[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 148 (Wednesday, August 1, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45700-45702]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18790]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67511; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2012-086]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Fees for Access to BONO and ITTO Ports

July 26, 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 24, 2012, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
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

    NASDAQ proposes to modify Chapter XV, Sec. 3 entitled ``NASDAQ
Options Market--Access Services,'' related to fees assessed by NASDAQ
for connectivity to the NASDAQ Options Market (``NOM''), NASDAQ's
facility for executing and routing standardized equity and index
options.
    While fee changes pursuant to this proposal are effective upon
filing, the Exchange has designated these changes to be operative on
September 3, 2012.
    The text of the proposed rule change is set forth below. Proposed
new text is in italics and deleted text is in brackets.
* * * * *

Chapter XV Options Pricing

    NASDAQ Options Market Participants may be subject to the Charges
for Membership, Services and Equipment in the Rule 7000 Series as well
as the fees in this Chapter XV.
* * * * *

Sec. 3 NASDAQ Options Market--Access Services

    The following charges are assessed by Nasdaq for connectivity to
the NASDAQ Options Market:
    (a) TradeInfo
     Members not subscribing to the Nasdaq Workstation using
TradeInfo will be charged a fee of $95 per user per month.
    (b) Port Fees, per port per month, as follows:

Order Entry Port Fee--$500.00
CTI Port Fee--$500.00
OTTO Port Fee--$500.00
ITTO Port Fee \1\--$500.00
BONO Port Fee \1\--$500.00
Order Entry DROP Port Fee--$500.00
OTTO DROP Port Fee--$500.00
SQF Port Fee--$250.00

    \1\ ITTO and BONO Port fees will be assessed to non-NOM
Participants and NOM Participants.
* * * * *
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaq.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. 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
    NASDAQ is proposing to amend Chapter XV, Sec. 3(b) to assess fees
for the Best of NASDAQ Options (``BONOSM'') \3\ and NASDAQ
ITCH to Trade Options (``ITTO'') \4\ ports to non-NOM Participants and
NOM Participants for purposes of receiving the BONO and ITTO data
feeds.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ BONOSM is a data feed that provides the NOM Best
Bid and Offer (``NOM NBBO'') and last sale information for trades
executed on NOM. The NOM NBBO and last sale information are
identical to the information that NOM sends the Options Price
Regulatory Authority (``OPRA'') and which OPRA disseminates via the
consolidated data feed for options. BONO is the options equivalent
of the NASDAQ Basic data feed offered for equities under NASDAQ Rule
7047. See Chapter VI, Section 1 at subsection (a)(3)(B).
    \4\ ITTO is a data feed that provides quotation information for
individual orders on the NOM book, last sale information for trades
executed on NOM, and Order Imbalance Information as set forth in NOM
Rules Chapter VI, Section 8. ITTO is the options equivalent of the
NASDAQ TotalView/ITCH data feed that NASDAQ offers under NASDAQ Rule
7023 with respect to equities traded on NASDAQ. As with TotalView,
members use ITTO to ``build'' their view of the NOM book by adding
individual orders that appear on the feed, and subtracting
individual orders that are executed. See Chapter VI, Section 1 at
subsection (a)(3)(A).
    \5\ The BONO and ITTO data feeds are described in Chapter XV,
Section 4. The Exchange assesses monthly fees for firms that are
distributors of BONO and ITTO market data. A ``distributor'' of
NASDAQ options market data is any entity that receives a feed or
data file of NASDAQ data directly from NASDAQ or indirectly through
another entity and then distributes the data either internally
(within that entity) or externally (outside that entity). The
Exchange assesses fees for BONO and ITTO data on a per-user basis.
These fees are separate from port fees. These fees vary based on
whether they are for Professional users or Non-Professional users.
The term ``Non-Professional'' shall have the same meaning as in
NASDAQ Rule 7011(b)(2). Rule 7011(b)(2) defines a ``Non-
Professional'' as a natural person who is neither: (A) Registered or
qualified in any capacity with the Commission, the Commodities
Futures Trading Commission, any state securities agency, any
securities exchange or association, or any commodities or futures
contract market or association; (B) engaged as an ``investment
adviser'' as that term is defined in Section 201(11) of the
Investment Advisors Act of 1940 (whether or not registered or
qualified under that Act); nor (C) employed by a bank or other
organization exempt from registration under federal or state
securities laws to perform functions that would require registration
or qualification if such functions were performed for an
organization not so exempt. A Professional user is any user that is
not a non-Professional. For BONO data, the per-user fee is $5 per
Professional user; and $1 per non-Professional user. For ITTO data,
the per-user fee is $10 per Professional user; and $1 per Non-
Professional user.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the Exchange filed to adopt pricing for the BONO and ITTO data
feeds, the Exchange noted in its filing that ``* * * NASDAQ has made a
voluntary decision to make this market data available. NASDAQ is not
required by the Exchange Act in the first instance to make the data
available, unlike the best bid and offer which must be made available
under the Act. NASDAQ has chosen to make the noted data available to
improve market quality, to attract order flow, and to increase
transparency; and will continue to make the data available until such
time as NASDAQ changes its rule.'' Further, ``NASDAQ believes that its
ITTO and BONO(SM) which includes the NOM NBBO and last sale
information for trades executed on NOM in BONO,(SM) are
precisely the sort of market data products that the Commission
envisioned when it adopted Regulation NMS.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64652 (June 13,
2011), 76 FR 35498 (June 17, 2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-075).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange currently assesses fees to NOM Participants for
connectivity to various types of ports,\7\ among them the BONO and ITTO
ports. The fees for these ports are currently assessed only to NOM
Participants.\8\ The BONO and ITTO ports are necessary in order for
subscribers to BONO and ITTO to receive those data feeds. Today, non-
NOM Participants are not assessed fees for BONO and ITTO ports that
they are utilizing to receive data.\9\ The Exchange proposes to assess
fees for BONO and ITTO ports to non-NOM Participants as well as NOM
Participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange assesses fees for a CTI Port, OTTO Port, ITTO
Port, BONO Port, Order Entry DROP Port, OTTO DROP Port and SQF Port
in Section 3(b) of Chapter XV of the Options Rules. Non-NOM
Participants only have access to the BONO and ITTO ports.
    \8\ NOM Participants are assessed a $500 per port per month fee
to obtain a BONO or ITTO port.
    \9\ NOM Participants and non-NOM Participants are assessed fees
today for the BONO and ITTO data. Only NOM Participants are assessed
port fees today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similar to the BONO and ITTO data feeds in Sec. 4 of Chapter XV,
NASDAQ will issue an invoice to non-NOM Participants for BONO and ITTO
ports fees on behalf of the NASDAQ OMX Global Data Products group.\10\
The Exchange proposes to include a footnote within Sec. 3(b) of Chapter
XV to specify that ITTO and BONO port fees will be assessed to non-NOM
Participants and NOM Participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Today, the BONO and ITTO market data distributor fees are
invoiced by The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC. NOM will continue to
invoice and collect fees for all ports specified in Sec. 3(b) of
Chapter XV including BONO and ITTO ports for NOM Participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    NASDAQ believes that its proposal to amend its pricing is
consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \11\ in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \12\ in particular, in
that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees and other charges
among Exchange members and other persons using any facility or system
which NASDAQ operates or controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted self-regulatory
organizations and broker-dealers increased authority and flexibility to
offer new and unique market data to the public. It was believed that
this authority would expand the amount of data available to consumers,
and also spur innovation and competition for the provision of market
data. NASDAQ has made a voluntary decision to make the BONO and ITTO
market data available. NASDAQ has chosen to make the noted data
available to improve market quality, to attract order flow, and to
increase transparency; and will continue to make the data available
until such time as NASDAQ changes it rules. In order to obtain the
data, all subscribers require a BONO and/or ITTO port.
    The Exchange believes that assessing non-NOM Participants port fees
for BONO and ITTO ports in addition to NOM Participants is reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all subscribers to
the data would be assessed the same rate to obtain a port. Today, non-
NOM Participants are not assessed BONO and ITTO port fees and NOM
Participants pay a $500 per port per month fee. This proposal would
uniformly assess all subscribers a $500 per port per month fee.

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

    NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule changes will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. There is intense
competition between trading platforms that provide transaction
execution and routing services and proprietary data products.
Transaction execution and proprietary data products are complementary
in that market data is both an input and a by-product of the execution
service. The fees assessed by the Exchange must

remain competitive with fees assessed by other venues and therefore
must continue to be reasonable and equitably allocated to those
subscribers that desire to subscribe to services at the Exchange rather
than competing venues.

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.\13\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-NASDAQ-2012-086 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-NASDAQ-2012-086. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2012-086 and should
be submitted on or before August 22, 2012.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-18790 Filed 7-31-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 27 (Monday, February 10, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7726-7728]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02745]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71470; File No. SR-Phlx-2014-07]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Membership Process

February 4, 2014.
    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 January 30, 2014, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' 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 amend Exchange Rule 910 to permit an
expedited application process for firms that are already approved
members of The NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC (``NASDAQ'') or NASDAQ OMX BX,
Inc. (``BX'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is attached as Exhibit 5,\3\
available on the Exchange's Web site at
nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Commission notes that the text of the proposed rule
change is attached to the filing as Exhibit 5, not to this Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 a PHLX
membership rule and provide for an expedited review of applicants
seeking to become PHLX member organizations that have already
successfully undergone a NASDAQ or BX membership evaluation and are
currently members in good standing of NASDAQ or BX. Currently, PHLX
Rule 910 provides the qualifications for a Member Organization,
including the required terms and conditions. The Exchange is proposing
to modify Rule 910 in order to recognize the new member review
previously conducted by member regulation when a PHLX applicant has
already been approved for membership on NASDAQ or BX.\4\ The
fundamental membership qualifications are standard across all three
domestic exchanges owned by The NASDAQ OMX Group \5\ and are all
reviewed by NASDAQ member regulation as part of the new member
application process. These membership requirements include but are not
limited to: Registration as a Broker Dealer with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission, maintaining a pre-determined
minimum net capital, qualification of associated persons, maintaining
sufficient written supervisory procedures. These and other reviews are
considered in each new member review conducted by NASDAQ member
regulation or by FINRA on behalf of NASDAQ.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ NASDAQ and BX are filing separate rule changes which would
recognize the membership review conducted by PHLX.
    \5\ NASDAQ, BX, and PHLX.
    \6\ FINRA reviews the following membership applications for
NASDAQ and BX pursuant to a Regulatory Services Agreement: Waive-in
applications for FINRA members that seek to become NASDAQ members;
applications for NASDAQ applicants that are not FINRA members;
applications for applicants that are simultaneously applying for
FINRA and NASDAQ Membership; applications for NASDAQ Options Market
Participation; applications for NASDAQ OMX BX; NASDAQ and BX
membership applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 910 to align PHLX rules
with the expedited membership processes that already exist on other
exchanges affiliated with PHLX. Specifically, NASDAQ Rule and BX Rule
1013(a)(5)(C) both allow for an expedited membership review process for
applicants that are already approved on an affiliated exchange.\7\ The
membership review for firms that submit a Waive-In Membership
Application largely relies [sic] the information previously supplied to
NASDAQ and simply reviews any additional new information which has
changed or has not yet been evaluated by NASDAQ or by FINRA on behalf
of NASDAQ as part of the membership determination. However, the
Exchange notes that there are three differences from NASDAQ Rule
1013(a)(5)(C) and BX Rule 1013(a)(5)(c) [sic] and the proposed rule.
The first is that NASDAQ and BX also allow FINRA members to qualify for
expedited registration. PHLX

does not plan to include FINRA members in the expedited process.\8\ The
second is that both NASDAQ and BX have a Short Form Membership
application for firms that are already members of the other exchange.
PHLX will still require applicants to complete an Organization
Membership Application, which must be signed by the Authorized
Applicant, the Executive Representative and the Qualifying Permit
Holder but will not, as part of the rule change, require the submission
of duplicative documentation. The final difference is that the proposed
amended rule will still require applicants that require access to the
physical trading floor demonstrate knowledge of floor rules and
procedures through an on-floor examination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For example, NASDAQ rule 1013(a)(5)(C) states: An applicant
that is an approved FINRA or NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX'') member
shall have the option to apply to become a Nasdaq member and to
register with Nasdaq all associated persons of the firm whose
registrations with the firm are approved with FINRA or BX in
categories recognized by Nasdaq rules through an expedited process
by submitting a Waive-in Membership Application Form and a Nasdaq
Membership Agreement. NASDAQ and BX will file subsequent rule
changes to recognize the membership review conducted on behalf of
PHLX.
    \8\ NASDAQ and BX recognize the FINRA membership approval
because the membership rules are the same and are covered under a
17d-2 agreement. PHLX does not plan to recognize FINRA's approval
because of the slight differences in membership rules but will
review this issue if PHLX membership rules are modified and become
more closely aligned with NASDAQ and BX rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \9\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \10\ in particular, in that 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 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. NASDAQ's membership
department on behalf of PHLX, which performs similar functions for
NASDAQ and BX, reviews: Applicant business plans, clearing
arrangements, FOCUS reports, organizational charts, and Written
Supervisory Procedures for firms applying to any NASDAQ OMX market.\11\
These fundamental documents are required for membership to FINRA, as
well as for membership on other national securities exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \11\ FINRA conducts the new member application review for NASDAQ
and BX pursuant to a 17d-2 agreement and Regulatory Services
Agreement. These application reviews are administered by FINRA and
subject to NASDAQ's final review and decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PHLX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \12\ because it would eliminate the
duplicate review for prospective PHLX firms that have already been
reviewed and approved for membership by NASDAQ or BX and would require
firms only to provide additional information if there had been a change
in status from when the firm previously applied to become a member on a
NASDAQ OMX exchange. As a consequence, the proposed change will both
bring efficiency to the Exchange's membership review process and reduce
the burden on applicants that have already been approved for membership
on another NASDAQ OMX domestic market by reducing the duplicative
information and documentation required to be provided in the process.
As a further consequence, the Exchange will be able to focus its
regulatory efforts on reviewing any changes or new information that may
affect the applicant's eligibility for Exchange membership. Applicants
must attest that the information previously provided as part of a new
membership review is complete and accurate. Additionally, the proposed
expedited review process replicates a process that is currently
available to members of NASDAQ and BX under their rules, with the
additional requirement that applicants must complete an Organization
Membership Application, and to the extent access to the trading floor
is sought, pass an on-floor examination. As discussed, PHLX would
continue to apply additional scrutiny to applicants in instances where
PHLX would be the Designated Examining Authority (``DEA'') or where the
applicant's proposed business activities required additional
review.\13\ PHLX is required to conduct additional examinations for
firms that which [sic] PHLX is the DEA which includes examining firms
for compliance with financial responsibility requirements imposed by
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and by SEC or SRO rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Supra note 8 [sic].
    \13\ Prospective members seeking to conduct business on the PHLX
trading floor requires [sic] a particularized understanding of the
PHLX trading floor rules. Additionally, applicants for which PHLX
will be the DEA are required to file the following material; Branch
Office Disclosure Form, FOCUS filings, Verification of an error
account, Proprietary Account of Introducing Broker Dealer Agreement,
Confirmation of U4 registrations, Copy of Joint Back Office
Agreements (if applicable), Notification of Applicant's intent to
use Electronic Storage Media for maintaining and storing records.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The expedited review of
membership for PHLX applicants will not impose any burden on
competition and will remove unnecessary burdens that currently exist
for NASDAQ and BX firms when seeking PHLX membership. Currently,
existing NASDAQ or BX firms that seek to become PHLX member firms are
required to undergo a duplicative membership review in order to add a
PHLX membership. This redundant review would not exist if they sought
membership on one of the other NASDAQ exchanges. The Exchange seeks
this rule modification in order to harmonize the rules and minimize
duplicative membership reviews across all NASDAQ OMX exchanges.

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

    Because the foregoing 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 for 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
\14\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

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-Phlx-2014-07 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-Phlx-2014-07. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of 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; 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-Phlx-2014-07 and should be
submitted on or before March 3, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-02745 Filed 2-7-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 249 (Monday, December 30, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72065-72067]
[FR Doc No: 2019-28029]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87821; File No. SR-NYSE-2019-67]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No.
1, To Amend Chapter One of the Listed Company Manual To Modify the
Provisions Relating to Direct Listings

December 20, 2019.
    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 December 11, 2019, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change. On December 13, 2019, the
Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change, which
amended and replaced the proposed rule change in its entirety. The
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, 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 Chapter One of the Listed Company
Manual (the ``Manual'') to modify the provisions relating to direct
listings.\4\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange has previously filed a proposed rule change to
amend Chapter One of the Manual to modify the provisions related to
direct listings. See SR-NYSE-2019-67. The Exchange is now filing
this Amendment No. 1 to SR-NYSE-2019-67 to make clear in Exhibit 5
to this filing that a company conducting a Primary Direct Floor
Listing in which the company sells shares in the opening auction
with a market value of less than $100 million will be eligible to
list if the aggregate of the market value of publicly-held shares
immediately prior to listing together with the market value of
shares sold by the company in the opening auction totals at least
$250 million. This Amendment No.1 to SR-NYSE-2019-67 replaces SR-
NYSE-2019-67 as originally filed and supersedes such filing in its
entirety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
    Section 102.01B of the Manual includes initial listing requirements
for a company that has not previously had its common equity securities
registered under the Act, to list its common equity securities on the
Exchange at the time of effectiveness of a registration statement filed
solely for the purpose of allowing existing shareholders to sell their
shares (a ``Selling Shareholder Direct Floor Listing'').\5\ To allow a
company to sell shares on its own behalf in connection with its initial
listing upon effectiveness of a registration statement, without a
traditional underwritten public offering, the Exchange proposes to
amend Section 102.01B. The proposed change would allow a company that
has not previously had its common equity securities registered under
the Act, to list its common equity securities on the Exchange at the
time of effectiveness of a registration statement pursuant to which the
company will sell shares in the opening auction on the first day of
trading on the Exchange (a ``Primary Direct Floor Listing''). The
proposal would permit a company to conduct a Primary Direct Floor
Listing in addition to, or instead of, a Selling Shareholder Direct
Floor Listing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82627 (February 2,
2018), 83 FR 5650 (February 8, 2018) (SR-NYSE-2017-30).

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

    In considering the initial listing of a company in connection with
a Selling Shareholder Direct Floor Listing, Section 102.01B currently
provides that the Exchange will determine that such company has met the
applicable $100 million aggregate market value of publicly-held shares
requirement based on a combination of both (i) an independent third-
party valuation of the company (a ``Valuation'') and (ii) the most
recent trading price for the company's common stock in a trading system
for unregistered securities operated by a national securities exchange
or a registered broker-dealer (a ``Private Placement Market''). The
Exchange will attribute a market value of publicly-held shares to the
company equal to the lesser of (i) the value calculable based on the
Valuation and (ii) the value calculable based on the most recent
trading price in a Private Placement Market. Alternatively, in the
absence of any recent trading in a Private Placement Market, Section
102.01B provides that the Exchange will determine that such company has
met its market value of publicly-held shares requirement if the company
provides a Valuation evidencing a market value of publicly-held shares
of at least $250 million. With respect to this requirement, the
Exchange is proposing the following:
     The Exchange proposes that a company would qualify for
listing in connection with a Primary Direct Floor Listing by selling at
least $100 million in market value of shares in the opening auction.
     The Exchange proposes that a company would qualify for
listing in connection with a Primary Direct Floor Listing if the
aggregate of the market value of publicly-held shares immediately prior
to listing together with the market value of shares sold by the company
in the opening auction totals at least $250 million.
    The Exchange also proposes to modify the distribution requirements
for listing in connection with a Selling Shareholder Direct Floor
Listing or a Primary Direct Floor Listing. Pursuant to Section 102.1A
of the Manual, any company listing in connection with either a Selling
Shareholder Direct Floor Listing or a Primary Direct Floor Listing is
required to have at least 400 round lot holders and 1.1 million
publicly-held shares at the time of listing. Private companies
generally do not have as many as 400 round lot shareholders, but this
is typically not a barrier to listing for a company undertaking an
initial public offering as the underwriters are able to ensure that the
shares sold in the IPO are distributed to sufficient accounts to meet
the Exchange's distribution standards. However, in the absence of an
underwritten transaction at the time of listing, the initial listing
distribution standards may represent more of a challenge for a private
company contemplating listing in connection with a Selling Shareholder
Direct Floor Listing or a Primary Direct Floor Listing.
    The Exchange believes that a Primary Direct Floor Listing in which
the company sells at least $250 million of its stock in the opening
auction on the day of listing would provide an appropriately liquid
trading market and make highly likely that the company would meet the
initial listing distribution standards quickly after initial listing.
Consequently, the Exchange proposes to amend Section 102.01A to provide
that any company listing in connection with a Primary Direct Floor
Listing in which the company sells at least $250 million in market
value of shares in the opening auction on the initial listing date may
list and commence trading on the basis that the company would have to
demonstrate compliance with the distribution requirements within 90
trading days of the listing date (the ``Distribution Standard
Compliance Period''). Any company that fails to meet the distribution
standards by the end of the Distribution Standard Compliance Period
would be deemed to be below compliance. In that case, the company would
have the opportunity to submit a compliance plan as set forth in the
applicable procedures in Sections 802.02 and 802.03 of the Manual, but
will not be granted a plan period that extends more than six months
from the end of the Distribution Standard Compliance Period. If a
company does not meet the initial listing distribution standards by the
end of the maximum six month compliance period, it would be subject to
immediate suspension and delisting.
    In addition, the Exchange proposes to provide the benefit of the
same Distribution Standard Compliance Period in the case of: (i) A
company listing in connection with a Selling Shareholder Direct Floor
Listing that demonstrates $350 million in market value of publicly-held
shares; and (ii) a Primary Direct Floor Listing in which the company
sells less than $250 million of its stock in the opening auction but
has a market value of publicly-held shares immediately prior to listing
together with the market value of shares sold by the company in the
opening auction totaling at least $350 million.
    Currently, a company listing in connection with a Selling
Shareholder Direct Floor Listing is required to demonstrate at the time
of initial listing that it has at least 400 round lot holders and (i)
at least $100 million in market value of publicly-held shares based on
the lower of a Valuation or the most recent trading price in a Private
Placement Market or (ii) at least $250 million in market value of
publicly-held shares. The Exchange proposes that a company with $350
million in market value of publicly-held shares (including in the case
of a company listing in connection with a Primary Direct Floor Listing
where the aggregate of the shares sold by the company in the opening
auction and the market value of the publicly-held shares outstanding
immediately before the listing is at least $350 million) may list and
commence trading on the basis that the company would have to
demonstrate compliance with the distribution requirements within 90
trading days of the listing date. The Exchange notes that the market
value of publicly-held shares requirement for listings other than
direct floor listings and IPOs is $100 million, so the $350 million
public float that would be required under this proposal to use the
Distribution Compliance Period is far higher than what a newly-listed
company would have to demonstrate under other circumstances. The
Exchange believes that this heightened standard significantly increases
the likelihood that a liquid trading market will develop after a
Selling Shareholder Direct Floor Listing or Primary Direct Floor
Listing and therefore makes it likely that these companies will meet
the initial distribution standards within the Distribution Standard
Compliance Period.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act,\6\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act,\7\ in particular in
that it is designed 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 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)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed amendment is consistent
with the protection of investors. The proposal would require that a
company in a Primary Direct Floor Listing must either sell at least
$100 million of its listed securities in the opening auction or
demonstrate that the sum of its market value of publicly-held shares
immediately prior to listing and the market value of shares sold by the
company in the opening auction is at least $250 million. These
requirements would provide that any company conducting a Primary Direct
Floor Listing would be of a suitable size for Exchange listing and that
there would be sufficient liquidity for the security to be suitable for
auction market trading.
    The proposal to provide a limited grace period for companies to
meet the initial distribution requirements in connection with a Selling
Shareholder Direct Floor Listing or a Primary Direct Floor Listing is
consistent with the protection of investors because the enhanced public
float requirements of $350 million for Selling Shareholder Direct Floor
Listings and Primary Direct Floor Listings in which the company sells
less than $250 million in market value of shares in the opening auction
and the $250 million minimum opening trade requirement for all other
Primary Direct Floor Listings would make it probable that there would
be a quick development of a liquid trading market and that the company
would comply with the initial listing distribution standards within the
Distribution Standard Compliance Period.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed amendments
would not impose any burden on competition, but would rather increase
competition by providing new pathways for companies to access the
public markets.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or up to 90 days (i) as the Commission may designate
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 the 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, as modified by Amendment No. 1, 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-NYSE-2019-67 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-2019-67. 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 such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. 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-2019-67, and should be submitted on
or before January 21, 2020.

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

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-28029 Filed 12-27-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 16 (Friday, January 24, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4082-4085]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01330]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0562; FRL-9905-70-Region-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; North
Carolina: Non-Interference Demonstration for Removal of Federal Low-
Reid Vapor Pressure Requirement for the Greensboro/Winston-Salem/High
Point Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the
State of North Carolina's April 12, 2013, State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revision to its approved maintenance plan for the Greensboro/
Winston-Salem/High Point 1997 8-hour Ozone Maintenance Area (Triad).
Specifically, North Carolina's SIP revision, including updated
modeling, shows that the Triad Area would continue to maintain the 1997
8-hour ozone standard if the currently applicable Federal Reid Vapor
Pressure (RVP) standard for gasoline of 7.8 pounds per square inch
(psi) were modified to 9.0 psi for four portions (Davidson, Forsyth,
Guilford and Davie Counties) of the ``Triad Area'' during the high-
ozone season. The State has included a technical demonstration with the
SIP revision to demonstrate that a less-stringent RVP standard of 9.0
psi in these portions of this area would not interfere with continued
maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) or any other applicable standard. Approval of this
SIP revision is a prerequisite for EPA's consideration of an amendment
to the regulations to remove the aforementioned portions of the Triad
Area from the list of areas that are currently subject to the Federal
7.8 psi RVP requirements. In addition, the revised on-road mobile and
non-road mobile source emissions modeling associated with the requested
modification to the RVP standard utilizes the updated Motor Vehicle
Emissions Simulator (MOVES) and NONROAD2008 models which are the most
current versions of modeling systems available for these sources. EPA
has determined that North Carolina's April 12, 2013, SIP revision with
respect to the revisions to the modeling and associated technical
demonstration associated with the State's request for the removal of
the Federal 7.8 psi RVP requirements, and with respect to the updated
on-road mobile, non-road mobile and area source emissions, is
consistent with the applicable provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA or
Act). Should EPA decide to remove the subject portions of the Triad
Area from those areas subject to the 7.8 psi Federal RVP requirements,
such action will occur in a subsequent rulemaking.

DATES: This rule will be effective on February 24, 2014.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0562. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential
Business Information or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 excluding federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Lakeman, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404)
562-9043. Mr. Lakeman can be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

    I. Background of the Triad Area
    II. Background of the Gasoline Volatility Requirement
    III. This Action
    IV. Final Action
    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background of the Triad Area

    On November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56694), EPA designated the Counties of
Davidson, Forsyth and Guilford in their entirety and the portion of
Davie County bounded by the Yadkin River, Dutchmans Creek, North
Carolina Highway 801, Fulton Creek and back to Yadkin River in the
Triad Area as moderate nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Among
the requirements applicable to nonattainment areas for the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS was the requirement to meet certain volatility standards (known
as Reid Vapor Pressure or RVP) for gasoline sold commercially. See 55
FR 23658 (June 11, 1990). As discussed in greater detail below, as part
of the RVP requirements associated with the nonattainment designation,
gasoline sold in the Triad 1-hour ozone nonattainment area could not
exceed 7.8 psi RVP during the high-ozone season months.
    Following implementation of the 7.8 psi RVP requirement in the
Triad Area, on September 9, 1993, the Triad Area was redesignated to
attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, based on 1989-1992 ambient air
quality monitoring data. See 58 FR 47391. North Carolina's November 13,
1992, 1-hour ozone redesignation request did not include a request for
the removal of the 7.8 psi RVP standard. The requirements remained in
place for the Area when it was designated nonattainment for the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS that was promulgated on July 18, 1997, and later
designated attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS that was
promulgated March 12, 2008. See 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012).
    On April 30, 2004, EPA designated and classified areas for the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS (69 FR 23857) unclassifiable/attainment or
nonattainment for the new 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The Triad Area was
designated as nonattainment with a deferred effective date as part of
the Early Action Compact (EAC)\1\ program. (For more information on the
EAC program, see, http://www.epa.gov/airquality/eac/fs20080331_eac.html.) The Greensboro-Winston Salem-High Point nonattainment-
deferred EAC Area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS expanded the Triad
Area to include the entire county of Davie, and Alamance,

Caswell, Randolph, and Rockingham Counties in their entirety. The
Greensboro-Winston Salem-High Point EAC Area attained the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS with a design value of 0.083 parts per million (ppm) using
three years of quality assured data for the years of 2005-2007. On
February 6, 2008, EPA proposed that 13 nonattainment areas with
deferred effective dates, including the Greensboro-Winston Salem-High
Point Area, be designated attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
See 73 FR 6863. These areas met all of the milestones of the EAC
program and demonstrated that they were in attainment of the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS as of December 31, 2007. This rulemaking was finalized
on April 2, 2008. See 73 FR 17897. Effective April 15, 2008, the
Greensboro-Winston Salem-High Point EAC Area was designated as
attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. However, these attainment
areas were required to submit a 10-year maintenance plan under section
110(a)(1) of the CAA. As required, these plans provide for continued
attainment and maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least
10 years from the effective date of these areas' designation as
attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. These plans also include
components illustrating how each area will continue to attain the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS and provided contingency measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ An EAC is an agreement between a State, local governments
and EPA to implement measures not necessarily required by the Act in
order to achieve cleaner air as soon as possible. The program was
designed for areas that approach or monitor exceedances of the 8-
hour ozone standard, but are in attainment for the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background of the Gasoline Volatility Requirement

    On August 19, 1987 (52 FR 31274), EPA determined that gasoline
nationwide had become increasingly volatile, causing an increase in
evaporative emissions from gasoline-powered vehicles and equipment.
Evaporative emissions from gasoline, referred to as volatile organic
compounds (VOC), are precursors to the formation of tropospheric ozone
and contribute to the nation's ground-level ozone problem. Exposure to
ground-level ozone can reduce lung function (thereby aggravating asthma
or other respiratory conditions), increase susceptibility to
respiratory infection, and may contribute to premature death in people
with heart and lung disease.
    The most common measure of fuel volatility that is useful in
evaluating gasoline evaporative emissions is RVP. Under section 211(c)
of CAA, EPA promulgated regulations on March 22, 1989 (54 FR 11868),
that set maximum limits for the RVP of gasoline sold during the high
ozone season. These regulations constituted Phase I of a two-phase
nationwide program, which was designed to reduce the volatility of
commercial gasoline during the summer ozone control season. On June 11,
1990 (55 FR 23658), EPA promulgated more stringent volatility controls
as Phase II of the volatility control program. These requirements
established maximum RVP standards of 9.0 psi or 7.8 psi (depending on
the State, the month, and the area's initial ozone attainment
designation with respect to the 1-hour ozone NAAQS during the high
ozone season).
    The 1990 CAA Amendments established a new section, 211(h), to
address fuel volatility. Section 211(h) requires EPA to promulgate
regulations making it unlawful to sell, offer for sale, dispense,
supply, offer for supply, transport, or introduce into commerce
gasoline with an RVP level in excess of 9.0 psi during the high ozone
season. Section 211(h) prohibits EPA from establishing a volatility
standard more stringent than 9.0 psi in an attainment area, except that
EPA may impose a lower (more stringent) standard in any former ozone
nonattainment area redesignated to attainment.
    On December 12, 1991 (56 FR 64704), EPA modified the Phase II
volatility regulations to be consistent with section 211(h) of the CAA.
The modified regulations prohibited the sale of gasoline with an RVP
above 9.0 psi in all areas designated attainment for ozone, beginning
in 1992. For areas designated as nonattainment, the regulations were
retained as contained in the original Phase II Rule published on June
11, 1990 (55 FR 23658).
    As stated in the preamble to the Phase II volatility controls and
reiterated in the proposed change to the volatility standards published
in 1991, EPA will rely on states to initiate changes to EPA's
volatility program that they believe will enhance local air quality
and/or increase the economic efficiency of the program within the
statutory limits.\2\ In those rulemakings, EPA explained that the
governor of a state may petition EPA to set a volatility standard less
stringent than 7.8 psi for some month or months in a nonattainment
area. The petition must demonstrate such a change is appropriate
because of a particular local economic impact and that sufficient
alternative programs are available to achieve attainment and
maintenance of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. A current listing of the RVP
requirements for states can be found on EPA's Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/gasolinefuels/volatility/standards.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 55 FR 23658 (June 11, 1990), 56 FR 24242 (May 29, 1991)
and 56 FR 64704 (Dec. 12, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained in the December 12, 1991 (56 FR 64704), Phase II
rulemaking, EPA believes that relaxation of an applicable RVP standard
is best accomplished in conjunction with the redesignation process. As
noted above, however, North Carolina did not request relaxation of the
applicable 7.8 psi RVP standard when the Triad Area was redesignated to
attainment for the either the 1-hour or the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Rather, North Carolina is now seeking to relax the 7.8 psi RVP standard
after the Triad Area has been redesignated to attainment for the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS. Accordingly, the original modeling and maintenance
demonstration supporting the 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan must be
revised to reflect continued attainment under the relaxed 9.0 psi RVP
standard that the State has requested.

III. This Action

    On November 26, 2013 (78 FR 70516), EPA proposed approval of North
Carolina's April 12, 2013, revision to the State's approved 1997 8-hour
ozone maintenance plan for the Triad area. Specifically, North
Carolina's revision, including updated modeling, shows that the Triad
Area would continue to maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard if the
currently applicable RVP standard for gasoline from 7.8 psi were
modified to 9.0 psi during the high-ozone season. In addition, the
revised on-road mobile and non-road mobile source emissions modeling
associated with the requested modification to the RVP standard results
in the use of the updated Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) and
NONROAD2008 models which are the most current versions of modeling
systems available for these sources. No adverse comments and one
supportive comment were received on this proposed action.\3\ EPA is
hereby finalizing approval of the revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EPA notes that the supportive comment also requested that
any separate action to remove the Triad Area from those areas
subject to the more stringent 7.8 psi RVP requirements be done
through a direct final rulemaking action. As described in the
proposed rule for today's action, and reiterated in this final rule,
any action to remove the Triad Area from the more stringent 7.8 psi
RVP requirements will be done through a separate action. Any
comments regarding that separate action should be submitted in
response to such action. EPA does not view this request as relevant
to today's action approving revisions to the Triad Area 110(a)(1)
maintenance plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This rulemaking approves a revision to the 1997 8-hour ozone
Maintenance Plan for the Triad Area submitted by the

NC DENR. Specifically, EPA is approving changes to the maintenance
plan, including updated modeling that shows that the Triad Area can
continue to maintain the 1997 ozone standard without reliance on
emission reductions based upon the use of gasoline with an RVP of 7.8
psi in any of the Triad Area counties during the high ozone season--
June 1 through September 15. EPA is also concluding that the new
modeling demonstrates that the area would continue to attain the 1997
8-hour ozone standard with the use of gasoline with an RVP of 9.0 psi
throughout the Triad Area during the high ozone season. Consistent with
section 110(l) of the Act, EPA also concludes that the use of gasoline
with an RVP of 9.0 psi throughout the Maintenance Plan Areas during the
high ozone season would not interfere with other applicable
requirements of the Act.
    Section 110(l) requires that a revision to the SIP not interfere
with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable
further progress (RFP) (as defined in section 171), or any other
applicable requirement of the Act. To determine the approvability of
North Carolina's April 12, 2013, SIP revision, EPA considers whether
the requested action complies with section 110(l) of the CAA. Because
the modeling associated with the current maintenance plan for North
Carolina is premised in part upon the 7.8 psi RVP requirements, a
request to revise the maintenance plan modeling to no longer rely on
the 7.8 psi RVP requirement is subject to the requirements of CAA
section 110(l). Therefore, the State must demonstrate that this
revision will not interfere with the attainment or maintenance of any
of the NAAQS or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.
    This section 110(l) non-interference demonstration is a case-by-
case determination based upon the circumstances of each SIP revision.
EPA interprets 110(l) as applying to all NAAQS that are in effect,
including those that have been promulgated but for which the EPA has
not yet made designations. The specific elements of the 110(l) analysis
contained in the SIP revision depend on the circumstances and emissions
analyses associated with that revision. EPA's analysis of North
Carolina's April 12, 2013, SIP revision, including review of section
110(l) requirements can be found in the proposed rule published on
November 26, 2013, at 78 FR 70516.
    This rulemaking is only approving the State's revision to its
existing maintenance plan for the Triad Area showing that the area can
continue to maintain the standard without relying upon gasoline with an
RVP of 7.8 psi being sold in the Triad Area during the high ozone
season.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving the State of North Carolina's April 12, 2013,
revision to its 110(a)(1) Maintenance Plan for the Triad 1997 8-hour
Ozone Maintenance Area. Specifically, EPA is approving the State's
showing that the Triad Area can continue to maintain the 1997 ozone
standard without emissions reductions associated with the use of
gasoline with an RVP of 7.8 psi in the four Triad Area counties during
the high ozone season--June 1 through September 15.
    In addition, EPA is approving an updated on-road mobile, non-road
mobile and area source emissions for the Triad Area. EPA has determined
that North Carolina's April 12, 2013, SIP revision, including the
technical demonstration associated with the State's request for the
removal of the Federal RVP requirements, and the updated on-road
mobile, non-road mobile and area source emissions are consistent with
the applicable provisions of the CAA. Should EPA decide to remove
subject portions of the Triad Area from those areas subject to the 7.8
psi Federal RVP requirements, such action will occur in a separate,
subsequent rulemaking.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submittal that complies with the provisions of the Act 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 action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     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, October 7, 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).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    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. EPA will submit a report containing this action 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 the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by March 25, 2014. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See
section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: January 10, 2014.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    40 CFR part 52, is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart II--North Carolina

0
2. Section 52.1770(e) is amended by adding a new entry for ``Supplement
Maintenance Plan for the Greensboro/Winston-Salem/High Point Area, NC
1997 8-hour Ozone Maintenance Area and RVP Standard.'' at the end of
the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1770  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                              EPA-Approved North Carolina Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         State       EPA approval      Federal Register
             Provision              effective date       date              citation             Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Supplement Maintenance Plan for           4/2/2013       1/24/2014  [Insert citation of
 the Greensboro/Winston-Salem/High                                   publication].
 Point Area, NC 1997 8-hour Ozone
 Maintenance Area and RVP Standard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2014-01330 Filed 1-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 74 (Monday, April 18, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 22700]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08902]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Request To Release Airport Property

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent to rule on request to release airport property
at the Hebron Municipal Airport (HJH), Hebron, Nebraska.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the
release of land at the Hebron Municipal Airport (HJH), Hebron,
Nebraska, under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 18, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to
the FAA at the following address: Lynn D. Martin, Airports Compliance
Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Division, ACE-
610C, 901 Locust Room 364, Kansas City, MO 64106.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be
mailed or delivered to: William Linton, Airport Manager, Hebron
Municipal Airport, Hebron Airport Authority; P.O. Box 256, Hebron, NE
68370-0256,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynn D. Martin, Airports Compliance
Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Division, ACE-
610C, 901 Locust Room 364, Kansas City, MO 64106,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The request to release property may be reviewed,
by appointment, in person at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA invites public comment on the
request to release approximately 0.21 acres of airport
property at the Hebron Municipal Airport (HJH) under the provisions of
49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2). On March 16, 2016, the City of Hebron's Airport
Manager requested from the FAA that approximately 0.21
acres of property be released for sale to the Nebraska Department of
Roads for the purpose of reconstructing a bridge and road. On April 8,
2016, the FAA determined that the request to release property at Hebron
Municipal Airport (HJH) submitted by the Sponsor meets the procedural
requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration and the release of
the property does not and will not impact future aviation needs at the
airport. The FAA may approve the request, in whole or in part, no
sooner than thirty days after the publication of this Notice.
    The following is a brief overview of the request:
    Hebron Municipal Airport (HJH) is proposing the release of a
parcel, totaling 0.21 acres. The release of land is
necessary to comply with Federal Aviation Administration Grant
Assurances that do not allow federally acquired airport property to be
used for non-aviation purposes. The sale of the subject property will
result in the land at the Hebron Municipal Airport (HJH) being changed
from aeronautical to nonaeronautical use and release the surface lands
from the conditions of the AIP Grant Agreement Grant Assurances. In
accordance with 49 U.S.C. 47107(c)(2)(B)(i) and (iii), the airport will
receive fair market value for the property.
    Any person may inspect, by appointment, the request in person at
the FAA office listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In
addition, any person may, upon appointment and request, inspect the
application, notice and other documents determined by the FAA to be
related to the application in person at the Hebron Municipal Airport.

    Issued in Kansas City, MO, on April 11, 2016.
Jim A. Johnson,
Manager, Airports Division.
[FR Doc. 2016-08902 Filed 4-15-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P