[Federal Register: October 21, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 203)]
[Notices]
[Page 61270]
[DOCID:fr21oc05-54]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-17-000]

Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in
FERC Gas Tariff

October 14, 2005.
    Take notice that on October 11, 2005, Eastern Shore Natural Gas
Company (ESNG) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff,
Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, with a
proposed effective date of October 1, 2005.

Fifty-Eighth Revised Sheet No. 7
Fifty-Eighth Revised Sheet No. 8

    ESNG states that copies of the filing have been served upon its
jurisdictional customers and interested State Commissions.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible online at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-5819 Filed 10-20-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 209 (Tuesday, October 29, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57904-57908]
[FR Doc No: 2019-23546]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87389; File No. SR-NYSECHX-2019-15]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Chicago, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Establish the NYSE Chicago BBO, NYSE Chicago Trades and NYSE Chicago
Integrated Feed Market Data Feeds

October 23, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on October 18, 2019, NYSE Chicago, Inc. (``NYSE Chicago'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II.A, and II.C below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.
The Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed
rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ The Commission is publishing this
notice to

solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to establish the NYSE Chicago BBO (``NYSE
Chicago BBO''), NYSE Chicago Trades (``NYSE Chicago Trades'') and NYSE
Chicago Integrated Feed (``NYSE Chicago Integrated Feed'') market data
feeds. 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 and C below, of the most significant
parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to establish NYSE Chicago BBO, NYSE Chicago
Trades and NYSE Chicago Integrated Feed (``NYSE Chicago Market Data
Feeds''). The Exchange recently got approval to decommission the Book
Feed market data product when it transitions to the Pillar trading
platform.\5\ As proposed, once the Exchange transitions to the Pillar
trading platform, it will offer the NYSE Chicago Market Data Feeds in
lieu of the current Book Feed market data product. The Exchange
believes that utilizing the standardized Pillar market data feeds
across NYSE exchanges would create efficiencies for customer feed
handlers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 86709 (August 20,
2019), 84 FR 44654 (August 20, 2019) (SR-NYSECHX-2019-08) (Notice
proposing trading rules to support the transition of trading to the
Pillar trading platform, including proposing to delete Article 4,
Rule 1, which currently describes the Book Feed, because it will not
be offered once the Exchange transitions to Pillar); see also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87264 (October 9, 2019) (SR-
NYSECHX-2019-08) (Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order
Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified
by Amendment No. 1, to Add Rules to Support the Transition of
Trading to the Pillar Trading Platform).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed NYSE Chicago Market Data
Feeds will provide subscribers of the Book Feed market data product
with the same scope of Exchange information once the Exchange
transitions to Pillar, but with greater optionality. Subscribers that
would like to continue to receive both order data (including depth of
book) and last-sale data would be able to replace Book Feed with NYSE
Chicago Integrated and would not need to separately subscribe to either
NYSE Chicago BBO or NYSE Chicago Trades. Subscribers that do not need
as much data could opt instead to subscribe to only NYSE Chicago BBO or
NYSE Chicago Trades. In anticipation of the transition to the Pillar
trading system, the Exchange has provided notice of the availability of
the proposed market data products and related testing opportunities.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ On August 16, 2019, the Exchange provided notice of the
proposed NYSE Chicago Market Data Feeds, including that such feeds
would be available to customers in shadow, i.e., for testing, on
September 16, 2019. See Trader Update available here: https://www.nyse.com/trader-update/history#110000144335. See also additional
Trader Updates about the feeds, available here: https://www.nyse.com/trader-update/history#110000137761; and https://www.nyse.com/trader-update/history#110000154859.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NYSE Chicago BBO
    NYSE Chicago BBO is a NYSE Chicago-only market data feed that would
provide vendors and subscribers on a real-time basis with the same
best-bid-and-offer information that NYSE Chicago reports under the
Consolidated Quotation Plan (``CQ Plan'') and the Plan Governing the
Collection, Consolidation, and Dissemination of Quotation and
Transaction Information for Nasdaq-Listed Securities Traded on
Exchanges on an Unlisted Trading Privilege Basis (``UTP Plan''). NYSE
Chicago BBO would include the best bids and offers (``NYSE Chicago BBO
Information'') for all securities that are traded on the Exchange. NYSE
Chicago will make the NYSE Chicago BBO available over a single
datafeed, regardless of the markets on which the securities are listed.
    NYSE Chicago BBO would allow vendors, broker-dealers, and others
(``NYSE Chicago Vendors'') to consume and make available NYSE Chicago
BBO Information on a real-time basis. NYSE Chicago Vendors may
distribute the NYSE Chicago BBO to both professional and non-
professional subscribers. The Exchange would make NYSE Chicago BBO
Information available through the NYSE Chicago BBO datafeed no earlier
than it makes that information available to the processor under the CQ
Plan or the UTP Plan, as applicable.
NYSE Chicago Trades
    NYSE Chicago Trades is a NYSE Chicago-only market data feed that
would provide vendors and subscribers on a real-time basis with the
same last sale information that NYSE Chicago reports under the
Consolidated Tape Association Plan (``CTA Plan'') and the UTP Plan for
inclusion in the consolidated feeds. NYSE Chicago Trades would include
the real-time last sale price, time and size information (``NYSE
Chicago Last Sale Information'') for all securities that are traded on
the Exchange. NYSE Chicago will make the NYSE Chicago Trades available
over a single datafeed, regardless of the markets on which the
securities are listed.
    NYSE Chicago Trades would allow NYSE Chicago Vendors to consume and
make available NYSE Chicago Last Sale Information on a real-time basis.
NYSE Chicago Vendors may distribute the NYSE Chicago Trades to both
professional and non-professional subscribers. The Exchange would make
NYSE Chicago Last Sale Information available through the NYSE Chicago
Trades datafeed no earlier than it makes that information available to
the processor under the CTA Plan or the UTP Plan, as applicable. In
addition to the information that the Exchange provides to the
processor, NYSE Chicago Last Sale Information will also include a
unique sequence number that the Exchange assigns to each trade and that
allows an investor to track the context of a trade through other
Exchange market data products.
NYSE Chicago Integrated Feed
    NYSE Chicago Integrated Feed is a NYSE Chicago-only market data
feed that would provide vendors and subscribers on a real-time basis
with a unified view of events, in sequence, as they appear on the NYSE
Chicago matching engines. The NYSE Chicago Integrated Feed would
include both top of book and depth of book order data, last sale data,
and security status updates (e.g., trade corrections and trading halts)
and stock summary messages. The stock summary message would update
every minute and would include the Exchange's aggregation of NYSE
Chicago's opening price, high price, low price, closing price, and the
cumulative volume for a security, which information is available to
vendors and subscribers to calculate on their own should they so
choose. The NYSE Chicago Integrated Feed would include

information available to vendors and subscribers of both NYSE Chicago
BBO and NYSE Chicago Trades, as described above.
    As described in Article 4, Rule 1, the current Book Feed allows a
subscriber to view all individual Participant orders displayed in the
Matching System, including the size and price associated with such
order and the trade data for executions that occur within the Matching
System. When the Exchange transitions to Pillar, current subscribers to
the Book Feed will be able to obtain the same scope of information via
the proposed NYSE Chicago Integrated Feed. Accordingly, after the
transition to Pillar, subscribers of Book Feed would still need only
one data product to satisfy their data needs. The Exchange proposes to
offer NYSE Chicago BBO and NYSE Chicago Trades to provide additional
optionality to data subscribers that may not need the scope of data
included in NYSE Chicago Integrated.
    Offering an integrated product addresses requests received from
vendors and subscribers that would like to receive the data described
above in an integrated fashion. An integrated data feed would provide
greater efficiencies and reduce errors for vendors and subscribers that
currently choose to integrate the data after receiving it from the
Exchange. The Exchange believes that providing vendors and subscribers
with the option of a market data product that both integrates existing
products and includes additional market data would allow vendors and
subscribers to choose the best solution for their specific businesses.
    The Exchange proposes to offer connectivity to the NYSE Chicago
Market Data Feeds over the Liquidity Center Network and IP network, the
local area networks available to users of the Exchange's co-location
services in the Mahwah, New Jersey data center. The Exchange would also
offer connectivity to the NYSE Chicago Market Data Feeds over the ICE
Global Network, through which all other users and members access the
Exchange's trading and execution systems and other proprietary market
data products. In addition, the proposal would not permit unfair
discrimination because the products will be available to all of the
Exchange's customers and broker-dealers.
    At this time, the Exchange does not intend to charge any fees
associated with the receipt of NYSE Chicago BBO, NYSE Chicago Trades or
NYSE Chicago Integrated Feed. The Exchange will submit a proposed rule
change should it determine to charge fees associated with the receipt
of NYSE Chicago BBO, NYSE Chicago Trades or NYSE Chicago Integrated
Feed. Accordingly, subscribers of the current Book Feed product, which
is also not subject to any fees, would not be subject to any additional
fees in order to receive any of the proposed NYSE Chicago Market Data
Feeds.
    Subject to effectiveness of proposed rule changes, the NYSE Chicago
Market Data Feeds will be available when the Exchange transitions to
the Pillar trading platform.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange has announced that, subject to rule approvals,
the Exchange will transition to trading on Pillar on November 4,
2019. See Trader Update, available here: https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/notifications/trader-update/NYSEChicago_Migration_update_9.4.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) \8\ of the Act (``Act''), in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \9\ of the Act, 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, and it is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination among customers, brokers, or
dealers. This proposal is in keeping with those principles in that it
promotes increased transparency through the dissemination of the NYSE
Chicago Market Data Feeds to those interested in receiving it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange also believes this proposal is consistent with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act because it protects investors and the public
interest and promotes just and equitable principles of trade by
providing investors with new options for receiving market data as
requested by market data vendors and purchasers. The proposed rule
change would benefit investors by facilitating their prompt access to
the real-time information contained in the NYSE Chicago Market Data
Feeds. The Exchange further believes that the proposed NYSE Chicago
Market Data Feeds would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system because once the
Exchange transitions to the Pillar trading platform, current
subscribers to the Book Feed market data product would be able to
obtain the same level of data from NYSE Chicago Integrated without
incurring any new fees.
    In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted self-regulatory
organizations (``SROs'') and broker dealers increased authority and
flexibility to offer new and unique market data to consumers of such
data. It was believed that this authority would expand the amount of
data available to users and consumers of such data and also spur
innovation and competition for the provision of market data. The
Exchange believes that the NYSE Chicago Market Data Feeds are precisely
the sort of market data products that the Commission envisioned when it
adopted Regulation NMS. The Commission concluded that Regulation NMS
would itself further the Act's goals of facilitating efficiency and
competition:

    Efficiency is promoted when broker-dealers who do not need the
data beyond the prices, sizes, market center identifications of the
NBBO and consolidated last sale information are not required to
receive (and pay for) such data. The Commission also believes that
efficiency is promoted when broker-dealers may choose to receive
(and pay for) additional market data based on their own internal
analysis of the need for such data.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005) (Regulation NMS Adopting
Release).

    The Exchange further notes that the existence of alternatives to
the Exchange's product, including real-time consolidated data, free
delayed consolidated data, and proprietary data from other sources, as
well as the continued availability of the Exchange's separate data
feeds, ensures that the Exchange is not unreasonably discriminatory
because vendors and subscribers can elect these alternatives as their
individual business cases warrant.
    The NYSE Chicago Market Data Feeds will help to protect a free and
open market by providing additional data to the marketplace and by
giving investors greater choices. In addition, the proposal would not
permit unfair discrimination because the products will be available to
all of the Exchange's customers and broker-dealers.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\11\ the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden
on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in

furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Because other exchanges already
offer similar products, the Exchange's proposed NYSE Chicago Market
Data Feeds will enhance competition. For example, NYSE Chicago BBO
would provide an alternative to NYSE Arca BBO,\12\ offered by the
Exchange's affiliate, Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca''), Nasdaq Basic,\13\
offered by The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. (``Nasdaq''), and Cboe
Top,\14\ offered by Cboe Global Markets, Inc. (``Cboe''). Additionally,
NYSE Chicago Trades would provide an alternative to NYSE Arca
Trades,\15\ offered by NYSE Arca, Nasdaq Basic,\16\ offered by Nasdaq,
and Cboe Last Sale,\17\ offered by Cboe. Finally, NYSE Chicago
Integrated Feed would provide an alternative to NYSE Arca Integrated
Feed,\18\ offered by NYSE Arca, Nasdaq TotalView-Itch,\19\ offered by
Nasdaq, and Cboe Depth,\20\ offered by Cboe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \12\ See NYSE Arca BBO, https://www.nyse.com/market-data/real-time/bbo (provides best bid/ask quotations for all traded
securities).
    \13\ See Nasdaq Basic, http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=nasdaqbasic (provides Best Bid and Offer and Last
Sale Information).
    \14\ See Cboe Top, https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_data_products/ (provides real-time top-of-book quotations,
matched trade price, volume and execution time).
    \15\ See NYSE Arca Trades, https://www.nyse.com/market-data/real-time/trades (provides real-time Last Sale information for all
traded securities).
    \16\ See Nasdaq Basic, http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=nasdaqbasic (provides Best Bid and Offer and Last
Sale Information).
    \17\ See Cboe Last Sale, https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_data_products/ (provides real-time matched trade price,
volume and execution time).
    \18\ See NYSE Arca Integrated Feed, https://www.nyse.com/market-data/real-time/integrated-feed (provides a comprehensive order-by-
order view of events in the equities market, including depth of
book, trades, order imbalance data, and security status messages).
    \19\ See Nasdaq TotalView-ITCH, http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=Totalview2 (displays the full order book depth for
Nasdaq market participants and also disseminates the Net Order
Imbalance Indicator (NOII) for the Nasdaq Opening and Closing
Crosses and Nasdaq IPO/Halt Cross).
    \20\ See Cboe Depth, https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_data_products/ (provides real-time, depth-of-book quotations
and execution information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NYSE Chicago Market Data Feeds provide investors with new
options for receiving market data, which was a primary goal of the
market data amendments adopted by Regulation NMS.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See supra note 6 [sic], at 37503.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \22\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \23\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \24\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \25\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay so
that the proposed rule change may become operative upon filing. The
Exchange asserts that waiver of the operative delay would be consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest because it
would allow the Exchange to provide the NYSE Chicago Market Data Feeds
when it migrates to the Pillar platform. The Exchange notes that it has
previously announced that, subject to rule approvals, it will
transition to Pillar on November 4, 2019. The Exchange will provide the
NYSE Chicago Market Data Feeds free of charge and they are comparable
to feeds provided by other national securities exchanges.\26\
Therefore, the Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative
delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest. Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the operative delay
and designates the proposed rule change operative upon filing.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \25\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \26\ See supra Section II.B.
    \27\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission also has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 change should be approved or
disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSECHX-2019-15 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-NYSECHX-2019-15. 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-
NYSECHX-2019-15, and should be submitted on or before November 19,
2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\28\
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-23546 Filed 10-28-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 162 (Monday, August 22, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56631-56632]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19964]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER16-2397-000]

Elevation Energy Group, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Elevation Energy Group, LLC`s application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is September 6, 2016.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed

docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 16, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-19964 Filed 8-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 232 (Tuesday, December 3, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72609-72611]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28958]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0164; FRL-9903-75-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for
Designated Facilities and Pollutants; Commonwealth of Virginia; Control
of Emissions From Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Units

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a section plan submitted by the
Commonwealth of Virginia for sewage sludge incineration (SSI) units.
The section plan contains a state rule for existing SSI units and was
submitted as a result of the March 21, 2011 promulgation of Federal new
source performance standards (NSPS) and emission guidelines for SSI
units. This action is being taken under sections of the Clean Air Act
(CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before January 2, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2013-0164 by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0164, Kathleen Cox, Associate Director,
Office of Air Permits and Toxics, Mailcode 3AP10, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
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-R03-OAR-
2013-0164. 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 email. 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 email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
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.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI 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 in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal
are available at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629
East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Gordon, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 129 of the CAA requires EPA to establish performance
standards and emission guidelines for various types of new and existing
solid waste incineration units. Section 129(b)(2) requires States to
submit to EPA for approval section 111(d)/129 plans that implement and
enforce the promulgated emission guidelines. Section 129(b)(3) requires
EPA to promulgate a federal plan (FP) within two years from the date on
which the emission guidelines, or revision to the emission guidelines,
is promulgated. The FP is applicable to affected facilities when the
state has failed to receive EPA approval of the section 111(d)/129
plan. The FP remains in effect until the state submits and receives EPA
approval of its section 111(d)/129 plan. State submittals under CAA
sections 111(d) and 129 must be consistent with the relevant emission
guidelines, in this instance 40 CFR part 60, subpart MMMM, and the
requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart B and part 62, subpart A.
Section 129 of the CAA regulates air pollutants that include organics
(dioxins/furans), carbon monoxide, metals (cadmium, lead, and mercury),
hydrogen chloride, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate
matter (which includes opacity).
    On December 12, 2012, the Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality (VADEQ) submitted to EPA a formal section 111(d)/129 plan for
SSI units. The submitted section 111(d)/129 plan was in response to the
March 21, 2011 promulgation of Federal NSPS and emission guidelines
requirements for SSI units, 40 CFR part 60, subparts LLLL and MMMM,
respectively (76 FR 15372).

II. Summary of Virginia's Section 111(d)/129 Plan for Existing SSI
Units

    EPA has reviewed the Virginia section 111(d)/129 plan submittal in
the context of the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subparts B and MMMM,
and part 62, subpart A. In this action, EPA is proposing to determine
that the submitted section 111(d)/129 plan meets the above-cited
requirements. Included within the section 111(d)/129 plan are
regulations under the Virginia Administrative Code (VAC), specifically
Article 55 of 9VAC5 Chapter 40, entitled ``Emission Standards for
Sewage Sludge Incineration Units.'' A detailed explanation of the
rationale behind this proposed approval is available in the Technical
Support Document (TSD).

III. General Information Pertaining to Section 111(d)/129 Plan
Submittals From the Commonwealth of Virginia

    In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to
certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit)
``privilege'' for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a
regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden
of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking
disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's
legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty
waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity
discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation
and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes
prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's
Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-
1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and
information about the content of those documents that are the product
of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not
extend to documents or information that: (1) Are generated or developed
before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2)
are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) demonstrate a
clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or
environment; or (4) are required by law.
    On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the
Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the
Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege
to documents and information ``required by law,'' including documents
and information ``required by Federal law to maintain program
delegation, authorization or approval,'' since Virginia must ``enforce
Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less
stringent than their Federal counterparts. . . .'' The opinion
concludes that ``[r]egarding Sec.  10.1-1198, therefore, documents or
other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of
these programs could not be privileged because such documents and
information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required
by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or
approval.''
    Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that
``[t]o the extent consistent with requirements

imposed by Federal law,'' any person making a voluntary disclosure of
information to a state agency regarding a violation of an environmental
statute, regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted
immunity from administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's
January 12, 1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this
statute inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized
programs, since ``no immunity could be afforded from administrative,
civil, or criminal penalties because granting such immunity would not
be consistent with Federal law, which is one of the criteria for
immunity.''
    Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and
Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its
program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because
EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law
can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal
enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under
the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to
enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the section 111(d)/129
plan, independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition,
citizen enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected
by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the Virginia section 111(d)/129 plan
for SSI units submitted pursuant to 40 CFR part 60, subpart MMMM.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR part 62, subpart VV to
reflect this action. This approval is based on the rationale previously
discussed and in further detail in the TSD associated with this action.
The scope of the proposed approval of the section 111(d)/129 plan is
limited to the provisions of 40 CFR parts 60 and 62 for existing SSI
units, as referenced in the emission guidelines, subpart MMMM.
    The EPA Administrator continues to retain authority for several
tasks, as stipulated in 40 CFR Sec.  60.5050 as well as the ``Plan
Provisions'' section of Virginia's section 111(d)/129 plan submittal.
This retention of federal authority includes the granting of waivers
for performance tests.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)).
This action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that
this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-
existing requirements under state law and does not impose any
additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does
not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect
small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 (Public Law 104-4). This proposed rule also does not have a
substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it 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 Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it
merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal
requirement, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This proposed rule
also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal
standard.
    In reviewing VADEQ's submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a VADEQ submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a VADEQ
submission, to use VCS in place of a VADEQ submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of
Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this
proposed rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting
errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a
clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with
Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the
takings implications of the rule in accordance with the Attorney
General's ``Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and
Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued under the executive order.
This proposed rule for the approval of VADEQ's section 111(d)/129 plan
for SSI units does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Aluminum, Fertilizers, Fluoride,
Intergovernmental relations, Paper and paper products industry,
Phosphate, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Sulfur acid plants, Waste treatment and disposal.

    Dated: November 15, 2013.
W.C. Early,
Acting, Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2013-28958 Filed 12-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 24, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 78)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 18634-18638]
[DOCID:fr24ap09-8]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2008-0239; FRL-8896-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Minnesota

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving site specific revisions to the Minnesota
sulfur dioxide (SO2) State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the
Federal Cartridge Company and Hoffman Enclosures, located in the city
of Anoka, Anoka County, Minnesota. On March 3, 2008, the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requested that EPA approve certain
portions of joint Title I/Title V documents into the Minnesota
SO2 SIP for Federal Cartridge Company and Hoffman
Enclosures. The state is also requesting in this submittal that EPA
rescind the Administrative Order issued to Federal Hoffman, Inc. which
is currently included in Minnesota's SIP for SO2. The
emissions units previously owned by Federal Hoffman, Inc., are now
owned by Federal Cartridge Company and Hoffman Enclosures. Because the
sulfur dioxide emission limits are being reduced, the air quality of
Anoka County will be protected.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective June 23, 2009, unless
EPA receives adverse comments by May 26, 2009. If adverse comments are
received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule
in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not
take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2008-0239, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2008-0239. 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.
    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 Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This Facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.
We recommend that you telephone Gilberto Alvarez, Environmental
Scientist, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gilberto Alvarez, Environmental
Scientist, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section is arranged as follows:

I. What Is EPA Approving?
II. What Is the Background for This Action?
III. What Is EPA's Analysis of the State Submission?
IV. What Are the Environmental Effects of This Action?
V. What Action Is EPA Taking?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Is EPA Approving?

    EPA is approving into the SO2 SIP for Minnesota joint
Title I/Title V documents for Federal Cartridge Company and Hoffman
Enclosures, located in Anoka, Minnesota. This SIP amendment approval
will replace the Administrative Order issued to Federal Hoffman, Inc.
with the joint documents issued to Federal Cartridge Company and
Hoffman Enclosures.

II. What Is the Background for This Action?

A. What Are the Revisions to the SIP?

    The SIP is being amended to reflect a change in ownership of the
facility and the emissions units that are subject to SIP conditions.
The Administrative Order currently approved into the SIP was issued to
Federal Hoffman, Inc. The emission units previously owned by Federal
Hoffman, Inc. are now owned by two companies, Federal Cartridge Company
and Hoffman Enclosures. The SIP revision rescinds the Administrative
Order issued to Federal Hoffman, Inc. and replaces it with Title I SIP
Conditions included in the Air Emission Permit No. 00300155-001, for
Hoffman Enclosures, and Permit No. 00300156-003, for Federal Cartridge
Company, which serve as joint Title I/Title V documents.
    Federal Cartridge Company is a manufacturer of small arms, shotgun,
rimfire and centerfire ammunitions. The facility currently owns the
majority of emissions units that are subject to SO2 emission
limits or operating standards under the Order issued to Federal
Hoffman, Inc. The only changes to the SIP for units owned by Federal
Cartridge Company are fuel restrictions for two steam boilers.
Previously, they were allowed to burn natural gas and residual fuel
oil. They are now limited to burning natural gas and propane, both low
sulfur fuels.
    Hoffman Enclosures manufactures sheet metal electrical enclosures.
Hoffman Enclosures previously owned and operated a single emergency
diesel generator subject to SIP conditions through the Order issued to
Federal Hoffman, Inc. This unit has been decommissioned and is no
longer in use, resulting in a reduction in SO2. Hoffman
Enclosures installed one other combustion unit on the site, an
emergency fire pump. This unit may only burn No. 2 diesel fuel, and at
maximum capacity has the potential to emit 0.29 pounds per million
British Thermal Units. This unit is very small and only operates under
emergency conditions. Modeling performed in support of the original SIP
for Federal Hoffman, Inc., attributed the majority of SO2
emissions to the burning of residual fuel oil in one boiler. Since this
type of fuel will no longer be burned, overall ambient concentrations
of SO2 are expected to decrease.

B. What Prior SIP Actions Are Pertinent to This Action?

    On December 28, 2007, MPCA issued an Air Emission Permit No.
00300156-003 to Federal Cartridge Company. The permit is a joint Title
I/Title V document. The main emissions from the facility are nitrogen
oxides (NOX). The permit limits the NOX and
Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) emissions of the facility such that the
facility is classified

as a non-major source under Federal New Source Review. The facility is
part of the SIP to reach attainment of SO2 National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in the Twin Cities area. The Title I
conditions contained in the permit will ultimately be included in the
SIP, and will replace the Administrative Order.
    On January 31, 2008, MPCA issued an Air Emission Permit No.
00300155-001 to Hoffman Enclosures. The permit is a joint Title I/Title
V document. The main emissions from the facility are VOCs and HAPs. The
permit limits emissions of the facility such that the facility is
classified as a non-major source under federal New Source Review. The
facility is part of the SIP to reach attainment of SO2 NAAQS
in the Twin Cities area. The Title I conditions contained in the permit
will ultimately be included in the SIP, and will replace the
Administrative Order.

C. Has Public Notice Been Provided?

    MPCA published public notices for the Federal Cartridge Company and
Hoffman Enclosures actions on November 27, 2007, and December 20, 2007,
respectively. No comments were received during the comment period which
ended on January 22, 2008. In the public notices, MPCA stated it would
hold a public hearing if one were requested during the comment period.
This follows the alternative public participation process EPA approved
on June 5, 2006 (71 FR 32274). For limited types of SIP revisions that
the public has shown little interest in, a public hearing is not
automatically required. If anyone requests a public hearing during the
comment period, MPCA will hold a public hearing. Because no one
requested a public hearing, MPCA did not hold a public hearing for
these SIP revisions.

D. What Are Title I Conditions and Joint Title I/Title V Documents?

    SIP control measures were contained in permits issued to culpable
sources in Minnesota until 1990 when EPA determined that limits in
state-issued permits are not Federally-enforceable because the permits
expire. MPCA then issued permanent Administrative Orders to culpable
sources in nonattainment areas from 1991 to February of 1996.
    MPCA's consolidated permitting regulations, which EPA approved into
the state SIP on May 2, 1995 (60 FR 21447), include the term ``Title I
condition'' which was written, in part, to satisfy EPA requirements
that SIP control measures remain permanent. A ``Title I condition'' is
defined as ``any condition based on source-specific determination of
ambient impacts imposed for the purposes of achieving or maintaining
attainment with the national ambient air quality standard and which was
part of the state implementation plan approved by EPA or submitted to
the EPA pending approval under section 110 of the act * * *.'' The rule
also states that ``Title I conditions and the permittee's obligation to
comply with them, shall not expire, regardless of the expiration of the
other conditions of the permit.'' Further, ``any Title I condition
shall remain in effect without regard to permit expiration or
reissuance, and shall be restated in the reissued permit.''
    MPCA has initiated using joint Title I/Title V documents as the
enforceable document for imposing emission limitations and compliance
requirements in SIPs. The SIP requirements in joint Title I/Title V
documents submitted by MPCA are cited as ``Title I conditions,''
therefore ensuring that SIP requirements remain permanent and
enforceable. EPA reviewed the state's procedure for using joint Title
I/Title V documents to implement site-specific SIP requirements and
found it to be acceptable under both Titles I and V of the Clean Air
Act (CAA) (July 3, 1997 letter from David Kee, EPA, to Michael J.
Sandusky, MPCA). Further, a June 15, 2006, letter from EPA to MPCA
clarifies procedures to transfer requirements from Administrative
Orders to joint Title I/Title V documents.

III. What Is EPA's Analysis of the State Submission?

    Federal Hoffman, Inc., owned units included in the SO2
SIP for the Twin Cities area. The changes made in this SIP revision are
changes to the ownership of various units that are subject to SIP
requirements, as well as changes to the enforceable document. The
emissions units previously owned by Federal Hoffman, Inc. are now owned
by Federal Cartridge Company and Hoffman Enclosures.
    A modeling analysis conducted for the Federal Hoffman facility SIP
revision showed that the majority of the SO2 emissions
impact came from the burning of residual fuel oil in one of the
boilers. As this type of fuel will no longer be burned, the ambient
concentration of SO2 will decrease.

IV. What Are the Environmental Effects of This Action?

    Ambient SO2 levels are expected to decrease because of
the SIP revisions. Thus, the Anoka County area in Minnesota is expected
to remain in attainment of the SO2 NAAQS.
    SO2 causes breathing difficulties and aggravation of
existing cardiovascular disease. It is also a precursor of acid rain
and fine particulate matter formation. Sulfate particles are a major
cause of visibility impairment in the United States. Acid rain damages
lakes and streams, impairing aquatic life, and causes damage to
buildings, sculptures, statues and monuments. SO2 also
causes the loss of chlorophyll leading to vegetation damage.

V. What Action Is EPA Taking?

    EPA is approving site specific revisions to the Minnesota
SO2 SIP for the Federal Cartridge Company and Hoffman
Enclosures, located in the city of Anoka, Anoka County, Minnesota. The
SIP revision also rescinds the Administrative Order issued to Federal
Hoffman, Inc. and replaces it with a Title I SIP Conditions included in
the Air Emission Permit No. 00300155-001, for Hoffman Enclosures, and
Permit No. 00300156-003, for Federal Cartridge Company, which serves as
joint Title I/Title V documents.
    We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we
view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse
written comments are filed. This rule will be effective June 23, 2009
without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written
comments by May 26, 2009. If we receive such comments, we will withdraw
this action before the effective date by publishing a subsequent
document that will withdraw the final action. All public comments
received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the
proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any
parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this
time. If we do not receive any comments, this action will be effective
June 23, 2009.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting

Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this 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, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    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 June 23, 2009. 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, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: April 9, 2009.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart Y--Minnesota

0
2. In Sec.  52.1220 the table in paragraph (d) is amended by removing
the entry for ``Federal Hoffman, Incorporated'' and adding entries, in
alphabetical order, for ``Federal Cartridge Company'' and ``Hoffman
Enclosures'' to read as follows:
    Sec.  52.1220 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Minnesota Source-Specific Permits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     State effective
          Name of source               Permit No.          date         EPA approval date         Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Federal Cartridge Company.........     00300156-003         12/28/07  04/24/09, [Insert     Only conditions
                                                                       page number where     cited as ``Title I
                                                                       the document          condition: SIP for
                                                                       begins].              SO2 NAAQS.''

                                                  * * * * * * *
Hoffman Enclosures................     00300155-001         01/31/08  04/24/09, [Insert     Only conditions
                                                                       page number where     cited as ``Title I
                                                                       the document          condition: SIP for
                                                                       begins].              SO2 NAAQS.''

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. E9-9361 Filed 4-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 133 (Thursday, July 15, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37376-37379]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15033]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-92363; File No. SR-PEARL-2021-30]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX PEARL, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Fees for
Purge Ports

July 9, 2021.
    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 1, 2021, MIAX PEARL, LLC (``MIAX Pearl'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed
rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Pearl Fee
Schedule (the ``Fee Schedule'') to amend the fees for MIAX Express
Network (``MEO'') \3\ Purge Ports.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``MEO Interface'' or ``MEO'' means a binary order interface
for certain order types as set forth in Rule 516 into the MIAX Pearl
System. See the Definitions Section of the Fee Schedule and Exchange
Rule 100.
    \4\ See the Definitions Section of the Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings/pearl at MIAX
Pearl's principal office, 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 Exchange currently provides Members \5\ the option to purchase
Purge Ports to assist in their order activity. Purge Ports provide
Members with the ability to send quote purge messages to the MIAX Pearl
System.\6\ Purge Ports are not capable of sending or receiving any
other type of messages or information. The use of Purge Ports is
completely optional and no rule or regulation requires that a Member
utilize them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``Member'' means an individual or organization that
is registered with the Exchange pursuant to Chapter II of Exchange
Rules for purposes of trading on the Exchange as an ``Electronic
Exchange Member'' or ``Market Maker.'' Members are deemed
``members'' under the Exchange Act. See the Definitions Section of
the Fee Schedule and Exchange Rule 100.
    \6\ The term ``System'' means the automated trading system used
by the Exchange for the trading of securities. See Exchange Rule
100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend the monthly fee for Purge Ports
under

Section (5)(d) of the Fee Schedule. Unlike other options exchanges that
provide purge port functionality and charge fees on a per port
basis,\7\ the Exchange offers Purge Ports as a package and provides
Members with the option to receive up to two (2) Purge Ports per
matching engine \8\ to which it connects via an MEO Purge Port. The
Exchange currently has twelve (12) matching engines, which means
Members may receive up to twenty-four (24) Purge Ports for a single
monthly fee. The Exchange currently assesses Members a fee of $750 per
month, regardless of the number of Purge Ports allocated to the Member.
Assuming a Member connects to all twelve (12) matching engines during a
month, with two Purge Ports per matching engine, this results in a cost
of $31.25 per Purge Port ($750 divided by 24) for the month. This fee
has been unchanged since the Exchange adopted Purge Port fees in
2018.\9\ The Exchange now proposes to increase the fee to $7,500 per
month. Members will continue to receive two (2) Purge Ports to each
matching engine to which they are connected for the single flat monthly
fee. Assuming a Member connects to all twelve (12) matching engines
during the month, with two Purge Ports per matching engine, this would
result in a cost of $312.50 per Purge Port ($7,500 divided by 24).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Cboe BXZ Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'') Options Fee Schedule,
Options Logical Port Fees, Purge Ports ($750 per purge port per
month); Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX'') Options Fee Schedule,
Options Logical Port Fees, Purge Ports ($750 per purge port per
month); Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe'') Fee Schedule ($850 per purge
port per month). In Cboe's Purge Ports Frequently Asked Questions,
Cboe recommends that at least two purge ports be obtained per
exchange for redundancy purposes. See https://cdn.cboe.com/resources/features/Cboe_USO_PurgePortsFAQs.pdf. See also Nasdaq
GEMX, Options 7, Pricing Schedule, Section 6.C.(3). Nasdaq GEMX, LLC
(``Nasdaq GEMX'') assesses its members $1,250 per SQF Purge Port per
month, subject to a monthly cap of $17,500 for SQF Purge Ports and
SQF Ports, applicable to market makers.
    \8\ A ``matching engine'' is a part of the MIAX Pearl electronic
system that processes options quotes and trades on a symbol-by-
symbol basis. Some matching engines will process option classes with
multiple root symbols, and other matching engines will be dedicated
to one single option root symbol. A particular root symbol may only
be assigned to a single designated matching engine. A particular
root symbol may not be assigned to multiple matching engines. See
Fee Schedule, Section 5)d)ii), note 29.
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83867 (March 13,
2018), 83 FR 12044 (March 19, 2018) (SR-PEARL-2018-07).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has historically undercharged for Purge Port as
compared to other options exchanges \10\ because the Exchange provides
Purge Ports as a package for a single monthly fee. As described above,
this package includes two Purge Ports for each of the Exchange's twelve
(12) matching engines. The Exchange understands other options exchanges
charge fees on a per port basis. The proposed monthly fee increase for
Purge Ports would bring the Exchange's fees more in line with that of
other options exchanges, while maintaining a competitive fee structure
for Purge Port.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation Date
    The proposed fee changes will become effective on July 1, 2021.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
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 provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees and other charges among Exchange Members and
issuers and other persons using any facility or system which the
Exchange operates or controls. The Exchange also believes the proposal
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \13\ in that it
is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, 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 and dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed fees are reasonable,
equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because, for the
flat fee, the Exchange provides each Member two (2) Purge Ports for
each matching engine to which that Member is connected. The Exchange
currently has twelve (12) matching engines. Accordingly, each Member
that is connected to all twelve (12) matching engines receives a total
of twenty-four (24) Purge Ports for the existing flat fee of $1,500 per
month. On a per Purge Port basis, that equals $31.25 per Purge Port
($750 divided by 24). This flat fee has remain unchanged since the
Exchange adopted fees for Purge Ports in 2018.\14\ The Exchange
believes that increasing the flat monthly fee for Purge Port
(regardless of the number of matching engines to which it connects and
consequently regardless of the number of Purge Ports allocated to the
Member) is equitable, reasonable, and competitive with the fees charged
by other exchanges that offer comparable purge port services. The
Exchange believes that most such exchanges charge per port for each
match engine. For example, BXZ charges a monthly fee of $750 per purge
port per month, EDGX charges a monthly fee of $750 per purge port, Cboe
charges a monthly fee of $850 per purge port,\15\ and Nasdaq GEMX
assesses its members $1,250 per SQF Purge Port per month.\16\ When
calculated on a per purge port basis, each of the above exchanges
charge monthly per purge port fees that are higher than the proposed
$7,500 per month ($312.50 per Purge Port).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See supra note 9.
    \15\ See supra note 7. Cboe further recommends that at least two
purge ports be obtained per exchange for redundancy purposes. See
https://cdn.cboe.com/resources/features/Cboe_USO_PurgePortsFAQs.pdf.
This guidance applies to Cboe's affiliate exchanges, BZX and EDGX.
    \16\ See supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment. Indeed,
there are currently 16 registered options exchanges that trade options.
Based on publicly available information, no single options exchange has
more than 15% of the market share and currently the Exchange represents
only approximately 4.98% of the market share.\17\ The Commission has
repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory
intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the
securities markets. Particularly, in Regulation NMS, the Commission
highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and
SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the
market system ``has been remarkably successful in promoting market
competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors
and listed companies.'' \18\ The Exchange is not aware of any evidence
that a market share of approximately 6-7% provides the Exchange with
anti-competitive pricing power. If the Exchange were to attempt to
establish unreasonable pricing, then no market participant would
purchase Purge Ports, and existing market participants would cease
paying for Purge Ports, which are optional services offered by the
Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\19\ in that it provides for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among Members and other

persons using any facility or system which the Exchange operates or
controls because Purge Ports are optional functionality offered to
Members. The Exchange further believes the proposed fees are reasonable
as the Exchange believes that the proposed fees are lower on a per port
basis than the fees assessed by other exchanges that provide similar
functionality.\20\ Indeed, if the Exchange proposed fees that are
excessively higher than established fees for similar services on other
exchanges, then the proposed fees would simply serve to reduce demand
for the Exchange's services, which as noted, is entirely optional. The
Exchange notes that Members are not required by rule or regulation to
purchase Purge Ports. It is entirely a business decision of each Member
that determines to purchase Purge Ports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See MIAX's ``The Market at a Glance'', available at https://www.miaxoptions.com/ (last visited June 30, 2021).
    \18\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \20\ See supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, Members are not precluded from using the existing
purge messages provided by either the MEO protocol or the cancel
messages provided by the FIX protocol. Under the MEO protocol, Members
may request that all quotations for all underlyings, or for a specific
underlying, be removed, and that new inbound quotations for all
underlyings, or specific underlyings, be blocked. Under the FIX
protocol, Members may also request that all, or a subset, of orders for
an MPID, or all Day or GTC orders for an MPID, on the requesting
session, be canceled. As such, a dedicated Purge Port is not required
or necessary. Rather, Purge Ports were specially developed as an
optional service to further assist firms in effectively managing risk.
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which
exchanges offer various types of access services as a means to
facilitate the trading activities of Members and other participants. As
Purge Ports provide voluntary risk management functionality, excessive
fees would simply serve to reduce demand for this optional product. The
Exchange also believes that the proposed Purge Port fees are not
unfairly discriminatory because they will apply uniformly to all
Members that choose to use dedicated Purge Ports. Purge Ports are
completely voluntary and, as they relate solely to optional risk
management functionality, no Member is required or under any regulatory
obligation to utilize them. All Members that voluntarily select the
Purge Port service will be charged the same amount for the same
respective services.
    As Purge Ports are only available for purging and not for
activities such as order or quote entry, the Purge Ports are not
designed to permit unfair discrimination but rather are designed to
enable Members to better manage their market risk, which, in turn,
benefits all market participants. The Exchange believes the proposed
fee increase will continue to encourage better use of dedicated Purge
Ports. This may, concurrent with the ports that carry orders and other
information necessary for market making activities, enable more
efficient, as well as fair and reasonable, use of Members' resources.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed fee increase is non-
discriminatory because the proposed Purge Port fees will apply
uniformly to all Members. Purge Ports are completely voluntary and no
Member is required or under any regulatory obligation to utilize them.
All Members that voluntarily request this service will be charged the
same amount for the same service. Separately, the Exchange is not aware
of any reason why market participants could not simply drop their Purge
Ports if the Exchange were to establish unreasonable prices for its
Purge Ports that, in the determination of such market participant, did
not make business or economic sense for such market participant. No
options market participant is required by rule, regulation, or
competitive forces to utilize Purge Ports. As evidence of the fact that
market participants can and do drop their access to exchanges based on
non-transaction fee pricing, R2G Services LLC (``R2G'') filed a comment
letter after BOX's proposed rule changes to increase its connectivity
fees (SR-BOX-2018-24, SR-BOX-2018-37, and SR-BOX-2019-04). The R2G
Letter stated, ``[w]hen BOX instituted a $10,000/month price increase
for connectivity; we had no choice but to terminate connectivity into
them as well as terminate our market data relationship. The cost
benefit analysis just didn't make any sense for us at those new
levels.'' Similarly, the Exchange's affiliate, MIAX Emerald, LLC
(``MIAX Emerald''), noted in a recent filing that once MIAX Emerald
issued a notice that it was adopting Trading Permit fees, among other
non-transaction fees, one Member dropped its access to the Exchange as
a result of those fees.\21\ Accordingly, these examples show that if an
exchange sets too high of a fee for non-transaction fees for its
relevant marketplace, market participants can choose to no longer
access that particular exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 91033 (February 1,
2021), 86 FR 8455 (February 5, 2021) (SR-EMERALD-2021-03).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not impose any
burden intra-market competition because the use of Purge Ports is an
optional service offered by the Exchange and no Member is required or
under any regulatory obligation to utilize them. The Exchange offers
Purge Ports as a package and provides Members with the option to
receive up to two (2) Purge Ports per matching engine to which it
connects via an MEO Port. The Exchange currently has twelve (12)
matching engines which means Members may receive up to twenty-four (24)
Purge Ports for a single monthly fee. The Exchange does not believe
that the proposed change represents a significant departure from
previous pricing offered by the Exchange or pricing offered by the
Exchange's competitors. Additionally, Members may opt to disfavor the
Exchange's pricing if they believe that alternatives offer them better
value. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed
change will impair the ability of Members or competing venues to
maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
    The Exchange believes that fees for the proposed Purge Ports and
connectivity, in general, are constrained by the robust competition for
order flow among exchanges and non-exchange markets. Further, excessive
fees for connectivity, including Purge Port fees, would serve to impair
an exchange's ability to compete for order flow rather than burdening
competition. The Exchange also does not believe the proposed rule
change would impact intramarket competition as it would apply to all
Members equally.
    The Exchange also does not believe that the proposed rule change
will result in any burden on inter-market competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The
Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment, and as discussed
above, its ability to price access and ports is constrained by
competition among exchanges and third parties. There are 15 other U.S.
options exchanges, which the Exchange must consider in its pricing
discipline in order to compete for market participants. In this

competitive environment, market participants are free to choose which
competing exchange to use to satisfy their business needs. As a result,
the Exchange believes this proposed rule change permits fair
competition among national securities exchanges. Accordingly, the
Exchange does not believe its proposed fee changes impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\22\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \23\ 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-PEARL-2021-30 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-PEARL-2021-30. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet 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-PEARL-2021-30 and should be submitted on
or before August 5, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-15033 Filed 7-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P