[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 76 (Wednesday, April 20, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 23323]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09177]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4263-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2016-0001]

Louisiana; Amendment No. 4 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-4263-DR), dated March 13, 2016, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: April 4, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Louisiana is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of March 13, 2016.

    Catahoula, East Carroll, Franklin, Lincoln, and St. Helena
Parishes for Individual Assistance and assistance for debris removal
and emergency protective measures (Categories A and B), including
direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2016-09177 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 156 (Monday, August 13, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40096-40099]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17255]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83790; File No. SR-ISE-2018-69]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the
Regular Order Take Fee and the QCC and Solicitation Order Rebate

August 7, 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 July 25, 2018, Nasdaq ISE, LLC (``ISE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``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 amend the ISE Schedule of Fees to: (i)
Increase the Regular Order Take Fee in SPY, QQQ, IWM, and VXX for
Priority Customers; \3\ and; (2) not pay the ``Customer to Customer''
Orders rebate for QCC and solicited orders between two Priority
Customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A ``Priority Customer'' is a person or entity that is not a
broker/dealer in securities, and does not place more than 390 orders
in listed options per day on average during a calendar month for its
own beneficial account(s), as defined in Nasdaq ISE Rule
100(a)(37A). Unless otherwise noted, when used in the Schedule of
Fees the term ``Priority Customer'' includes ``Retail'' as defined
in the Schedule of Fees. See Preface to ISE Schedule of Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 the proposed rule change is to amend the ISE
Schedule of Fees at Section I, entitled ``Regular Order Fees and
Rebates'' as well as the Section IV, entitled ``Other Options Fees

and Rebates'' within Section A, ``QCC and Solicitation Rebate.'' Each
proposed change is described in more detail below. The Exchange
believes that each of the proposed rule changes will permit the
Exchange to remain competitive in options trading.
Taker Fees
    Currently, the Exchange charges a Regular Order Taker Fee for
Select Symbols, other than Priority Customer orders in SPY, QQQ, IWM,
and VXX, of: $0.45 per contract for Market Maker orders,\4\ $0.44 per
contract for Priority Customer orders and $0.46 per contract for Non-
Nasdaq ISE Market Makers \5\ (FarMM), Firm Proprietary \6\/Broker
Dealer,\7\ and Professional Customers \8\ orders. The Regular Order
Taker Fee for Priority Customer orders in SPY, QQQ, IWM, and VXX is
$0.37 per contract. The Exchange proposes to increase this Regular
Order Taker Fee in SPY, QQQ, IWM, and VXX to $0.40 per contract for
Priority Customer orders. While the Exchange is increasing this fee,
the Exchange believes that the fee remains competitive. Also, this fee
continues to be lower than other Regular Order Taker Fees for SPY, QQQ,
IWM, and VXX assessed to non-Priority Customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``Market makers'' refers to ``Competitive Market Makers''
and ``Primary Market Makers'' collectively. See ISE Rule 100(a)(28).
    \5\ A ``Non-Nasdaq ISE Market Maker'' is a market maker as
defined in Section 3(a)(38) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, registered in the same options class on another options
exchange. See Preface to ISE Schedule of Fees.
    \6\ A ``Firm Proprietary'' order is an order submitted by a
Member for its own proprietary account. See Preface to ISE Schedule
of Fees.
    \7\ ``Broker-Dealer'' order is an order submitted by a Member
for a broker-dealer account that is not its own proprietary account.
See Preface to ISE Schedule of Fees.
    \8\ A ``Professional Customer'' is a person or entity that is
not a broker/dealer and is not a Priority Customer. See Preface to
ISE Schedule of Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

QCC and Solicitation Rebate
    Currently, ISE Members using Qualified Contingent Cross (``QCC'')
orders \9\ and/or other solicited crossing orders, including solicited
orders executed in the Solicitation,\10\ Facilitation \11\ or Price
Improvement Mechanism (``PIM'') \12\, receive rebates for each
originating contract side in all symbols traded on the Exchange. Once a
Member reaches a certain volume threshold in QCC orders and/or
solicited crossing orders during a month, the Exchange provides rebates
to that Member for all of its QCC and solicited crossing order traded
contracts for that month.\13\ The applicable rebates are applied on QCC
and solicited crossing order traded contracts once the volume threshold
is met. Today, Members receive the Non-``Customer to Customer'' rebate
for all QCC and/or other solicited crossing orders except for QCC and
solicited orders between two Priority Customers. QCC and solicited
orders between two Priority Customers receive the ``Customer to
Customer'' Orders \14\ rebate. Non-``Customer to Customer'' and
``Customer to Customer'' volume is aggregated in determining the
applicable volume tier. The current volume threshold and corresponding
rebates are as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ A QCC Order is comprised of an originating order to buy or
sell at least 1000 contracts that is identified as being part of a
qualified contingent trade, as that term is defined in Supplementary
Material .01 below, coupled with a contra-side order or orders
totaling an equal number of contracts. See ISE Rule 715(j).
    \10\ The Solicited Order Mechanism is a process by which an EAM
can attempt to execute orders of 500 or more contracts it represents
as agent against contra orders that it solicited. Each order entered
into the Solicited Order Mechanism shall be designated as all-or-
none. See ISE Rule 716(e).
    \11\ The Facilitation Mechanism is a process by which an EAM can
execute a transaction wherein the EAM seeks to facilitate a block-
size order it represents as agent, and/or a transaction wherein the
EAM solicited interest to execute against a block-size order it
represents as agent. See Rule 716(d).
    \12\ PIM is a process by which an Electronic Access Member can
provide price improvement opportunities for a transaction wherein
the Electronic Access Member seeks to facilitate an order it
represents as agent, and/or a transaction wherein the Electronic
Access Member solicited interest to execute against an order it
represents as agent (a ``Crossing Transaction'').
    \13\ All eligible volume from affiliated members will be
aggregated in determining QCC and Solicitation volume totals,
provided there is at least 75% common ownership between the members
as reflected on each member's Form BD, Schedule A.
    \14\ A ``Customer to Customer'' order is a QCC or other
solicited order between two Priority Customers.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Non-``Customer to    ``Customer to
    Originating contract sides      customer'' rebate  customer'' rebate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 to 99,999.......................              $0.00              $0.00
100,000 to 199,999................             (0.05)             (0.01)
200,000 to 499,999................             (0.07)             (0.01)
500,000 to 749,999................             (0.09)             (0.03)
750,000 to 999,999................             (0.10)             (0.03)
1,000,000+........................             (0.11)             (0.03)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this time, the Exchange proposes to not pay the ``Customer to
Customer'' Orders rebate for QCC and solicited orders between two
Priority Customers. The Exchange proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees
to make clear that such a rebate will not be paid. ``Customer-to-
Customer'' Rebates are being removed from the table within the Schedule
of Fees. The Exchange notes that this rebate did not attract volume as
anticipated when the rebate was implemented. The Exchange is also
amending the sentence that provides, ``Non-``Customer to Customer'' and
``Customer to Customer'' volume will be aggregated in determining the
applicable volume tier'' with language which removes the term
``Customer to Customer'' and instead descriptively defines that volume.
The proposed sentence states, ``Volume resulting from all QCC and
solicited orders will be aggregated in determining the applicable
volume tier.'' In addition the Exchange is removing references to
``Non-``Customer to Customer'' rebate'' and simply noting the term
``rebate.'' The Exchange believes that the term Non-``Customer to
Customer'' is no longer necessary. The language makes clear that
Members will receive the rebate for all QCC and/or other solicited
crossing orders except for QCC and solicited orders between two
Priority Customers. No other changes are being made to the manner in
which rebates are calculated or paid.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\15\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\16\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Taker Fees
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change to increase Regular
Order Priority Customer Taker Fees in SPY, QQQ, IWM, and VXX from $0.37
to $0.40 per contract is reasonable because the increased Taker Fee
remains competitive and will continue to be attractive to market
participants. Priority Customers will continue to receive reduced
Regular Order Taker Fees in SPY, QQQ, IWM, and VXX, which represent
some of the most heavily traded symbols on ISE. In particular, the
proposed Taker Fees are lower than Taker Fees assessed to Priority
Customer orders in other Select Symbols \17\ as well as Taker Fees
assessed to other market participants.\18\ As such, the Exchange
believes that the proposed Regular Order Taker Fees will continue to
attract order flow to the benefit of all market participants that trade
on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Currently, ISE charges a Regular Order Taker Fee for Select
Symbols, other than SPY, QQQ, IWM, and VXX, of $0.44 per contract
for Priority Customer orders.
    \18\ Currently, the Exchange charges a Regular Order Taker Fee
for Select Symbols of $0.45 per contract for Market Maker orders and
$0.46 per contract for FarMM, Firm Proprietary/Broker Dealer, and
Professional Customers orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed change to increase Regular
Order Priority Customer Taker Fees in SPY, QQQ, IWM, and VXX from $0.37
to $0.40 per contract is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because despite the increase to the fee, Priority Customer interest
will continue to be assessed the lowest Regular Order Taker Fees in
these symbols. Priority Customer interest brings valuable liquidity to
the market, which liquidity benefits other market participants.
Priority Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by
providing more trading opportunities, which attracts Market Makers. An
increase in the activity of these market participants in turn
facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
QCC and Solicitation Rebate
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change to not pay the
``Customer to Customer'' Rebate for QCC and solicited orders between
two Priority Customers is reasonable. Despite the removal of the
rebate, the Exchange believes that the proposal will continue to
encourage Members to transact QCC and/or other solicited crossing
orders on ISE. The Exchange notes that Customer-to-Customer Orders will
continue to be aggregated with all other volume to determine the
applicable volume tier for rebates.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change to not pay the
``Customer to Customer'' Orders rebate for QCC and solicited orders
between two Priority Customers is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the Exchange would uniformly not pay any Member
a rebate for Customer-to-Customer Orders. The Customer-to-Customer
Orders will continue to be counted toward the rebates for all market
participants that qualify for such rebates.

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. With respect to the increase to
the Regular Order Taker Fees for Priority Customers in SPY, QQQ, IWM,
and VXX, the Exchange does not believe this proposal imposes an undue
burden on competition because despite the increase to the fee, Priority
Customer interest will continue to be assessed the lowest Regular Order
Taker Fees in these symbols. Priority Customer interest brings valuable
liquidity to the market, which liquidity benefits other market
participants. Priority Customer liquidity benefits all market
participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attracts
Market Makers. An increase in the activity of these market participants
in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
    With respect to the proposed change to not pay the ``Customer to
Customer'' Orders rebate for QCC and solicited orders between two
Priority Customers, the Exchange does not believe this proposal imposes
an undue burden on competition because the Exchange would uniformly not
pay any Member a rebate for Customer-to-Customer Orders. The Customer-
to-Customer Orders will continue to be counted toward the rebates for
all market participants that qualify for such rebates.

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,\19\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \20\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \20\ 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-2018-69 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-2018-69. 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-
2018-69 and should be submitted on or before September 4, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-17255 Filed 8-10-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


  HYPERLINK "http://muskogee.oklahoma.usassessor.com/Shared/base/Levys/Levys.php"

Levy Rates

  HYPERLINK "http://muskogee.oklahoma.usassessor.com/Shared/base/Levys/TaxCalc.php"

Tax Calculator

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Tax Calculator

Top of Form

*Must have Javascript enabled to use Tax Calculator

Bottom of Form


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 228 (Tuesday, November 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70860-70862]
[FR Doc No: 2012-28682]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68270; File No. SR-FINRA-2012-050]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a
Supplementary Schedule for Derivatives and Other Off-Balance Sheet
Items Pursuant to FINRA Rule 4524 (Supplemental FOCUS Information)

November 20, 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 November 15, 2012, the 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 and
II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by FINRA. 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

    FINRA is proposing to adopt a supplementary schedule for
derivatives and other off-balance sheet items pursuant to FINRA Rule
4524 (Supplemental FOCUS Information).
    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
    FINRA Rule 4524 requires each firm, as FINRA shall designate, to
file such additional financial or operational schedules or reports as
FINRA may deem necessary or appropriate for the protection of investors
or in the public interest as a supplement to the FOCUS reports.
Pursuant to FINRA Rule 4524, FINRA is proposing the adoption of a
supplemental schedule to the FOCUS reports to capture important
information that is not otherwise reported on certain firms' balance
sheets. To that end, the proposal would require all carrying or
clearing firms to file with FINRA the Derivatives and Other Off-Balance
Sheet Items Schedule (``OBS'') within 22 business days of the end of
each calendar quarter. The proposed OBS is necessary for FINRA to more
effectively examine for compliance with, and enforce, its rules on
capital adequacy. The proposed OBS enables FINRA to examine on an
ongoing basis the potential impact off-balance sheet activities may
have on carrying and clearing firms' net capital, leverage and
liquidity, and ability to fulfill their customer protection
obligations.
    In the aftermath of the financial crisis, FINRA began to closely
monitor firms' levels of leverage and available liquidity to meet their
funding needs and began to collect certain additional information from
certain carrying and clearing firms with regard to their proprietary
positions, financing transactions and certain off-balance sheet
transactions. FINRA believes the proposed OBS will allow FINRA to
obtain more comprehensive and consistent information regarding carrying
and clearing firms' off balance sheet assets, liabilities and other
commitments. The proposed OBS would require firms to report their gross
exposures in financing transactions (e.g., reverse repos, repos and
other transactions that are otherwise netted under generally accepted
accounting principles, reverse repos and repos to maturity and
collateral swap transactions), interests in and exposure to variable
interest entities, non-regular way settlement transactions (including
to be announced or TBA securities and delayed delivery/settlement
transactions), underwriting and other financing commitments, and gross
notional amounts in centrally cleared and non-centrally cleared
derivative contracts involving equities, commodities, interest rates,
foreign exchange derivatives and credit default swaps. However, the
proposed OBS contains a de minimis off-balance sheet activity exception
for each reporting period. If the total of all off-balance sheet items
is less than 10% of the firm's excess net capital on the last day of
the reporting period, the firm will not be required to file the
proposed OBS for the reporting period.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For purposes of the proposed OBS, the term ``excess net
capital'' means net capital reduced by the greater of the minimum
dollar net capital requirement or two percent of combined aggregate
debit items as shown in the Formula for Reserve Requirements
pursuant to 17 CFR 240.15c3-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change will be effective upon Commission
approval. FINRA will announce the first quarterly reporting period
(i.e., the implementation date for purposes of the proposed off-balance
sheet schedule) in a regulatory notice to be published no later than 60
days following

Commission approval of the proposed rule change. The due date for the
first proposed schedule will be no later than 210 days following
Commission approval of the proposed rule change.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\4\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the provisions of the Act noted above in that the
proposed OBS will permit FINRA to assess more effectively on an ongoing
basis the potential impact off-balance sheet activities may have on
carrying and clearing firms' net capital, leverage and liquidity, and
ability to fulfill their customer protection obligations. FINRA also
believes the rule change is consistent with Section 712(b)(3)(B) of the
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act in that it is
necessary to enable FINRA to more effectively examine for compliance
with, and enforce, its rules on capital adequacy.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
    \5\ Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. FINRA believes the proposed OBS
will allow it to better understand the potential impact off-balance
sheet activity may have on carrying and clearing firms' net capital,
leverage and liquidity, and ability to fulfill their customer
protection obligations. FINRA has carefully crafted the proposed OBS to
achieve its intended and necessary regulatory purpose while minimizing
the burden on firms. Ready access to the information is important for
FINRA to efficiently monitor on an ongoing basis the financial
condition of firms. In the absence of this reporting requirement, FINRA
would need to request this information repeatedly on a firm-by-firm
basis, resulting in similar costs for the firms.
    The information required to complete the proposed OBS should be
readily available to firms due to firms' obligations to maintain books
and records and take applicable capital charges in relation to off-
balance sheet activity. Further, firms that are owned by a publicly
held company provide much of the information required by the proposed
OBS to the SEC on the quarterly Form 10-Q or on the annual Form 10-K.
Finally, for those firms that conduct limited off-balance sheet
activity, the proposed OBS contains a de minimis exception for each
reporting period.

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

    The proposed OBS was published for comment in Regulatory Notice 12-
23 (May 2012) (the ``Notice''). FINRA received two comment letters in
response to the Notice.\6\ Below is a summary of the comments and
FINRA's responses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Letter from Chris Charles, President, Wulff, Hansen &
Co., to Marcia E. Asquith, Senior Vice President and Corporate
Secretary, dated May 31, 2012 (``Wulff''); and letter from Holly H.
Smith, Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP, to Marcia E. Asquith, Senior
Vice President and Corporate Secretary, dated June 4, 2012
(``Sutherland'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Notice, FINRA specifically requested comment on whether
there is a category of carrying or clearing firms that should not be
required to file the proposed OBS based upon de minimis off-balance
sheet activity. One commenter believed that a de minimis threshold for
the proposed OBS would benefit both firms and FINRA.\7\ The commenter
stated that it would be reasonable to set a threshold for the reporting
of off-balance sheet items of 5% or 10% of net capital.\8\ The
commenter suggested that the proposed OBS should not be required if no
items exceed a threshold.\9\ Another commenter stated ``that a de
minimis standard alone may not result in identifying the firms that
pose off-balance sheet risk to such a degree that regulatory attention
is warranted.'' \10\ The commenter assumed that the term ``carrying or
clearing firm'' includes all broker-dealers that are not exempt from 17
CFR 240.15c3-3 and had concerns about the proposed OBS applying to
firms that distribute variable insurance products and shares of
investment companies, and firms that introduce their business to
clearing firms.\11\ The commenter requested ``that FINRA try to more
closely identify the nature of the firms for whom off-balance sheet
activity reporting is appropriate, and limit the application of the OBS
to those firms, rather than assuming that all firms that are not exempt
from Rule 15c3-3 are engaging in off-balance sheet activity as a
regular course of business.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Wulff.
    \8\ Wulff.
    \9\ Wulff.
    \10\ Sutherland.
    \11\ Sutherland.
    \12\ Sutherland.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA has considered these comments and believes a de minimis
exception for the proposed OBS is appropriate. As stated above, if the
total of all off-balance sheet items is less than 10% of the firm's
excess net capital on the last day of the reporting period, the firm
will not be required to file the proposed OBS for the reporting period.
Basing a de minimis exception on the aggregate of all off-balance sheet
items instead of each individual item will allow FINRA to capture those
firms that may not meet the threshold for any one particular item, but
still would be viewed as having in the aggregate a material amount of
off-balance sheet activity for the reporting period. Further, FINRA
does not agree with the commenter's characterization of a ``carrying or
clearing'' firm for purposes of the proposed OBS. The proposal would
require all carrying or clearing firms, subject to the de minimis
exception, to file the proposed OBS with FINRA within 22 business days
of the end of each calendar quarter. For purposes of the proposed OBS,
FINRA identifies carrying or clearing firms as those firms that self-
clear or clear transactions for others or firms that carry customer
accounts.
    One commenter believes that reporting underwriting commitments for
securities that have already been sold is not useful.\13\ The commenter
suggested that FINRA ``[e]liminate the need to separately report an
entire unsettled underwriting commitment, where all (or all but a non-
material amount) of the securities have been sold as of the balance
sheet date.'' \14\ FINRA agrees with the commenter's suggestion and has
clarified the instructions to state that a firm would only need to
report the market value of open contractual commitments at month-end,
net of confirmed sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Wulff.
    \14\ Wulff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory

organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2012-050 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 Number SR-FINRA-2012-050. 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 Number SR-FINRA-2012-050 and should be submitted
on or before December 18, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-28682 Filed 11-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 212 (Friday, November 1, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 65744]
[FR Doc No: 2013-26316]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

Newtech Resources Ltd., Order of Suspension of Trading

October 21, 2013.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Newtech Resources Ltd. because it has not filed any periodic reports
since the period ended May 31, 2009.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed company. Therefore, it is ordered,
pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that
trading in the securities of the above-listed company is suspended for
the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on October 21, 2013, through 11:59 p.m.
EDT on November 1, 2013.

    By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-26316 Filed 10-30-13; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 24, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 57)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 15421-15425]
[DOCID:fr24mr08-10]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 59

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0971; FRL-8544-2]
RIN 2060-AO86

National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Aerosol
Coatings

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to amend the National
Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Aerosol Coatings final
rule, which is a rule that establishes national reactivity-based
emission standards for the aerosol coatings category (aerosol spray
paints) under the Clean Air Act, published elsewhere in this Federal
Register. This direct final action clarifies and amends certain
explanatory and regulatory text in the Aerosol Coatings final rule, as
the final rule contains misstatements and possibly confusing language
on how compounds are added to the list in Tables 2A, 2B or 2C--
Reactivity Factors, and when distributors and retailers are regulated
entities responsible for compliance with the final rule.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective on June 23, 2008, without
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by April 23, 2008,
or May 8, 2008, if a public hearing is held. If EPA receives adverse
comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register
informing the public that some or all of the amendments in the final
rule will not take effect.
    Comments. Written comments must be received by April 23, 2008,
unless a public hearing is requested by April 3, 2008. If a hearing is
requested, written comments must be received by May 8, 2008.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a
public hearing concerning the proposed regulation by April 3, 2008, we
will hold a public hearing on April 8, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your comments, identified under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0971 by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for
submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
     Mail: National Volatile Organic Compound Emission
Standards for Aerosol Coatings, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail
Code: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Please include two copies.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 1301 Constitution
Avenue, NW., EPA Headquarters Library, Room 3334, EPA West Building,
Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2006-

0971. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the National Volatile Organic
Compound Emission Standards for Aerosol Coatings, EPA/DC, EPA West
Building, EPA Headquarters Library, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at 10
a.m. on April 8, 2008 at EPA's Campus located at 109 T.W. Alexander
Drive in Research Triangle Park, NC, or an alternate site nearby.
Persons interested in presenting oral testimony must contact Ms. Joan
Rogers at<PHONE_NUMBER> no later than April 3, 2008. If you are
interested in attending the public hearing, contact Ms. Joan Rogers at
(919) 541-4487 to verify that a hearing will be held. If no one
contacts EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing concerning this
rule by April 3, 2008 this meeting will be cancelled without further
notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, contact Ms.
J. Kaye Whitfield, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Natural Resources and
Commerce Group (E143-03), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone
number<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For information concerning the Clean Air Act
(CAA) section 183(e) consumer and commercial products program, contact
Mr. Bruce Moore, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Natural Resources and
Commerce Group (E143-03), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-
mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Why Is EPA Using a Direct Final Rule?
II. Does This Action Apply to Me?
III. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
IV. What Are the Amendments Made by This Direct Final Rule?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act

I. Why Is EPA Using a Direct Final Rule?

    The EPA is publishing this rule without a prior proposed rule
because we view this as a non-controversial action and anticipate no
adverse comment. EPA has identified misstatements and possibly
confusing language in the preamble and regulatory text on how compounds
are added to the list in Tables 2A, 2B, or 2C of subpart E, 40 CFR part
59, and when distributors and retailers are regulated entities
responsible for compliance with the final rule. The amendments to the
Aerosol Coatings final rule described herein consist of clarifications
that do not make material changes to the rule.
    However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's Federal
Register, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the
proposed rule to the National Volatile Organic Compound Emission
Standards for Aerosol Coatings (40 CFR Part 59) if adverse comments are
received on this direct final rule. We will not institute a second
comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting
must do so at this time. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will
publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the
public that some or all of the amendments in this direct final rule
will not take effect. We would address all public comments in any
subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. For further
information about commenting on this rule, see the ADDRESSES section of
this document.

II. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    The entities potentially affected by this direct final rule are the
same entities that are subject to the Aerosol Coatings final rule. The
entities affected by the Aerosol Coatings final rule include:
Manufacturers, processors, distributors, importers of aerosol coatings
for sale or distribution in the United States, and manufacturers,
processors, distributors, or importers who supply the entities listed
above with aerosol coatings for sale or distribution in interstate
commerce in the United States.

III. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    A. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not

contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion
in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed
except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    B. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
     Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

IV. What Are the Amendments Made by This Direct Final Rule?

    The direct final rule clarifies and amends certain explanatory and
regulatory text in the Aerosol Coatings final rule.
    First, we are amending the explanatory text in section III.C. of
the preamble (entitled ``Consideration of Other Factors in the
Consideration of Best Available Controls''), which states that
compounds will be added to the list in Tables 2A, 2B, or 2C if they are
identified in an initial notification or update. This statement is
inconsistent with the regulatory text in Sec.  59.511(j), which
provides that compounds are to be added to the list in Tables 2A, 2B,
or 2C only through a petition to the Agency. Through today's action, we
are amending the preamble to the Aerosol Coatings final rule to track
the regulatory text that provides persons seeking to have a compound
added to Tables 2A, 2B, or 2C must follow the petition process
prescribed by 59.511(j).
    Second, EPA has determined that certain language in the regulatory
text is inconsistent and potentially confusing as to when distributors
and retailers are regulated entities responsible for compliance with
the Aerosol Coatings final rule. First, the second phrase in the first
sentence of Sec.  59.501(a) suggests that a distributor is only
regulated by the final rule if it is named on the label, and the second
sentence in Sec.  59.501(a) states ``Distributors whose names do not
appear on the label for the product are not regulated entities.'' The
language in the first two sentences of Sec.  59.501(a) is inconsistent
and incomplete because, under Sec.  59.501(b)(2), distributors who
specify a formulation and distributors whose names appear on the label
for the product are responsible for compliance with the final rule. We
are adding language to Sec.  59.501(a) to make that section consistent
with Sec.  59.501(b)(2). Specifically, we are adding language to the
second phrase in the first sentence of Sec.  59.501(a) to include
distributors who specify a formulation, and deleting the entire second
sentence in Sec.  59.501(a).
    Third, the third sentence in Sec.  59.501(a), which states
``Distributors include retailers whose names appear on the label for
the product,'' is potentially confusing because it fails to note that,
as defined in Sec.  59.503, retailers are distributors if they meet the
definition of ``distributor.'' A retailer who both meets the definition
of ``distributor'' in Sec.  59.503 and either is named on the label or
specifies the formulation of a product is responsible for compliance
with the final rule under Sec.  59.501(b)(2). To avoid any confusion
about when retailers are regulated by the final rule, we are deleting
the third sentence in 59.501(a) and replacing it with a sentence
stating ``Distributors include retailers who fall within the definition
of `distributor' in Sec.  59.503.''
    Fourth, EPA has identified that several provisions in Sec.
59.501(b) use the phrase ``the regulated entity'' to identify when
certain entities are responsible for compliance with provisions of the
final rule. In some instances, however, the final rule provides that
different entities will be regulated entities responsible for
compliance with provisions of the final rule for a given product. To
avoid any confusion about whether there can be more than one regulated
entity for a given product, we are changing the phrase from ``the
regulated entity'' to ``a regulated entity.'' This change does not
change the compliance responsibilities for any entity.
    Fifth, we identified that a few words were inadvertently omitted
from the regulatory text in Sec.  59.501(b)(2). The first sentence of
Sec.  59.501(b)(2) uses the phrase ``regulated entity responsible for
compliance,'' while the second sentence uses the phrase ``responsible
for compliance'' without the words ``regulated entity.'' To avoid any
confusion, we are adding the words ``a regulated entity'' to the second
sentence in Sec.  59.501(b)(2) to make clear that the distributor is a
regulated entity responsible for compliance with provisions of the
final rule if it either is named on the label or has specified
formulations to be used by a manufacturer.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). This action does not impose any
new information collection burden because it serves to clarify certain
explanatory and regulatory text. No additional information collection
is necessary for this action.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

requirements on small entities. We have determined that small
businesses will not incur any adverse impacts because EPA is taking
this action to make certain clarifications and amendments to the
Aerosol Coatings final rule, and these clarifications and amendments do
not create any new requirements or burdens. No costs are associated
with these amendments.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order (EO) 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to
ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in
the development of regulatory policies that have federalism
implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism implications'' is
defined in the EO to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in EO 13132. The CAA establishes the relationship between
the Federal Government and the States, and this action does not impact
that relationship. The final rule requirements will not supersede State
regulations that are more stringent. Thus, EO 13132 does not apply to
this rule.

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

    Executive Order (EO) 13175, entitled ``Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by Tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have Tribal implications.'' This final action
does not have Tribal implications as specified in EO 13175. The final
regulatory action does not have a substantial direct effect on one or
more Indian tribes, in that this action imposes no regulatory burdens
on Tribes. Furthermore, the action does not affect the relationship or
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes. The CAA and the Tribal Authority Rule
(TAR) establish the relationship of the Federal Government and Tribes
in implementing the CAA. Thus, EO 13175 does not apply to this rule.

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

    EPA interprets Executive Order (EO) 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is
not subject to EO 13045 because it is based solely on technology
performance.

H. Executive Order 13211: Energy Effects

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113, Section 12(d)), (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its
regulatory activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. The VCS are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the EPA does not use available and applicable VCS.
    The rulemaking involves technical standards. Therefore, the Agency
conducted a search to identify potentially applicable voluntary
consensus standards. However, we identified no such standards, and none
were brought to our attention in comments. Therefore, EPA has decided
to use the following standards in the final rule: California Air
Resources Board Method 310--Determination of VOC in Consumer Products
and Reactive Organic Compounds in Aerosol Coating Products; EPA Method
311--Analysis of Hazardous Air Pollutant Compounds in Paints and
Coatings by Direct Injection into a Gas Chromatograph (40 CFR part 63,
appendix A), in conjunction with

American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Method D3063-94 or
D3074-94 for analysis of the propellant portion of the coating; South
Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Method 318-95,
Determination of Weight Percent Elemental Metal in Coatings by X-ray
Diffraction, July, 1996, for metal content; and ASTM D523-89
(Reapproved 1999), Standard Test Method for Specular Gloss for specular
gloss of flat and nonflat coatings.
    EPA Method 311--Analysis of Hazardous Air Pollutant Compounds in
Paints and Coatings by Direct Injection into a Gas Chromatograph (40
CFR part 63, appendix A) also is a compilation of voluntary consensus
standards. The following are incorporated by reference in EPA Method
311--Analysis of Hazardous Air Pollutant Compounds in Paints and
Coatings by Direct Injection into a Gas Chromatograph (40 CFR part 63,
appendix A): ASTM D1979-91, ASTM D3432-89, ASTM D4457-85, ASTM D4747-
87, ASTM D4827-93, and ASTM PS9-94.
    For the methods required by the final rule, a source may apply to
EPA for permission to use alternative test methods or alternative
monitoring requirements in place of any required testing methods,
performance specifications, or procedures under Sec. Sec.  63.7(f) and
63.8(f) of subpart A of the General Provisions.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income populations. Further, it establishes national emission standards
for VOC in aerosol coatings.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing the final rule
amendment and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.
House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of this final rule amendment in the Federal
Register. The final rule amendment is not a ``major rule'' as defined
by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This final rule is effective on June 23, 2008.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 59

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 13, 2008.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, part 59 of Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 59--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 59 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414 and 7511b(e).

Subpart E--[Amended]

0
2. Section 59.501 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(1),
(b)(2) and (b)(3) to read as follows:

Sec.  59.501  Am I subject to this subpart?

    (a) The regulated entities for an aerosol coating product are the
manufacturer or importer of an aerosol coating product and a
distributor of an aerosol coating product if it is named on the label
or if it specifies the formulation of the product. Distributors include
retailers who fall within the definition of ``distributor'' in Sec.
59.503.
    (b) * * *
    (1) If you are a manufacturer or importer, you are a regulated
entity responsible for ensuring that all aerosol coatings manufactured
or imported by you meet the PWR limits presented in Sec.  59.504, even
if your name is not on the label.
    (2) If you are a distributor named on the label, you are a
regulated entity responsible for compliance with all sections of this
subpart except for the limits presented in Sec.  59.504. If you are a
distributor that has specified formulations to be used by a
manufacturer, then you are a regulated entity responsible for
compliance with all sections of this subpart.
    (3) If there is no distributor named on the label, then the
manufacturer or importer is a regulated entity responsible for
compliance with all sections of this subpart.
* * * * *
 [FR Doc. E8-5583 Filed 3-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 11, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61421-61422]
[FR Doc No: 2022-21988]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95968; File No. SR-NYSE-2022-45]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend the Connectivity Fee Schedule

October 4, 2022.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that on September 21, 2022, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Connectivity Fee Schedule
related to colocation to remove obsolete text. The proposed rule change
is available on the Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Connectivity Fee Schedule
related to colocation to remove Partial Cabinet Solution bundles
Options A and B as obsolete.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange is an indirect subsidiary of Intercontinental
Exchange, Inc. (``ICE''). Each of the Exchange's affiliates NYSE
American LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc., NYSE Chicago, Inc., and NYSE
National, Inc. (the ``Affiliate SROs'') has submitted substantially
the same proposed rule change to propose the changes described
herein. See SR-NYSEAMER-2022-43, SR-NYSEARCA-2022-64, SR-NYSECHX-
2022-22, and SR-NYSENAT-2022-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange recently deleted the service ``LCN Access--1 Gb
Circuit'' from the list of types of services available in colocation,
due to the lack of User demand for 1 Gb LCN ports.\5\ In making that
change, the Exchange explained that the number of 1 Gb LCN ports
purchased by Users had steadily declined from 4 in 2017, to 2 in 2018,
to 1 in 2021, to zero in 2022. The Exchange understands that this fall-
off in demand for the 1 Gb LCN port is due to the fact that market data
feeds continue to increase in bandwidth, such that Users prefer to
purchase larger port sizes. Based on this trend, the Exchange explained
that it believes that there is no remaining User demand for the 1 Gb
LCN port, and discontinued the service as obsolete.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 95358 (July 25,
2022), 87 FR 45837 (July 29, 2022) (SR-NYSE-2022-30).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The same rationale applies equally to two of the Exchange's Partial
Cabinet Solution (``PCS'') bundles: Options A and B. Options A and B
each include various bundled services, including, among other things, a
1 Gb LCN connection. Although Options A and B have been offered by the
Exchange and its Affiliate SROs since 2016,\6\ no Users ever purchased
an Option B bundle, and only one User purchased an Option A bundle,
which it canceled in July 2021. There are currently no Users purchasing
either an Option A or B bundle. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that
there is no remaining User demand for Options A or B, and proposes to
discontinue them as obsolete.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77072
(February 5, 2016), 81 FR 7394 (Feb. 11, 2016) (SR-NYSE-2015-53).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Application and Impact of the Proposed Changes
    The Exchange does not expect that the proposed changes would have
any impact. As noted above, there was only ever one User that purchased
either an Option A or B bundle, and that User canceled its bundled
service over a year ago, in July 2021. There are currently no
purchasers of either Option A or B bundles.
    The proposed changes would not have any effect on the two remaining
PCS bundles, Options C and D, which include 10 Gb ports.
    In addition, the proposed changes would not apply differently to
distinct types or sizes of market participants. Rather, they would
apply to all Users \7\ equally. As is currently the case, the purchase
of any colocation service is completely voluntary and the Connectivity
Fee Schedule is applied uniformly to all Users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For purposes of the Exchange's colocation services, a
``User'' means any market participant that requests to receive
colocation services directly from the Exchange. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 76008 (September 29, 2015), 80 FR 60190
(October 5, 2015) (SR-NYSE-2015-40). As specified in the
Connectivity Fee Schedule, a User that incurs colocation fees for a
particular colocation service pursuant thereto would not be subject
to colocation fees for the same colocation service charged by the
Affiliate SROs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Competitive Environment
    The proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address any
other issues relating to colocation services and/or related fees, and
the Exchange is not aware of any problems that Users would have in
complying with the proposed change.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\8\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ in particular, because it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest
and because it is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that discontinuing offering the Option A and
B PCS bundles would perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market
and a national market system and, in general, protect investors and the
public

interest. There was only ever one User that purchased either an Option
A or B bundle, and that User canceled its bundled service over a year
ago, in July 2021. There are currently no purchasers of either Option A
or B bundles. The Exchange does not expect demand for Options A and B
to rebound given Users' overall preference for larger port sizes to
accommodate larger market data feeds. Removing references to the fees
for these obsolete options from the Connectivity Fee Schedule would
make the Connectivity Fee Schedule easier to read, understand, and
administer.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change does not
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest. The proposed rule change would delete obsolete services from
the Connectivity Fee Schedule in order to enhance transparency and
alleviate potential customer confusion.
    The Exchange believes that deleting obsolete services from the
Connectivity Fee Schedule would not permit unfair discrimination
between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. The proposed changes
would apply equally to all Users.
    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is
consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\10\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change will not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would not place
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is not
designed to address any competitive issues but rather is designed to
enhance the clarity and transparency of the Connectivity Fee Schedule
and alleviate possible customer confusion that may arise from the
inclusion of obsolete services.

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

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

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \11\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\12\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \13\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2022-45 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2022-45. 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-NYSE-2022-45 and should be submitted on
or before November 1, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-21988 Filed 10-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P