ii), (E), (F), (G),
(H), (J), (K), (L), and (M).
    Virginia's January 28, 2019 submittal does not address the
following elements of CAA section 110(a)(2): The portion of element (C)
referring to permit programs known as nonattainment new source review
(NNSR); sub-element (D)(i)(I) related to interstate transport; and
element (I), which pertains to the nonattainment requirements of part
D, title I of the CAA. According to EPA's 2013 Infrastructure Guidance,
both element (I) and the portion of element (C) related to NNSR pertain
to part D of title I of the CAA, which addresses SIP requirements and
submission deadlines for areas designated nonattainment for a NAAQS.
Both elements pertain to SIP revisions that are collectively referred
to as nonattainment SIPs or attainment plans. Such SIP revisions are
required if an area is designated nonattainment and, if required, would
be due to EPA by the dates statutorily prescribed in CAA part D,
subparts 2 through 5. Because the CAA directs states to submit these
plan elements on a separate schedule, EPA does not believe it is
necessary for states to include these elements in the infrastructure
SIP submission due three years after adoption or revision of a NAAQS.
Virginia's submittal also did not address CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) related to interstate transport for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS. Therefore, EPA is not proposing any action related to Virginia's
obligations under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
EPA will take separate action on CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the
2015 ozone NAAQS once Virginia submits a SIP revision addressing this
sub-element.
    Based upon EPA's review of Virginia's January 28, 2019 SIP
revision, EPA is proposing to determine that Virginia's submittal
satisfies the infrastructure elements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), (B),
(C), (D)(i)(II), D(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M) for
the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
    A detailed summary of EPA's review and rationale for approving
Virginia's submittal may be found in the technical support document
(TSD) for this proposed rulemaking action included in the docket for
this rulemaking action available at www.regulations.gov, Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0162.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to find that Virginia's January 28, 2019 submittal
satisfies the following infrastructure requirements of CAA section
110(a) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS: CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C),
(D)(i)(II), D(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). As
discussed previously, Virginia's submittal did not address the
following infrastructure elements: The portion of CAA section
110(a)(2)(C) related to NNSR; CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) related to
interstate transport; and CAA section 110(a)(2)(I) pertaining to the
nonattainment requirements of part D, title I of the CAA. Therefore,
EPA is not taking action on these elements. EPA is soliciting public
comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will
be considered before taking final action.

IV. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the
Commonwealth of Virginia

    In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to
certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit)
``privilege'' for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a
regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden
of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking
disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's
legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty
waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity
discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation
and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes
prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's
Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-
1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and
information about the content of those documents that are the product
of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not
extend to documents or information that: (1) Are generated or developed
before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2)
are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) demonstrate a
clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or
environment; or (4) are required by law.
    On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the
Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the
Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege
to documents and information ``required by law,'' including documents
and information ``required by Federal law to maintain program
delegation, authorization or approval,'' since Virginia must ``enforce
Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less
stringent than their Federal counterparts. . . .'' The opinion
concludes that ``[r]egarding

Sec.  10.1-1198, therefore, documents or other information needed for
civil or criminal enforcement under one of these programs could not be
privileged because such documents and information are essential to
pursuing enforcement in a manner required by Federal law to maintain
program delegation, authorization or approval.''
    Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that
``[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal
law,'' any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a
state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute,
regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from
administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12,
1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute
inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since
``no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal
penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with
Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.''
    Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and
Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its
program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because
EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law
can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal
enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under
the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to
enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan,
independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen
enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by
this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.

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 CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 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. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' 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);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is 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.);
     Does 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);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is 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
     Does 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 proposed for approval to apply on any Indian
reservation land as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151 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 rule proposing to
approve Virginia's submittal addressing the infrastructure requirements
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), D(ii), (E), (F),
(G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS does not have
tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: November 21, 2019.
Diana Esher,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2019-26145 Filed 12-3-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: February 22, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 34)]
[Notices]
[Page 7582-7584]
[DOCID:fr22fe10-45]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0866; FRL-9114-5]

Access by EPA Contractors to Information Claimed as Confidential
Business Information (CBI) Submitted Under Title II of the Clean Air
Act

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) has
authorized various contractors to access information which has been
submitted to EPA under Title II of the Clean Air Act that is claimed to
be, or has been determined to be, confidential business information
(CBI). EPA is providing notice of past disclosure and of ongoing and
contemplated future disclosure.

DATES: Access by EPA contractors to material discussed in this Notice
that has been either claimed or determined to be confidential business
information (CBI) is ongoing, and is expected to continue in the
future. EPA will accept comments on this Notice through March 1, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne-Marie C. Pastorkovich,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. (6406J),
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: 202-
343-2801; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Does This Notice Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the general public. However, this action
may be of particular interest to parties who submit or have previously
submitted information to EPA regarding the following programs: Fuel and
fuel additive registration (40 CFR part 79), various fuels programs
including reformulated gasoline, anti-dumping, gasoline sulfur, ultra
low sulfur diesel, benzene content, and the renewable fuel standard (40
CFR part 80), certification and defect reporting/recall of light-duty
vehicles (including motorcycles) and heavy duty on-highway vehicles and
engines (40 CFR part 86 and 40 CFR part 85, subpart T), certification
and defect reporting/recall of non-road compression-ignition engines
(40 CFR part 89, subparts B and I, 40 CFR part 1039, subpart C, and 40
CFR part 1068, subpart F), certification and defect reporting/recall of
spark-ignition engines less than or equal to 19 kilowatts (40 CFR part
90, subparts C and I, 40 CFR part 1054, subpart C, and 40 CFR part
1068, subpart F), certification and defect reporting/recall of marine
spark-ignition engines (40 CFR part 91, subparts B and J, 40 CFR part
1045, subpart C, and 40 CFR part 1068, subpart F), certification and
defect reporting/recall of locomotives (40 CFR part 92, subparts C and
E, 40 CFR part 1033, subpart C, and 40 CFR part 1068, subpart F),
certification and defect reporting/recall of marine compression-
ignition engines (40 CFR part 94, subparts C and E, 40 CFR part 1042,
subpart C, and 40 CFR part 1068, subpart F), certification of large
non-road spark-ignition engines (40 CFR part 1048, subpart C, and 40
CFR part 1068, subpart F), certification of recreational engines and
vehicles (40 CFR part 1051, subpart C, and 40 CFR part 1068, subpart
F), certification of non-road and stationary equipment for evaporative
emissions compliance (40 CFR part 1060, subpart C), certification of
stationary compression-ignition and spark-ignition engines (40 CFR part
60, subparts IIII and JJJJ, respectively), fees (40 CFR part 1027), and
fuel economy information (40 CFR part 600). Reports submitted to EPA
under 40 CFR parts 79 and 80 fuels programs are commonly referred to as
the ``OTAQ Fuels Reporting System.'' Reporting submitted to EPA under
40 CFR parts 86 and 600 related to engine and vehicle compliance, such
as light-duty certification and fuel economy information, is commonly
referred to by the name of the reporting system itself--i.e., as CFEIS
(prior to September 2008) and Verify (thereafter). Both the OTAQ Fuels
Reporting System and Verify utilize the EPA Central Data Exchange
(CDX).
    This Notice may be of particular relevance to parties that have
submitted data under the above-listed programs or systems. Since other
parties may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to
describe all the specific parties that may be affected by this action.
If you have further questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular party, please contact the person listed in FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

II. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related
Information?

A. Electronically

    EPA has established a public docket for this Notice under Docket
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0866.
    All documents in the docket are identified in the docket index
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, such as confidential
business information (CBI) or other information for which disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain materials, such as copyrighted material,
will only be available in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center.

B. EPA Docket Center

    Materials listed under Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0866 will be
available for public viewing at the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, 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 Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for
the Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

III. Description of Programs and Potential Disclosure of Information
Claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI) to Contractors

    EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) has
responsibility for protecting public health and the environment by
regulating air pollution from motor vehicles, engines, and the fuels
used to operate them, and by encouraging travel choices that minimize
emissions. In order to implement various Clean Air Act programs, and to
permit regulated entities flexibility in meeting regulatory
requirements (e.g., compliance on average), we collect compliance
reports and other information from them. Occasionally, the information
submitted is claimed to be confidential business information.
Information submitted

under such a claim is handled in accordance with EPA's regulations at
40 CFR part 2, subpart B and in accordance with EPA procedures,
including comprehensive system security plans (SSPs), that are
consistent with those regulations. When EPA has determined that
disclosure of information claimed as CBI to contractors is necessary,
the corresponding contract must address the appropriate use and
handling of the information by the contractor and the contractor must
require its personnel who require access to information claimed as CBI
to sign written non-disclosure agreements before they are granted
access to data.
    Controls regarding the handling of information claimed as CBI,
including sharing of information with contractors, are also addressed
in individual SSPs. The required SSPs adhere to EPA regulations and
policies, as well as with the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) Standard 800-53, ``Recommended Security Controls for
Federal Information Systems and Organizations.'' (NIST Standard 800-53
addresses technical, physical, environmental and other controls for
information systems, including Local Area Networks (LANs) where
information claimed as CBI may be stored.) Security plans address
background investigations, required training, and rules of behavior for
employees and contractors who require access to information claimed as
CBI. Controls contained in OTAQ's SSPs are approved by OTAQ management
and by the Information Management Official in the Office of Air and
Radiation and such approvals are valid for a period of three (3) years,
but we review the individual controls in our SSPs at least annually or
whenever any major program or system change occurs, whichever is more
frequent. Information which has been submitted to EPA under Title II of
the Clean Air Act that is claimed to be, or has been determined to be,
CBI has been handled and will continue to be handled at all times in
accordance with the appropriate security controls as stated above.
    In accordance with 40 CFR 2.301(h), we have determined that the
contractors, subcontractors, and grantees (collectively referred to as
``contractors'') listed below require access to CBI submitted to us
under Title II of the Clean Air Act and in connection with various OTAQ
programs related to fuels, vehicles, and engines and are providing
notice and an opportunity to comment. OTAQ collects this data in order
to monitor compliance with Clean Air Act programs and, in many cases,
to permit regulated parties flexibility in meeting regulatory
requirements. For example, data that may contain CBI is collected in
order to register fuels and fuel additives prior to introduction into
commerce and to certify engines. Certain programs are designed to
permit regulated parties an opportunity to comply on average, or to
engage in transactions using various types of credits. For example,
OTAQ collects information about batches of gasoline that refiners
produce in order to ensure compliance with reformulated gasoline
standards. The nature of the work and its necessity, and the type of
access granted, is described below for each contractor.
    Normally, EPA is required to give affected businesses notice and an
opportunity to comment at least five (5) working days prior to
disclosure of information claimed as CBI to a Federal contractor. This
Federal Register Notice provides advance notice to all affected
businesses that, as described below, certain information may be
provided to EPA contractors or enrollees under the Senior Environmental
Employment (SEE) program.
    In the past, as also described below, EPA has disclosed certain
information that had been claimed as CBI to EPA contractors providing
support services prior to providing notice to the affected businesses
and an opportunity to comment. EPA regrets this unintentional error and
has taken steps to avoid this error in the future. We are unaware of
any disclosures by contractors of information claimed as CBI. We are
publishing this notice in order to comply with the notification
requirements of 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    We are issuing this Notice to inform all submitters of information
related to various fuels, vehicles, and engines programs that we have
provided, and may in the future provide, access to material claimed as
CBI to the contractors identified below on a need-to-know basis.
    Under Contract Number EP-W-09-22, PowerSolv, Incorporated, 1801
Robert Fulton Drive 550, Reston, Virginia, 20191 and its
subcontractor, Indus Corporation, 1951 Kidwell Drive--8th Floor,
Vienna, Virginia, 22182 provide information technology (IT) development
and support services related to various fuels reporting programs under
40 CFR parts 79 and 80. The fuels programs for which reporting
information may be provided to these entities include: Fuel and fuel
additive registration, reformulated gasoline, anti-dumping, gasoline
sulfur, ultra low sulfur diesel, benzene content and the renewable fuel
standard. Access to fuels data, including information claimed as CBI,
has been ongoing since July 1, 2009 and will continue until May 31,
2010. If the contract is extended, this access will continue for the
remainder of the contract without further notice. From October 1, 1993
until September 30, 1998, the contractor was Vista Computer Services,
under Contract Number 68-W3-0032. From October 1, 1998 until March 31,
2004, the contractor was Vista Computer Services, under Contract Number
68-W-98-230. From April 1, 2004 until June 30, 2009, the contractor was
SPS Technologies, Incorporated (formerly known as Vista Computer
Services) under Contract Number EP-W-04-024.
    Under Contract Number EP-06-095, Compass Solutions, Incorporated,
2760 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite 404, Alexandria, Virginia 22314 provides
report processing and support services related to various fuels
reporting programs under 40 CFR parts 79 and 80. Access to fuels data,
including information claimed as CBI, has been on-going since October
1, 1992 and will continue until September 30, 2010. Compass Solutions
was formerly known as McWane and Associates and was referenced in a
1992 letter sent to all then-registered fuel and fuel additive
manufacturers to inform them of the disclosure of information claimed
as CBI to these contractors. If the contract is extended, the access
described in this paragraph will continue for the remainder of the
contract and any further extensions without further notice.
    Under Contract Number GS35F4381G--Task Order 1530, Software
Engineering & Specialized Scientific Support (SES3), 8400 Corporate
Drive, New Carrollton, Maryland 20785, and its subcontractor, Computer
Sciences Corporation (CSC), of the same address, provide IT support
services related to the engine and vehicle compliance information
system (i.e., the system formerly called CFEIS and currently called
Verify) under 40 CFR parts 86 and 600 Access by this contractor and
subcontractor to vehicle and engine data, including information claimed
as CBI, has been ongoing since September 11, 2009 and is expected to
continue until September 10, 2015. If the contract is extended, this
access will continue for the remainder of the contract and any further
extensions without further notice. Prior to 2009, the following
contractors had access to the data, including information claimed as
CBI, described in this paragraph: From July 1, 2004 until September 25,
2009, the contractor was CSC, 8400 Corporate Drive, New Carrollton,
Maryland 20785,

with the following subcontractors: Concurrent Tech, Compubahn, Inc.,
TEK Systems, Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC),
Innovate, Inc., CCS Technology Group, Ross & Associated, and CTC. The
Contract Number was GS00T99ALD0203, Task Order Number T0002AJM038. From
January 26, 2004 until July 7, 2006, the contractor was Lockheed
Martin, 1010 Glebe Road, Arlington, Virginia 22201 and the following
subcontractors: Solutron, Quest, Aprimus, DigitalNet, and Data Tech.
The Contract Number was 68-W-04-005, Task Order Number 21. From
December 1, 1998 until June 30, 2004, the contractor was Science
Applications International Corporation, 200 North Glebe Road, Suite
300, Arlington, Virginia 22203 and the following subcontractor:
DynCorp, Indus. The Contract Number was 68-W-99-002.
    Under Contract Number EPC-07-050, URS EG&G Division, 20501 Seneca
Meadows Parkway, Suite 300, Germantown, Maryland 20876 provides
technical services and support related to defect and recall reporting
for light-duty, heavy-duty, and non-road and marine engines under 40
CFR parts 85 (subpart T), 89 (subpart I), 90 (subpart I), 91 (subpart
J), 92 (subpart E), 94 (subpart E), and 1068 (subpart F). Certain data
collected with regard to testing programs (e.g., sales data for engines
and vehicles) may be claimed as CBI. Access to data, including
information claimed as CBI, has been ongoing since October 1, 2007 and
will continue until September 30, 2012. If the contract is extended,
this access will continue for the remainder of the contract and any
further extensions without further notice.
    Under Contract Number EP-C-06-003, Perrin Quarles Associates (PQA),
Inc.,\1\ 652 Peter Jefferson Parkway, Suite 300, Charlottesville,
Virginia 22911 provides technical and analytical support that involves
access to information claimed as CBI related to the Information
Management System (and internal certification database) and Verify
under 40 CFR parts 86 and 600, OTAQ's Greenhouse Gas Project (a
computer simulation of light-duty vehicle technologies for greenhouse
gas emission reduction in the 2020-2025 timeframe), and the Fuels
Economy Trends report under 40 CFR parts 600 and 1027 Access to data,
including information claimed as CBI, started January 9, 2006 and will
continue until December 31, 2010. If the contract is extended, this
access will continue for the remainder of the contract and any further
extensions without further notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On January 25, 2010, PQA announced that it had been acquired
by SRA International (SRA) of Fairfax, Virginia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under Contract Number GS35F4797H, CGI, Incorporated, 12601 Fair
Lakes Circle, Fairfax, Virginia 22033 provides IT development and
support services related to submission of data via EPA's Central Data
Exchange (CDX) related to various fuels reporting programs covered by
the OTAQ Fuels Reporting System under 40 CFR parts 79 and 80 and Verify
under 40 CFR parts 86 and 600. Access to fuels data, including
information claimed as CBI, started on September 14, 2009 and will
continue until March 31, 2012. Please note that information claimed as
CBI is handled by this contractor only in encrypted (i.e., not human-
readable) format at its facility (at the address listed above) in
Fairfax, Virginia. If the contract is extended, this access will
continue for the remainder of the contract and any further extensions
without further notice.
    Under Contract Number EPC-07-078, Eastern Research Group (ERG), 110
Hartwell Avenue, Lexington, Massachusetts 02421 provides support to the
SmartWay Transport program (a voluntary program) by collecting data
from equipment manufacturers, vendor sales data, fleet and operational
data from transportation providers and logistics firms, and freight
operations data from shippers. ERG also assists in the processing of
applications for EPA verification of diesel retrofit devices (a
voluntary program). Access to data, including information claimed as
CBI, started on May 30, 2008 and will continue until August 31, 2011.
If the contract is extended, this access will continue for the
remainder of the contract and any further extensions without further
notice.
    In July 2004, OTAQ utilized the emergency services of AAA-
Datarecovery, 15 Ingleside Court, Rockville, Maryland 20850 in order to
repair and restore a server that stored engine certification
information, under EPA Procurement Request/Order PROKGRM-62EH32. This
contractor had access to information claimed as CBI, but none of that
data was in a human-readable format.
    OTAQ utilizes the services of enrollees under the Senior
Environmental Employment (SEE) program. In Ann Arbor and Washington,
DC, these enrollees are provided through Grant Number CQ-83880-01,
Senior Service America, Inc., (SSAI) 8403 Colesville Road, Suite 1200,
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910-3314. In Washington, DC, enrollees are
also provided through Grant Number CQ-833436, the National Association
for Hispanic Elderly (NAHE), 234 E. Colorado Blvd., Suite 300,
Pasadena, California 91101. Access to data involving all of OTAQ's
programs, including information claimed as CBI, is ongoing and will
continue until August 31, 2011. If these grants are extended, this
access will continue for the remainder of the grants and any future
extensions without further notice.
    Parties who wish further information about this Notice or about
OTAQ's disclosure of information claimed as CBI to contactors may
contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Confidential business information.

    Dated: February 2, 2010.
Christopher Grundler,
Deputy Director, Office of Transportation & Air Quality.
[FR Doc. 2010-3406 Filed 2-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 136 (Monday, July 16, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41832-41835]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17219]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67385; File No. SR-FINRA-2012-032]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of
Proposed Rule Change To Modify Fees and Transaction Credits Applicable
to Members That Use the FINRA/NYSE Trade Reporting Facility

July 10, 2012.
    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 July 2, 2012, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') 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 FINRA. FINRA has
designated the proposed rule change as ``establishing or changing a
due, fee or other charge'' under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\
and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal
effective upon receipt of this filing by the Commission. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    FINRA is proposing to amend the FINRA Rule 7600B Series to modify
fees and transaction credits applicable to members that use the FINRA/
NYSE Trade Reporting Facility (the ``FINRA/NYSE TRF'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web
site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA 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, FINRA 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. FINRA 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
Background
    The FINRA/NYSE TRF is one of three FINRA facilities that FINRA
members can use to report over-the-counter (``OTC'') trades in NMS
stocks.\5\ The FINRA/NYSE TRF is operated by The NYSE Market, Inc.
(``NYSE''). In connection with the establishment of the FINRA/NYSE TRF,
FINRA and NYSE entered into a limited liability company agreement (the
``LLC Agreement''). Under the LLC Agreement, FINRA, the ``SRO Member,''
has sole regulatory responsibility for the FINRA/NYSE TRF. NYSE, the
``Business Member,'' is primarily responsible for the management of the
FINRA/NYSE TRF's business affairs to the extent those affairs are not
inconsistent with the regulatory and oversight functions of FINRA. As
such, the Business Member establishes pricing for use of the FINRA/NYSE
TRF, and such pricing is implemented pursuant to FINRA rules that must
be filed with the SEC and be consistent with the Act.\6\ In addition,
the Business Member is obligated to pay the cost of regulation and is
entitled to the profits and losses, if any, derived from the operation
of the FINRA/NYSE TRF.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In addition to the FINRA/NYSE TRF, members have the option
of reporting OTC trades in NMS stocks to the FINRA Alternative
Display Facility (the ``ADF'') or the FINRA/Nasdaq Trade Reporting
Facility (the ``FINRA/Nasdaq TRF'').
    \6\ Because there are two FINRA Trade Reporting Facilities
operated by different exchange Business Members competing for market
share (the FINRA/NYSE TRF and the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF), FINRA does not
take a position on whether the pricing for one TRF is more favorable
or competitive than the pricing for the other TRF.
    \7\ FINRA notes that the same contractual arrangement is in
place for the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF, with FINRA as the SRO Member and
Nasdaq as the Business Member. The LLC agreements for the FINRA/NYSE
TRF and the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF were submitted as part of the rule
filings to establish the respective TRFs and can be found in the
FINRA Manual.

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

    As discussed in greater detail below, FINRA/NYSE TRF participants
currently are not charged any fees, and the FINRA/NYSE TRF currently
shares with its participants 100% of the market data revenue it earns.
This fee and credit structure has applied since the FINRA/NYSE TRF
commenced operation in April 2007, and since that time, the NYSE, as
the Business Member, has funded all costs associated with operating the
FINRA/NYSE TRF, including all regulatory costs, from NYSE general
revenues. The NYSE has indicated that the cost of operating the FINRA/
NYSE TRF has increased since 2007, in part because the FINRA/NYSE TRF's
market share has grown and therefore regulatory costs have increased.
Accordingly, the proposed fees and revisions to the market data revenue
share [sic] program will provide revenue to help offset these increased
operating costs, while allowing the FINRA/NYSE TRF to remain
competitive. NYSE will continue to fund any costs associated with the
FINRA/NYSE TRF that are not covered by the proposed fees and changes in
the market data revenue sharing program from NYSE's general revenues.
Proposed Amendments to Rule 7610B
    The FINRA/NYSE TRF receives revenue for transactions reported to
the three tapes \8\ from the Consolidated Tape Association and Nasdaq
Securities Information Processor. Pursuant to Rule 7610B, the FINRA/
NYSE TRF currently shares 100% of the market data revenue it earns with
FINRA members reporting trades in Tape A, Tape B and Tape C securities
to the FINRA/NYSE TRF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Market data is transmitted to three tapes based on the
listing venue of the security: New York Stock Exchange securities
(``Tape A''), American Stock Exchange and regional exchange
securities (``Tape B''), and Nasdaq Stock Market securities (``Tape
C''). Tape A and Tape B are generally referred to as the
Consolidated Tape.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA is proposing to adopt a tiered schedule for market data
revenue sharing for the FINRA/NYSE TRF that is comparable to the tiered
schedule that currently is in place for the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF under
FINRA Rule 7610A.\9\ Specifically, FINRA is proposing to amend Rule
7610B to base the percentage of market data revenue shared with a FINRA
member reporting trades to the FINRA/NYSE TRF on the member's ``Market
Share.'' FINRA proposes to define ``Market Share'' in Rule 7610B as the
percentage calculated by dividing the total number of shares
represented by trades reported by a member to the FINRA/NYSE TRF \10\
during a given calendar quarter by the total number of shares
represented by all trades reported to the Consolidated Tape Association
or the Nasdaq Securities Information Processor, as applicable, during
that quarter. Market Share will be calculated separately for each tape.
The proposed definition of ``Market Share'' is identical to the
definition in Rule 7610A applicable to the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ FINRA notes, however, that the proposed tiers and
percentages of revenue shared are not identical to the tiers and
percentages for the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF.
    \10\ The calculation of ``Market Share'' is based only on a
member's trades that are reported to the Consolidated Tape
Association or the Nasdaq Securities Information Processor (``tape
reports'') and will not include trades that are only reported for
regulatory and/or clearing--and not dissemination--purposes (``non-
tape reports'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposed rule change, a member with a Market Share of
0.9% or more in Tape A or Tape C, or 0.7% or more in Tape B, would
receive 90% of the attributable market data revenue; a member with less
than 0.9% but at least 0.5% in Tape A or Tape C, or less than 0.7% but
at least 0.5% in Tape B, would receive 75%; a member with less than
0.5% but at least 0.4% in Tape A, Tape B or Tape C would receive 70%; a
member with less than 0.4% but at least 0.075% in Tape A, Tape B or
Tape C would receive 25%; and a member with less than 0.075% in Tape A,
Tape B or Tape C would not be eligible for the market data revenue
sharing program. Thus, as a general matter, market participants that
make the most use of the FINRA/NYSE TRF will be eligible for the
highest level of revenue sharing with others receiving progressively
lower percentages. FINRA notes that the Market Share and revenue
percentages for each tape are independent of each other and, as such,
may subsequently be adjusted individually.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Any change to one or more of these percentages would be
subject to a proposed rule change by FINRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the NYSE, as the Business Member, the different
percentages required for different tapes reflect the current extent to
which participants use the FINRA/NYSE TRF to report trades in different
stocks, i.e., comparatively higher volumes of trades in Tape A and Tape
C stocks are reported through the FINRA/NYSE TRF than in Tape B stocks.
Thus for Tapes A and C, the levels of revenue sharing are tied to
higher market share levels. The NYSE has indicated that for competitive
reasons and in light of the cost of operating the FINRA/NYSE TRF, it
has determined to sunset the 100% revenue share program. However, NYSE
believes that, particularly at the lower market share levels, the
percentage of revenue shared is favorable to other revenue share
programs.\12\ For example, a member with a Market Share of 0.45% in
Tape A or Tape C would share 70% of market data revenue and a member
with a Market Share of 0.08% in Tape A or Tape C would share 25% of
market data revenue under the proposed tiered schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See, e.g., Rule 7610A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Amendments to Rule 7620B
    Pursuant to Rule 7620B, FINRA members currently are not charged a
fee for use of the FINRA/NYSE TRF. FINRA is proposing to amend Rule
7620B to begin charging members a monthly fee for use of the FINRA/NYSE
TRF. Members will be charged either $500 or $1,000 per month beginning
in the month of the member's first trade report on or after July 2,
2012, the proposed operative date of the proposed rule change.
Specifically, members reporting an average of 100 trades or less per
day during the calendar month will be charged $500, and members
reporting an average of more than 100 trades per day during the
calendar month will be charged $1,000. For purposes of meeting the 100
trade threshold, both tape and non-tape reports will be included;
however, reversals and other modifications to previously reported
trades will not be included. A member's fee could vary from month to
month, depending on the number of trade reports the member submits. For
example, if a member averages 90 trades per day in July, 120 trades per
day in August, and 80 trades per day in September, the member will pay
a monthly fee of $500, $1,000 and $500, respectively. In addition, once
a member's fee begins, the member will be charged a fee each month
unless and until the member cancels its access to the FINRA/NYSE TRF,
even if the member reports no trades to the FINRA/NYSE TRF in a given
month. In that instance, the member will be charged the lower fee of
$500. The fee will be charged at the end of the calendar month; a
member's trades will be counted and the appropriate fee will be
assessed on the member's invoice after the month closes.
    This fee includes full access to the FINRA/NYSE TRF and supporting
functionality, e.g., trade submission, reversal and cancellation, and
unlimited use of the Client Management Tool. In addition to submitting,
correcting, breaking, and reversing trades, the

Client Management Tool currently allows users to View/Query/Export
trade reports, potential trade throughs and rejected trade submissions.
    As noted above, members have the option of reporting OTC trades in
NMS stocks to one of three FINRA facilities. The NYSE, as the Business
Member, has determined that the FINRA/NYSE TRF would be more
competitive with these other facilities if users are charged a flat fee
for access to the complete range of functionality offered by the FINRA/
NYSE TRF rather than a separate fee for each activity (e.g., a per
trade or per side fee for reporting a trade, a separate per trade fee
for canceling a trade, a per terminal fee, etc.).\13\ Rather than
charging the same fee to all FINRA/NYSE TRF participants irrespective
of usage, the fees are designed such that more frequent, higher volume
users pay more for access to the FINRA/NYSE TRF, while less frequent,
lower volume users pay less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See, e.g., Rules 7510(a) and 7520 (trade reporting fees and
equipment-related charges for the ADF) and Rule 7620A (trade
reporting fees for the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule 7630B
    Proposed Rule 7630B would allow affiliated members to aggregate
their activity for purposes of the fee and credit schedule applicable
to the FINRA/NYSE TRF. For example, affiliated members that might not
qualify by themselves for a certain Market Share percentage under the
proposed changes to Rule 7610B may be able to qualify by aggregating
their activity.
    Under proposed Rule 7630B, a member may request that the FINRA/NYSE
TRF aggregate its activity with the activity of its affiliates.\14\
Paragraph (c) of the proposed rule defines an ``affiliate'' of the
member as any wholly owned subsidiary, parent or sister (as those terms
are defined under the rule) of the member that is also a member. Thus,
the proposed rule requires that one affiliated member own 100% of the
voting interests in the other, or that they both be under the common
control of a parent that owns 100% of each.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The proposed rule will be administered by NYSE, in its
capacity as the ``Business Member'' and operator of the FINRA/NYSE
TRF on behalf of FINRA. FINRA's oversight of this function performed
by the Business Member is conducted through an annual assessment and
review of TRF operations by an outside independent audit firm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under paragraph (a) of proposed Rule 7630B, a member requesting
aggregation of affiliate activity will be required to certify the
affiliate status of entities whose activity it seeks to aggregate and
immediately to provide notice of any event that causes an entity to
cease to be an affiliate. A review of information regarding the
entities will be conducted, and the member may be requested to provide
additional information to verify the affiliate status of an entity. A
request will be approved unless it is determined that the member's
certification is not accurate.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ In the event of an inaccurate certification, FINRA would
investigate whether the member had violated FINRA rules and would
take appropriate disciplinary action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (b) of the proposed rule expressly states that for
purposes of applying any provision of the Rule 7600B Series that
reflects a charge assessed, or credit provided, by the FINRA/NYSE Trade
Reporting Facility, references to an entity (including references to a
``member,'' a ``participant,'' or a ``Trade Reporting Facility
Participant'') shall be deemed to include the entity and its affiliates
that have been approved for aggregation.
    FINRA notes that proposed Rule 7630B is identical to current Rule
7630A relating to the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF, except that the proposed rule
does not contain the stated policy with respect to the timing of
recognition of aggregation requests that is contained in Rule
7630A(a)(2). For purposes of applying proposed Rule 7630B, if two or
more members submit a request for aggregation before the end of the
month in which they become affiliated, the request will be recognized
as if it had been submitted on the first of the month and the members
will be able to aggregate all activity during the entire month.
    FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate
effectiveness and the effective date is July 2, 2012.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(5) of the Act,\16\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules provide for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and issuers and
other persons using any facility or system that FINRA operates or
controls. FINRA believes that the proposed transaction credit schedule
under Rule 7610B is reasonable and equitable in that it bases the
percentage of revenue shared on members' respective contributions to
the revenues of the FINRA/NYSE TRF, i.e., market participants that make
the most use of the FINRA/NYSE TRF will be eligible for the highest
level of revenue sharing with others receiving progressively lower
percentages.\17\ In addition, FINRA believes that the proposed fees
under Rule 7620B are reasonable and equitable in that FINRA members
that are more frequent, higher volume users will pay more for access to
the FINRA/NYSE TRF, while less frequent, lower volume users will pay
less. NYSE, as the Business Member, has determined that the proposed
fee and credit structure will help offset the increased cost of
operating the FINRA/NYSE TRF, and as such, FINRA believes that the
proposed rule change is equitable and reasonable. FINRA further
believes that the proposed fee and credit structure is reasonable and
equitable in that it will apply only to members that choose to use the
FINRA/NYSE TRF. Access to the FINRA/NYSE TRF is offered on fair and
non-discriminatory terms, and FINRA members will continue to have the
option of using another FINRA facility for purposes of reporting OTC
trades in NMS stocks if they determine that the fees and credits of
another facility are more favorable. Finally, NYSE has indicated that
it expects that the proposed changes will offset some--but not all--of
the cost of operating the FINRA/NYSE TRF, and any costs, including
regulatory costs, that are not funded out of market data revenue or
trade reporting fees will continue to be funded by NYSE general
revenues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(5).
    \17\ The proposed tiered schedule is comparable in approach to
the schedule that currently exists for the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF. See
Rule 7610A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA 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.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor 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) of the Act \18\ and paragraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\19\ 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. If
the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute
proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved
or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-FINRA-2012-032 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-FINRA-2012-032. 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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA. 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 No. SR-FINRA-2012-032 and should be
submitted on or before August 6, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-17219 Filed 7-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 189 (Thursday, September 29, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66808-66810]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23576]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2016-0582]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Keweenaw Waterway, Houghton and
Hancock, MI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is modifying the operating schedule for the
US41 bridge, mile 16.0 over the Keweenaw Waterway, between the towns of
Houghton and Hancock, Michigan. The use of the waterway has changed and

this rule will modify the schedule that has been in place for
approximately 31 years.

DATES: This rule is effective October 31, 2016.

ADDRESSES:  To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2016-0582. In the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Mr. Lee D. Soule, Bridge Management Specialist, Ninth
Coast Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
E.O. Executive Order
FR Federal Register
MDOT Michigan Department of Transportation
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
SNPRM Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking
Pub. L. Public Law
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On July 25, 2016, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled, Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Keweenaw Waterway,
Houghton and Hancock, MI, in the Federal Register (81 FR 48369). We did
not receive any comments on this proposed rule.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 33 U.S.C. 499.
MDOT requested to change the operating schedule of the US41 (Houghton-
Hancock) bridge (33 CFR 117.635). The US41 bridge is the only crossing
over the Keweenaw Waterway and connects the towns of Houghton and
Hancock, Michigan. The current operating schedule has been in place for
approximately 31 years and the use of the waterway has changed
significantly, prompting the request to modify the current regulation
to reflect current needs of navigation.
    Keweenaw Peninsula is the northernmost part of Michigan's Upper
Peninsula projecting into Lake Superior. The Keweenaw Waterway runs
northwesterly to southeasterly and separates the peninsula from the
mainland making the US41 bridge the only bridge crossing for residents
and visitors to the peninsula.
    The Keweenaw Waterway is used by recreational, commercial,
inspected and uninspected passenger, and towing vessels. The US41
bridge is a vertical lift type drawbridge and provides a horizontal
clearance of 250 feet, a vertical clearance of 103 feet in the fully
open position, a vertical clearance of 7 feet in the closed position,
and a vertical clearance of 35 feet in the intermediate position. The
US41 bridge is a bi-level bridge originally designed with the upper
level providing access for automobiles and the lower level providing
access for rail, oversized vehicles, and snowmobiles.
    The rail service to the peninsula has been discontinued and
oversized vehicles must provide advance notice to the state before
traveling over the road to the peninsula. Most recreational and
commercial vessel traffic, including passenger vessel services, end
prior to November 15 each year and do not resume services until after
May 7 due to the formation of ice in the waterway. Large commercial
freighter vessels do not routinely pass through the Keweenaw Waterway.
    MDOT requested to remove bridgetenders between the hours of
midnight and 4:00 a.m. each day and operate the bridge if at least 2-
hours advance notice is provided between those hours during the
navigation season. The table below shows total bridge opening data
provided by MDOT, from April 16 to December 14, between the hours of
midnight and 4 a.m., for the past 6 years.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Year                               Openings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010.......................................................            4
2011.......................................................            6
2012.......................................................            6
2013.......................................................           10
2014.......................................................            7
2015.......................................................            6
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current regulation also requires the bridge to operate with a
24-hour advance notice for openings from January 1 through March 15
each year. The table below shows the total bridge opening data provided
by MDOT, between December 15 and April 15, for the past 5 years.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Year                               Openings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011.......................................................            0
2012.......................................................            1
2013.......................................................            5
2014.......................................................            0
2015.......................................................            0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Final Rule

    Based on the bridge opening data provided by MDOT, only one year
(2013) resulted in more than 7 openings, or an average of one opening
per month, between the hours of midnight and 4:00 a.m. between mid-
April and mid-December, during the past 6 years. This rule will allow
the bridge to operate with at least a 2-hour advance notice for
openings from April 15 through December 15 between the hours of
midnight and 4 a.m. During these hours no bridgetender will be required
at the bridge. The bridge will be placed in the intermediate position
during this 4-hour time period providing a vertical clearance of 35
feet. Vessels requiring a full bridge opening will still be able to
obtain an opening with a 2-hour advance notice. Vessels may also go
around the peninsula to avoid passing through the bridge.
    Based on the bridge opening data provided by MDOT, only one year
(2013) resulted in more than one bridge opening for the entire period
between mid-December and mid-April during the past 6 years. The
standard advance notice time applied to most drawbridges in the Great
Lakes during the non-navigation season is 12-hours advance notice. This
rule will allow the bridge to operate with at least 12-hour advance
notice for openings from December 15 through April 15. During these
dates no bridgetender will be required at the bridge. Vessels may also
go around the peninsula to avoid passing under the bridge.
    The Coast Guard provided a comment period of 30 days and did not
receive any comments.

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, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protesters.

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 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 regulatory action determination is based on the ability that
vessels can still transit the bridge given advanced notice during times
when vessel traffic is at its lowest.

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 did not receive any comments from the Small
Business Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule would not
have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator
because the bridges will open with advance notice during low traffic
times on the waterway or when ice conditions hinder normal navigation.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
bridges may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A
above, this rule would 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 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. 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 calls 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 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 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.

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
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
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 rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or
procedures for drawbridges. This action is 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.

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.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
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; and Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Revise Sec.  117.635 to read as follows:

Sec.  117.635  Keweenaw Waterway.

    The draw of the US41 bridge, mile 16.0 between Houghton and
Hancock, shall open on signal; except that from April 15 through
December 14, between midnight and 4 a.m., the draw shall be placed in
the intermediate position and open on signal if at least 2 hours notice
is given. From December 15 through April 14 the draw shall open on
signal if at least 12 hours notice is given.

    Dated: September 15, 2016.
J.E. Ryan,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2016-23576 Filed 9-28-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 117 (Monday, June 18, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28272-28273]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12927]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83411; File No. SR-ISE-2018-50]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Section
IV.D of the Exchange's Schedule of Fees

June 12, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on May 30, 2018, Nasdaq ISE, LLC (``ISE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II 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 Section IV.D. of the Exchange's Schedule
of Fees, as described further below. The text of the proposed rule
change is available on the Exchange's website at http://ise.cchwallstreet.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 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 this proposed rule change is to amend certain Market
Maker \3\ fees for Regular Orders in Non-Select Symbols \4\ and FX
Options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Market Makers'' refers to ``Competitive Market
Makers'' and ``Primary Market Makers'' collectively. See ISE Rule
100(a)(28).
    \4\ ``Non-Select Symbols'' are options overlying all symbols
excluding Select Symbols. ``Select Symbols'' are options overlying
all symbols listed on ISE that are in the Penny Pilot Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Presently, the Exchange charges a base execution fee of $0.25 per
contract to Members who trade 250,000 contracts or less in a calendar
month in Non-Select Symbols and FX Options, and a fee of $0.20 per
contract if a Member trades more than 250,000 contracts in Non-Select
Symbols and FX Options in a calendar month. In addition, once a Member
reaches the highest tier, the fee applicable to that tier will apply
retroactively to all Market Maker contracts for Regular Orders in Non-
Select Symbols and FX Options. Presently, the Exchange waives this fee
entirely for Market Makers that execute Flash Orders.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A ``Flash Order'' is an order that is exposed at the
National Best Bid and Offer by the Exchange to all Members for
execution prior to routing the order to another exchange or
cancelling it, as provided under Supplementary Material .02 to ISE
Rule 1901.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to eliminate this fee waiver for Flash
Orders, such that Market Makers that execute Flash Orders will be
subject to one of the two foregoing fee tiers. However, the Exchange
notes that Flash Orders will remain exempt from the $0.70 per contract
Marketing Fee that it otherwise charges to Market Makers pursuant to
Section IV.E of the Exchange's Schedule of Fees. The Exchange will also
continue to provide credits to Market Makers that respond to Customer
Flash Orders, pursuant to Section IV.G.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\6\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market
model, 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.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70
FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Likewise, in NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission \9\
(``NetCoalition'') the D.C. Circuit upheld the Commission's use of a
market-based approach in evaluating the fairness of market data fees
against a challenge claiming that Congress mandated a cost-based
approach.\10\ As the court emphasized, the Commission ``intended in
Regulation NMS that `market forces, rather than regulatory
requirements' play a role in determining the market data . . . . to be
made available to investors and at what cost.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (DC Cir. 2010).
    \10\ See NetCoalition, at 534-535.
    \11\ Id. at 537.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, ``[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' . . . .'' \12\ Although the court and
the SEC were discussing the cash equities markets, the Exchange
believes that these views apply with equal force to the options
markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id. at 539 (quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No.
59039 (December 2, 2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008)
(SR-NYSEArca-2006-21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes it is reasonable and equitable to eliminate
the fee waiver for Flash orders because the fee that the Exchange
proposes to charge for

such orders are within the range of fees assessed by other exchanges
employing similar pricing schemes. As noted above, pursuant to Section
IV.E of the Exchange's Schedule of Fees, the Exchange does not charge a
$.70 per contract marketing fee for Flash Orders, whereas MIAX and CBOE
do so.\13\ The Exchange also provides a credit to Market Makers that
respond to Flash Orders, pursuant to Section IV.G. As such, even with
the proposed rule change, the Exchange's fee structure for Flash Orders
will remain materially less expensive than the fee structures of other
exchanges. Moreover, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
another exchange if they deem fee levels at a particular exchange to be
excessive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Miax Options Options Fee Schedule, Section 1(b) (Mar.
1, 2018); CBOE Exchange Inc. Fees Schedule (May 1, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes its proposal is not unfairly
discriminatory because the proposed fees for Flash Orders would apply
uniformly to all similarly situated Market Makers.

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. In terms of inter-market
competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if they deem 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 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 fees in response, and because
market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices,
the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this
market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
    In this instance, the Exchange's proposal does not impose a burden
on competition because the Exchange's execution services are completely
voluntary and subject to extensive competition both from other
exchanges and from off-exchange venues. Moreover, even with the
proposed rule change, the range of fees that Exchange proposes to
charge its Market Makers for Flash orders will remain competitive with
the fees that other exchange charge. As noted above, pursuant to
Section IV.E of the Exchange's Schedule of Fees, the Exchange does not
charge a $.70 per contract marketing fee for Flash Orders, whereas MIAX
and CBOE do so.\14\ The Exchange also provides a credit to Market
Makers that respond to Flash Orders, pursuant to Section IV.G. Thus,
even with the proposed rule change, the Exchange's fee structure for
Flash Orders will remain materially less expensive than the fee
structures of other exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Miax Options Options Fee Schedule, Section 1(b) (Mar.
1, 2018); CBOE Exchange Inc. Fees Schedule (May 1, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, if the changes proposed herein are unattractive to market
participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market share as
a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed
changes 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,\15\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \16\ thereunder.
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-ISE-2018-50 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-ISE-2018-50. 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-ISE-2018-50 and should be submitted on
or before July 9, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-12927 Filed 6-15-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 249 (Monday, December 30, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72130-72131]
[FR Doc No: 2019-28138]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0046; Notice 1]

Notice of Receipt of Petition for Decision That Nonconforming
Model Year 2018-2019 Swift Sprite Alpine 4 Single Axle Camper Trailers
Are Eligible for Importation

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

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) receipt of a petition for a decision that model
year (MY) 2018-2019 Swift Sprite Alpine 4 single axle camper trailers
that were not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable
Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS), are eligible for
importation into the United States because they are capable of being
readily altered to conform to the standards.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition January 29, 2020.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Mazurowski, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, NHTSA<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a motor vehicle that was not
originally manufactured to conform to all applicable FMVSS shall be
refused admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided that
the motor vehicle is substantially similar to a motor vehicle
originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United
States, certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and of the same MY as the
model of the motor vehicle to be compared, and is capable of being
readily altered to conform to all applicable FMVSS.
    Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either
manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to
49 CFR part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice
of each petition that it receives in the Federal Register, and

affords interested persons an opportunity to comment on the petition.
At the close of the comment period, NHTSA decides, on the basis of the
petition and any comments that it has received, whether the vehicle is
eligible for importation. The agency then publishes this decision in
the Federal Register.
    America's Import & Export Authority Inc., (Registered Importer R-
17-423), of Fort Myers, Florida has petitioned NHTSA to decide whether
nonconforming MY 2018-2019 Swift Sprite Alpine 4 single axle camper
trailers are eligible for importation into the United States. The
vehicles which America's Import & Export Authority Inc. believes are
capable of being readily altered to conform to all applicable FMVSS.
    America's Import & Export Authority Inc. submitted information with
its petition intended to demonstrate that non-U.S. certified MY 2018-
2019 Swift Sprite Alpine 4 single axle camper trailers, as originally
manufactured, conform to many applicable FMVSS, or are capable of being
readily altered to conform to those standards. Specifically, the
petitioner claims that the non-U.S. certified MY 2018-2019 Swift Sprite
Alpine 4 single axle camper trailers, as originally manufactured, are
only subject to: FMVSS Nos. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and
Associated Equipment, 109, New pneumatic and certain specialty tires,
110, Tire Selection and Rims and Motor Home/Recreation Vehicle Trailer
Load Carrying Capacity Information for Motor Vehicles with a GVWR of
4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or Less. The petitioner also contends
that the subject non-U.S. certified vehicles are capable of being
readily altered to meet the following FMVSS, in the manner indicated:
    FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment:
Installation of rear reflectors, side markers, side reflectors,
clearance lamps, identification lamps and upper lights, front side
marker lamps and reflectors, intermediate side marker lamps and
reflectors, and license plate lamp.
    FMVSS No. 109, New pneumatic and certain specialty tires:
Installation of tire placard with certification label.
    FMVSS No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims and Motor Home/Recreation
Vehicle Trailer Load Carrying Capacity Information for Motor Vehicles
with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or Less: The petitioner
claims the tires rims are within conformity of this standard.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(B), and (b)(1); 49
CFR 593.7; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2019-28138 Filed 12-27-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P