[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 210 (Friday, October 30, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66942-66944]
[FR Doc No: 2015-27654]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76269; File No. SR-NYSE-2015-42]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Establishing Procedures and Credits in Connection With the Re-Location
of Equipment in the Exchange's Data Center

October 26, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on October 22, 2015, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''
or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to establish procedures and credits in
connection with the re-location of equipment in the Exchange's Data
Center. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange operates a data center in Mahwah, New Jersey, from
which it provides co-location services to Users.\4\ The Exchange's co-
location services allow Users to rent space in the Data Center so they
may locate their electronic servers in close physical proximity to the
Exchange's trading and execution system.\5\ The Exchange proposes to
establish procedures and waive certain fees in connection with the
Exchange's re-location of Users' equipment in the Exchange's Data
Center, operative beginning November 1, 2015.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange initially filed rule changes relating to its
co-location services with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') in 2010. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
62960 (September 21, 2010), 75 FR 59310 (September 27, 2010) (SR-
NYSE-2010-56) (``2010 Release'').
    \5\ Id. at 59310.
    \6\ As specified in the Price List, a User that incurs co-
location fees for a particular co-location service pursuant thereto
would not be subject to co-location fees for the same co-location
service charged by the Exchange's affiliates NYSE MKT LLC and NYSE
Arca, Inc. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70206 (August 15,
2013), 78 FR 51765 (August 21, 2013) (SR-NYSE-2013-59). The
Exchange's affiliates have also submitted substantially the same
proposed rule change to propose the changes described herein. See
SR-NYSEMKT-2015-70 and SR-NYSEArca-2015-85.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Data Center opened in 2010, and at that time, the Exchange
represented that it offers co-location space based on availability and
that it had sufficient space in the Data Center to accommodate demand
on an equitable basis for the foreseeable future.\7\ The Exchange
continues to believe that there is sufficient space in the Data Center
to accommodate demand. However, much

of the space available now is available in smaller segments, resulting
from an increasing number of Users, multiple moves within the Data
Center, and changes to Users' space requirements--both increases and
decreases--since 2010. At this time, the Exchange has determined that,
in order to continue to be able to meet its obligation to accommodate
demand, and in particular to make available more contiguous, larger
spaces for new and existing Users, the Exchange must exercise its right
to move some Users' equipment within the Data Center (the
``Migration'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See supra note 4 at 59311.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to put the following procedures in place to
manage the process for the Migration.
    First, the Exchange would identify Users that would be required to
move in the Migration based on (a) the current location of the User and
its current equipment and power requirements and (b) the availability
of another location in the Data Center that would accommodate the
equipment and power requirements for which such User currently
subscribes. No User would be required to move more than once within any
12-month period.
    Second, the Exchange would notify a User in writing (the
``Notice'') that the User's equipment and network connections in the
Data Center are to be moved as part of the Migration. The Notice would
identify the 90-day period during which the User must move its
equipment, which period would commence at least 60 days from the date
of the Notice. The exact date or dates for the move for each User would
be agreed upon between the User and the Exchange. If a move date or
dates cannot be agreed on, the Exchange would schedule the move for a
date or dates no later than 180 days after the date of the Notice.
    Third, each User's move would be facilitated by the Exchange in
cooperation with the User, including the un-racking and re-racking of
all of the User's equipment, and the re-installation of the User's
networking connections, and the Exchange would make reasonable efforts
to ensure that the moves take place outside of the Exchange's hours for
business.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Rule 51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fourth, in connection with facilitating each User's move, the
Exchange proposes to waive certain fees. Specifically, the Exchange
proposes to waive the monthly recurring fees incurred in connection
with the User's new space for the month during which the User's move
commences. This waiver of the monthly recurring fees would mean that
the User would not incur these fees for the period of overlapping use
of the equipment and services in the old and the new locations, as long
as the move is completed within one month.
    In addition, the Exchange proposes to waive all service-related
charges that the User would incur if such a move were to take place at
a User's request with respect to the User's existing services and
equipment. The service-related charges to be waived would be: (a) The
Change Fee, Initial Install Services and Hot Hands Services; (b) The
External Cabinet Cable Tray fee and the Custom External Cabinet Cable
Tray fee, if the User has such equipment installed in its current
location; (c) Shipping and Receiving fees relating to duplicate
equipment for the User's new space; and (d) the Badge Request Fee and
Visitor Security Escort fee with respect to User representative visits
during the User's Migration Period (together, the ``Service-Related
Fees'').
    Finally, in consideration for the Migration, the Exchange proposes
to waive, for the month following the completion of a User's move, the
monthly recurring charges for that User, based on the rate of the
monthly recurring fees that the User is paying as of the date of the
Notice.
    The Exchange proposes to modify the Exchange's Price List to
reflect the fee waivers in connection with the Migration.
    The proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other
issues relating to co-location services and/or related fees, and the
Exchange is not aware of any problems that Users would have in
complying with the proposed change. The representations that the
Exchange made in the 2010 Release to the effect that any difference
among the positions of a User's equipment within the Data Center does
not create any material difference to Users in terms of access to the
Exchange continue to apply.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See supra note 4 at 59311.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\10\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ in particular, because
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 and is designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of,
a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest and because it is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Additionally, the proposed changes would be applied uniformly by
the Exchange to comparable Users and would not unfairly discriminate
between similarly situated Users of co-location services.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal to establish procedures and
waive certain fees in connection with the movement of equipment at the
Exchange's Data Center would remove impediments to, and perfect the
mechanisms of, a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, protect investors and the public interest because it would
allow the Exchange to have sufficient space in the Data Center to
accommodate demand on an equitable basis for the foreseeable future.
The Exchange believes that the waiver of overlapping monthly recurring
charges, the waiver of the Service-Related Fees, and the waiver of one
month of monthly recurring charges is reasonable because Users would be
moving at the Exchange's request and the waivers would help to
alleviate the burden on the Users that are required to move.
    The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\12\ in particular, because
it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its Members, issuers and other persons using its
facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between customers,
issuers, brokers or dealers. Pursuant to the proposed procedures for
selecting which Users would be required to move within the Data Center,
a User would be required to move only if the Exchange would be able to
accommodate such User's current space and power requirements at the new
location, so as to minimize the disruption to the User.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the reasons above, the proposed change would not unfairly
discriminate between or among market participants that are otherwise
capable of satisfying any applicable co-location fees, requirements,
terms and conditions

established from time to time by the Exchange.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant
competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement
regarding the burden on competition.
    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is
consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\13\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the proposed procedures
for identifying the Users that would be moved and the proposed fee
waivers are pro-competitive because they facilitate the Migration,
which would in turn facilitate use of the Exchange's Data Center, and
provide access to the Data Center to current and additional market
participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if, for example, they deem fee levels at a particular
venue to be excessive or if they determine that another venue's
products and services are more competitive than on the Exchange. In
such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider
adjusting, the services it offers as well as any corresponding fees and
credits to remain competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons
described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
reflects this competitive environment.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \14\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \15\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \16\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2015-42 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2015-42. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090. Copies of the filing will also be available
for Web site viewing and printing at the NYSE's principal office and on
its Internet Web site at www.nyse.com. All comments received will be
posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2015-42 and should be submitted on
or before November 20, 2015.

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

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

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-27654 Filed 10-29-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


allows sources to calculate the quantity of emissions reductions by
using potential to emit as the baseline for the calculations rather
than the federally required baseline of actual emissions. Using a PTE-
to-PTE test to calculate the quantity of creditable emissions
reductions does not satisfy the requirements stated in CAA section
173(c)(1) or 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(vi)(E)(1) because it does not consider
the actual emissions change resulting from a project.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ See note 22 above regarding Rule 1304(C)(2)(d)(i), which
states that the PTE for an emissions unit is specified in a
federally enforceable emissions limitation and the generally
interchangeable nature of the terms ``allowable'' and ``potential''
in the context of this rulemaking regarding the District's NSR
rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, as the EPA explained in our proposed action, 40 CFR
51.165(a)(3)(ii)(J) directs SIPs to include rules to ensure that the
total tonnage of increased emissions, in tons per year, resulting from
a major modification that must be offset in accordance with CAA section
173 shall be determined by summing the difference between the allowable
emissions after the modification and the actual emissions before the
modification.\67\ This provision requires providing offsets for each
major modification at a major source in an amount equal to the
difference between pre-modification actual emissions and post-
modification PTE.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ 81 FR 50339, 50340 (August 1, 2016).
    \68\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Contrary to the commenters' assertions, the District's use of a
PTE-to-PTE test in lieu of the required actual to potential test
renders that portion of the District's NSR program deficient.
Therefore, the District's rules do not satisfy the federal requirements
that the commenters cite.
    Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin Aero Comment #4: Northrop
Grumman and Lockheed Martin Aero state that EPA's suggested corrections
could limit the ability to modernize, which would be detrimental to air
quality. The commenters state that there are no available ERCs in the
District, and that interdistrict ERC requirements under the California
Health and Safety Code along with the EPA's revised regulations that
make interprecursor trading between ozone precursors impermissible mean
that it is unlikely for the company to locate sufficient offsets for
its projects.
    Northrop Grumman states that it recently installed a large new
paint hangar equipped with technology to meet the Regulation XIII BACT
requirement and is in the process of designing another that will also
be equipped with technology to meet BACT. Northrop Grumman argues that
eliminating the use of potential to emit as HAE for previously offset
sources would make this modernization impossible due to the lack of VOC
offsets in this or any upwind district. Lockheed Martin Aero describes
plans to update its own facility. Lockheed Martin Aero also argues that
eliminating the use of potential to emit as HAE for previously offset
sources would make this modernization impossible due to the complete
lack of VOC offsets in this or any upwind district.
    Response to Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin Aero Comment #4:
These comments do not provide any information regarding the legality or
appropriateness of the EPA's proposed rulemaking action. Instead, they
raise concerns about the impacts regarding the outcome of our action,
in that the required rule revisions may require such projects to obtain
additional offsets, which they state are not available. This concern is
outside the scope of our proposed action, which is to ensure the
District's NSR rules comply with federal NNSR program requirements
regarding the calculation of emission reductions and the quantity of
offsets required for significant emission increases.
    The EPA will continue to work with the District to resolve the
deficiencies in its NSR rules and stakeholders will have the ability to
provide input on revisions to the rules through public participation
opportunities at the local and federal level.
    Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin Aero Comment #5: Northrop
Grumman Lockheed Martin Aero state that the results of this SIP
disapproval could limit modernization and growth at a crucial time for
the companies. The commenters assert that the District has provided
more than appropriate evidence in its staff report and supporting
analyses that its entire NSR program is fully compliant with and is
overall more stringent than the CAA. The commenters claim that the
EPA's proposed disapproval is not only unnecessary to protect air
quality but could also result in significant unintended consequences.
    The commenters state that they are major aerospace defense
contractors and employers in the AVAQMD. Northrop Grumman explains that
it has plans to add productive capacity and 1,100 jobs at its Palmdale
facility this year, and that the EPA's proposed disapproval could limit
the ability to achieve that growth, which could also have much broader
ramifications, including the ability to meet its contractual
obligations to the United States Department of Defense that are
important to national security. Lockheed Martin Aero states that it has
plans to add productive capacity and jobs at the Palmdale facility, and
that limiting that growth could have much broader ramifications
including the ability to meet its contractual obligations to the United
States Department of Defense that are important to national security.
    The commenters conclude with the statement that they do not believe
there is evidence that EPA's disapproval will produce benefits to air
quality in the region, and instead encourage the EPA to approve the
rules as submitted and to focus its efforts on mobile and other
underregulated sources in the District that are within its purview.
    Response to Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin Aero Comment #5:
The EPA appreciates the commenters' concerns regarding business
operations and employment considerations. The EPA is responsible for
ensuring the rules submitted for inclusion in the SIP comply with all
applicable CAA requirements prior to approval. Our action is intended
to ensure that federal NNSR requirements are met and will be
implemented consistently. The EPA will continue to work with the
District to resolve the deficiencies in its rules and stakeholders will
have the ability to provide input on revisions to the rules through
public participation opportunities at the local and federal level. The
EPA looks forward to working collaboratively with the District to
address the deficiencies in its rules and thereby assisting the
District in addressing air pollution in its jurisdiction.

III. EPA Action

    None of the submitted comments change our assessment of the
submitted rules as described in our proposed action. Therefore, as
authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is approving the
submitted versions of Rules 219, 1300, and 1306. Likewise, as
authorized under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, the EPA is
finalizing a limited approval of the submitted versions of Rules 1301,
1302, 1303, 1304, 1305, and 1309. This action incorporates submitted
Rules 219, 1300, 1301, 1302, 1303, 1304, 1305, 1306, and 1309 into the
California SIP, including those provisions identified as deficient. As
authorized under section 110(k)(3) and 301(a), the EPA is
simultaneously finalizing a limited disapproval of Rules 1301, 1302,
1303, 1304, 1305, and 1309.
    As a result of our limited approval and limited disapproval of
Rules 1301, 1302, 1303, 1304, 1305, and 1309, the EPA must promulgate a
federal implementation plan (FIP) under section 110(c) for the District
within 24 months unless we approve subsequent SIP revisions that
correct the deficiencies identified in this action. In addition, the
offset sanction in CAA section 179(b)(2) will be imposed 18 months
after the effective date of this action, and the highway funding
sanction in CAA section 179(b)(1) six months after the offset sanction
is imposed. Sanctions will not be imposed if the EPA approves a
subsequent SIP submission that corrects the identified deficiencies
before the applicable deadlines.
    In this action we are also finalizing an approval of the District's
visibility provisions for major sources subject to review under the
NNSR program under 40 CFR 51.307. Therefore, we are revising 40 CFR
52.281(d) to remove the FIP for visibility protections as it applied to
the District.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1
CFR 51.5, the EPA is incorporating by reference the rules listed in
Table 2 of this preamble which implement the District's New Source
Review (NSR) permitting program for new and modified sources of air
pollution under part D of title I of the CAA. The EPA has made, and
will continue to make, these materials available through https://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA Region IX Office
(please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA because this action does not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities beyond those
imposed by state law.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. This action does not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, no additional costs to
State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, will
result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175, because the SIP is not approved to apply on any
Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian
tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA
believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section
12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be
inconsistent with the CAA.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that
``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of

environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.''
    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to review state choices,
and approve those choices if they meet the minimum criteria of the Act.
Accordingly, this final action is finalizing the approval and the
limited approval and limited disapproval of a state submittal as
meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
    The State did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as
part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing
regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did
not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Due
to the nature of the action being taken here, this action is expected
to have a neutral to positive impact on the air quality of the affected
area. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and
there is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal
of E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color,
low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

L. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 1, 2023. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule 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, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Carbon oxides, Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: June 22, 2023.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency amends part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by:
0
a. Adding paragraphs (b)(25), (c)(6)(xvii)(E), (c)(31)(vi)(I), and
(c)(39)(iii)(H);
0
b. Revising paragraph (c)(68)(ii); and
0
c. Adding paragraphs (c)(68)(v) through (vii), (c)(70)(i)(F) and (G),
(c)(87)(v)(B), (c)(103)(xviii)(D), (c)(155)(iv)(D), (c)(240)(i)(A)(6)
and (7), and (c)(602).
    The additions and revision read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan--in part.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (25) Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control District.
    (i) Previously approved on May 31, 1972, in paragraph (b) of this
section and deleted with replacement in paragraph (c)(6): Rule 11.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (c) * * *
    (6) * * *
    (xvii) * * *
    (E) Previously approved on September 22, 1972, in paragraph (c)(6)
of this section and deleted with replacement in paragraph
(c)(39)(iii)(B) of this section for implementation in the Antelope
Valley Air Quality Management District: Rule 11.
* * * * *
    (31) * * *
    (vi) * * *
    (I) Previously approved on November 9, 1978, in paragraph
(c)(31)(vi)(C) of this section and now deleted without replacement for
implementation in the Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District:
Rule 206.
* * * * *
    (39) * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (H) Previously approved on November 9, 1978, in paragraph
(c)(39)(iii)(B) of this section and deleted without replacement: Rules
206 and 219.
* * * * *
    (68) * * *
    (ii) Previously approved on January 21, 1981, and deleted without
replacement for implementation in the South Coast Air Quality
Management District: Rule 1311.
* * * * *
    (v) Previously approved on January 21, 1981, in paragraph
(c)(68)(i) of this section and deleted with replacement in paragraph
(c)(240)(i)(A) of this section: Rules 1301, 1303, 1304, 1306, 1310 and
1313.
    (vi) Previously approved on January 21, 1981, in paragraph
(c)(68)(i) of this section and deleted without replacement: Rule 1307.
    (vii) Previously approved on January 21, 1981, in paragraph
(c)(68)(i) of this section and now deleted without replacement for
implementation in the Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District:
Rule 1311.
* * * * *
    (70) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (F) Previously approved on January 21, 1981, in paragraph
(c)(70)(i)(A) of this section and deleted with replacement in paragraph
(c)(240)(i)(A) of this section: Rule 1302.
    (G) Previously approved on January 21, 1981, in paragraph
(c)(70)(i)(A) of this section and deleted without replacement: Rule
1308.
* * * * *
    (87) * * *
    (v) * * *
    (B) Previously approved on June 9, 1982, in paragraph (c)(87)(v)(A)
of this section and deleted without replacement: Rules 1301, 1302,
1303, 1304, 1305, 1306, 1307, 1308, 1310, 1311, and 1313.
* * * * *
    (103) * * *
    (xviii) * * *
    (D) Previously approved on July 6, 1982, in paragraph
(c)(103)(xviii)(A) of this section and now deleted with replacement in
paragraph (c)(602)(i)(A)(1) of this section for implementation in the
Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District: Rule 219.
* * * * *

    (155) * * *
    (iv) * * *
    (D) Previously approved on January 29, 1985, in paragraph
(c)(155)(iv)(B) of this section and deleted without replacement: Rule
1305.
* * * * *
    (240) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (6) Previously approved on December 4, 1996, in paragraph
(c)(240)(i)(A)(1) of this section and now deleted with replacement in
paragraphs (c)(602)(i)(A)(2) through (c)(602)(i)(a)(9) of this section
for implementation in the Antelope Valley Air Quality Management
District: Rules 1301, 1302, and 1309, adopted on December 7, 1995, Rule
1303, adopted on May 10, 1996, and Rules 1304 and 1306, adopted on June
14, 1996.
    (7) Previously approved on December 4, 1996, in paragraph
(c)(240)(i)(A)(1) of this section and now deleted without replacement
for implementation in the Antelope Valley Air Quality Management
District: Rules 1309.1, 1310 and 1313, adopted on December 7, 1995.
* * * * *
    (602) The following regulations were submitted on August 3, 2021,
by the Governor's designee as an attachment to a letter dated August 3,
2021.
    (i) Incorporation by reference. (A) Antelope Valley Air Quality
Management District.
    (1) Rule 219, ``Equipment Not Requiring a Permit,'' amended on June
15, 2021.
    (2) Rule 1300, ``New Source Review General,'' amended on July 20,
2021.
    (3) Rule 1301, ``New Source Review Definitions,'' amended on July
20, 2021.
    (4) Rule 1302 ``New Source Review Procedure,'' (except 1302(C)(5)
and 1302(C)(7)(c)), amended on July 20, 2021.
    (5) Rule 1303, ``New Source Review Requirements,'' amended on July
20, 2021.
    (6) Rule 1304, ``New Source Review Emissions Calculations,''
amended on July 20, 2021.
    (7) Rule 1305, ``New Source Review Emissions Offsets,'' amended on
July 20, 2021.
    (8) Rule 1306, ``New Source Review for Electric Energy Generating
Facilities,'' amended on July 20, 2021.
    (9) Rule 1309, ``Emission Reduction Credit Banking,'' amended on
July 20, 2021.
    (B) [Reserved]
    (ii) [Reserved]
* * * * *

0
3. Section 52.281 is amended by adding paragraph (d)(10) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.281  Visibility protection.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (10) Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2023-13763 Filed 6-30-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 136 (Tuesday, July 16, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42573-42577]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16936]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69963; File No. SR-NYSE-2013-49]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Several NYSE Rules To Reflect Changes to Rules and Adopt Guidance
of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority

July 10, 2013.
    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 June 26, 2013, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been substantially 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 (2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend and adopt several NYSE rules \3\ to
reflect changes to rules of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority
(``FINRA''). Specifically, the Exchange proposes to: (1) Amend Rule
8210 to conform to changes recently adopted by FINRA for FINRA Rule
8210, which concerns the provision of information and testimony and
inspection and copying of books and records; (2) adopt certain FINRA
guidance on the Rule 8000-9000 Series; and (3) amend Rule 8320 with
respect to the non-payment of fines. The text of the proposed rule
changes is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ All references to rules herein are to NYSE rules, unless
otherwise specified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 changes and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule changes. The
text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to: (1) Amend Rule 8210 to conform it to
changes recently adopted by FINRA for FINRA Rule 8210, which concerns
the provision of information and testimony and inspection and copying
of books and records; (2) adopt certain FINRA guidance on the Rule
8000-9000 Series; and (3) amend Rule 8320 with respect to the non-
payment of fines.
Background
    On July 30, 2007, the National Association of Securities Dealers,
Inc. (``NASD''), NYSE, and NYSE Regulation, Inc. (``NYSER'')
consolidated their member firm regulation operations into a combined
organization, FINRA, and entered into a plan to allocate to FINRA
regulatory responsibility for common rules and common members (``17d-2
Agreement'').\4\ In 2007, the parties also entered into a Regulatory
Services Agreement (``RSA''), whereby FINRA was retained to perform
certain regulatory services on behalf of NYSER for non-common rules. On
June 14, 2010, the Exchange, NYSER, and FINRA amended the RSA and
retained FINRA to perform the market surveillance and enforcement
functions that had previously been performed by NYSER up to that
point.\5\ Accordingly, since June 14, 2010, FINRA has been performing
all NYSE enforcement-related regulatory services on behalf of NYSER,
including disciplinary proceedings relating to NYSE-only rules and
against dual members and non-FINRA members. To facilitate FINRA's
performance of these enforcement functions under the RSA and to further
harmonize the rules of NYSE with those of FINRA, NYSE recently adopted
the text of the FINRA Rule 8000-9000 Series, which set forth rules for
conducting investigations and enforcement actions, with certain
modifications.\6\ The new rules were implemented on July 1, 2013.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56148 (July 26,
2007), 72 FR 42146 (Aug. 1, 2007) (File No. 4-544) (Notice of Filing
and Order Approving and Declaring Effective a Plan for the
Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities). The 17d-2 Agreement was
entered into in accordance with the requirements of Rule 17d-2 of
the Commission, which permits self-regulatory organizations to
allocate regulatory responsibilities with respect to common members
and common rules. See 17 CFR 240.17d-2 (2013).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62355 (June 22,
2010), 75 FR 36729 (June 28, 2010) (SR-NYSE-2010-46).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 68678 (Jan. 16,
2013), 78 FR 5213 (Jan. 24, 2013) (SR-NYSE-2013-02), and 69045 (Mar.
5, 2013), 78 FR 15394 (Mar. 11, 2013).
    \7\ See NYSE Information Memorandum 13-8 (May 24, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule Change
    FINRA recently amended FINRA Rule 8210, effective February 25,
2013.\8\ The Exchange proposes to amend the text of Rule 8210 to
conform to FINRA Rule 8210. The Exchange's Rule 8210 became operative
on July 1, 2013, which was the date that the Exchange had announced as
the operative date of the Rule 8000-9000 Series.\9\ The text of the
rule is substantially the same as the text of FINRA's rule, except for
technical and conforming amendments.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68386 (Dec. 7,
2012), 77 FR 74253 (Dec. 13, 2012) (SR-FINRA-2009-060) and FINRA
Regulatory Notice 13-06. When the Exchange submitted the Notice to
the Commission, FINRA had not yet announced the effective date of
the amendments to FINRA Rule 8210.
    \9\ See supra note 7.
    \10\ The Exchange uses the terms member organization and covered
person rather than member and associated person, which FINRA uses.
The term covered person includes anyone subject to the Exchange's
jurisdiction. See Notice, supra note 6, at 5219-5220. Also, unlike
FINRA, the Exchange does not enforce Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board rules, so reference to those rules is not included in the
Exchange's text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 8210 confers on Exchange staff the authority to compel a
member organization or covered person to produce documents, provide
testimony, or supply written responses or electronic data in connection
with an investigation, complaint, examination, or adjudicatory
proceeding. The proposed rule change would clarify the scope of the
Exchange's authority under the rule to inspect and copy the books,
records, and accounts of such member organizations or covered persons,
specify the method of service for certain unregistered persons under
the rule, and authorize service on attorneys who are representing
clients.
    Rule 8210 applies to all member organizations and covered persons
over whom the Exchange has jurisdiction, including former covered
persons subject to the Exchange's jurisdiction as described in Rule
8130. Rule 8210(c) provides that a member organization's or covered
person's failure to provide information or testimony or to permit an
inspection and copying of books, records, or accounts is a violation of
the rule.
Information in a Member Organization's or Covered Person's Possession,
Custody or Control
    Rule 8210(a)(2) currently provides that Exchange staff shall have
the right to inspect and copy the books, records, and accounts of all
member organizations and covered persons with respect to any matter
involved in an investigation, complaint, examination, or proceeding.
The proposed rule change would clarify that the information that
Exchange staff shall have the right to inspect and copy must be in the
member organization's or covered person's ``possession, custody or
control.'' This language parallels the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
regarding document requests and subpoenas for documents.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notice to Associated but Unregistered Persons
    Rule 8210 addresses the legal concept of service of a written
request by using the term ``notice'' of a request. Currently, Rule
8210(d) states that, with

respect to member organizations and covered persons, notice shall be
deemed received by the member organization or covered person when a
copy of the notice is mailed or otherwise transmitted to the last known
relevant address of the member organization or covered person as
reflected in the Central Registration Depository (``CRD''). The CRD
system contains information concerning registered member organizations
and certain covered persons,\12\ but in most instances it does not
contain information concerning unregistered persons who are or were
associated with a member organization.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Member organizations and registered persons will have an
affirmative duty to update CRD with their current address for at
least two years after they have had their registration terminated.
See infra note 18.
    \13\ In some limited instances, CRD may contain information
concerning unregistered persons who were required to submit
information, including fingerprint information, to CRD in connection
with their employment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although not routine, some investigations require Exchange
examiners or investigators to request information from persons
currently or formerly associated with a member organization in an
unregistered capacity.\14\ The current rule is unclear as to what would
constitute proper notice on such persons for whom information is not
available in CRD. The proposed rule change would explicitly address the
methods by which notice would be deemed received by persons currently
or formerly associated with a member organization in an unregistered
capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Unregistered persons may include persons exempt from
registration, e.g., personnel performing the mechanical function of
recording an order and passing it along the usual communication
channels, telephoning reports of executions or reading quotations
when the person handling the account is unavailable. See NYSE
Interpretation Handbook, Rule 345(a)/01. For purposes of Rule 8210,
unregistered persons associated with a member organization may also
include direct owners and executive officers listed in Schedule A of
Form BD of a member organization whose job functions do not
otherwise require them to register; such persons would fall under
the definition of covered person. See Rule 9120(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to unregistered persons currently associated with a
member organization, the proposed rule change would provide that notice
shall be deemed received by mailing or otherwise transmitting the
notice to the last known business address of the member organization as
reflected in CRD. In addition, the proposed rule change would retain
the provision that if Exchange staff responsible for transmitting the
notice has actual knowledge that the member organization's address
provided through CRD is out of date or inaccurate, then a copy of the
notice must be transmitted to both the address provided through CRD, as
well as any more current address known to Exchange staff.
    With respect to unregistered persons formerly associated with a
member organization, the proposed rule change would provide that notice
shall be deemed received upon personal service, which is described in
Rule 9134(a)(1).\15\ FINRA Rule 9134(a)(1) is based on traditional
concepts for serving a summons under Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Rule 9134(a)(1) provides that personal service may be
accomplished by handing a copy of the papers to the person required
to be served, leaving a copy at the person's office with an employee
or other person in charge thereof, or leaving a copy at the person's
dwelling or usual place of abode with a person of suitable age and
discretion then residing therein.
    \16\ See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notice to Member Organizations and Covered Persons Represented by
Counsel
    The proposed rule change would amend Rule 8210(d) to explicitly
address issues of service on member organizations or covered persons
that are known to be represented by counsel. Currently, the rule does
not explicitly permit Exchange staff to serve notice on a member
organization's or covered person's counsel in situations in which
Exchange staff knows that the member organization or covered person is
represented by counsel regarding the matter in question. The proposed
rule change would allow Exchange staff to recognize that counsel can
act as an authorized agent on behalf of a member organization or
covered person. It would provide that, if Exchange staff knows that a
member organization or covered person is represented by counsel
regarding the matter in question, then notice shall be provided to
counsel rather than to the member organization or covered person. The
proposed rule change would harmonize the Exchange's rule in this regard
with Codes of Professional Conduct in many states regarding service on
counsel.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See, e.g., American Bar Association model Rule of
Professional Conduct 4.2 (``ABA Rule 4.2''). ABA Rule 4.2 provides:
``In representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate about the
subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be
represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has
the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized to do so by law or
a court order.'' Id. Many states have rules regarding communication
with a person represented by counsel that are based on ABA Rule 4.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Supplementary Material
    The proposed rule change would add supplementary material to Rule
8210. The supplementary material would state that Rule 8210 requires
Exchange member organizations and covered persons to provide Exchange
staff and adjudicators with requested books, records, and accounts. In
specifying the books, records and accounts ``of such member
organization or covered person,'' paragraph (a) of the rule refers to
books, records, and accounts that the broker-dealer or its associated
persons make or keep relating to its operation as a broker-dealer or
relating to the person's association with the member. This includes but
is not limited to records relating to an Exchange investigation of
outside business activities, private securities transactions or
possible violations of just and equitable principles of trade, as well
as other Exchange rules and the federal securities laws. It does not
ordinarily include books and records that are in the possession,
custody or control of a member organization or covered person, but
whose bona fide ownership is held by an independent third party and the
records are unrelated to the business of the member organization. The
rule requires, however, that an Exchange member organization or covered
person make available its books, records, or accounts when the books,
records, or accounts are in the possession of another person or entity,
such as a professional service provider, but the Exchange member
organization or covered person controls or has a right to demand them.
Adoption of FINRA Guidance
    The Exchange has determined that all interpretive guidance issued
by FINRA with respect to the Rule 8000-9000 Series for which the
Exchange has adopted substantially the same rule text would be equally
applicable in NYSE investigations and disciplinary proceedings as a
stated policy and practice of the Exchange.\18\ The Exchange notes that
it has not adopted the text of certain FINRA rules, which

are marked ``Reserved'' in the Exchange's rulebook. The text of Rule
9217 and the Rule 9300 Series are not substantially the same as FINRA's
counterpart rules because the Exchange has retained its own list of
minor rule violations and its own appellate process. As such, FINRA
guidance concerning such rules and ``Reserved'' rules would not be
applicable. The Exchange believes that this policy and practice would
help ensure that there is consistency in the application of
substantially similar rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See, e.g., FINRA Rule 8210 Frequently Asked Questions,
available at http://www.finra.org/web/groups/industry/@ip/<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Notice to Members 99-77
(noting that requests for information and disciplinary complaints
issued during the period of retained jurisdiction will be mailed to
a person's last address in CRD, and thus there is an affirmative
duty to update CRD with a current address for at least two years
after a member organization or registered person has had its
registration terminated); Notice to Members 04-19 (noting that a
minor rule violation letter may be appropriate to address more than
one violation in a single action, and in cases where two or more
rule violations are disposed of in one letter, the maximum penalty
will be $2,500); Regulatory and Compliance Alerts, Vol. 12, No. 4,
Winter 1998 (allowing respondents to submit a ``Correction Action
Statement'' and ``Mitigation Statement'' with an executed
acceptance, waiver, and consent letter).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment to Rule 8320
    To facilitate the transition from the Exchange's former
disciplinary rules to the new FINRA-based disciplinary rules, the
Exchange amended Rule 309 to provide that any member, member
organization or principal executive who fails to pay a fee or any other
sums due to the Exchange, within 45 days after the same is payable,
shall be reported to the Chief Financial Officer of the Exchange or
designee who, after notice has been given to such member, member
organization or principal executive of such arrearages, may suspend
access to some or all of the facilities of the Exchange until payment
is made. The rule provides an exception for failing to pay a fine
levied in connection with a disciplinary action, which would be
governed by Rule 8320. Rule 8320 permits summary suspensions for the
non-payment of fines, monetary sanctions, and costs.
    Rule 8320 cross-references to sanctions imposed under Rule 8310,
which in turn references sanctions imposed under the Rule 9000 Series.
The Exchange notes that if a disciplinary action was ongoing at the
time that the Rule 9000 Series became effective on July 1, 2013, it
would be concluded under Rule 476. To prevent any potential gap in the
rules and clarify the transitional rules, the Exchange proposes to
amend Rule 8320 to add a new paragraph (d) that would provide that the
Exchange may exercise the authority set forth in Rule 8320 with respect
to non-payment of a fine, monetary sanction, or cost assessed in a
disciplinary action initiated under Rule 476 for which a decision was
issued on or after July 1, 2013.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\19\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\20\ in particular, in that
the proposal 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, and to remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system. In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed
rule changes further the objectives of Section 6(b)(7) of the Act,\21\
in particular, in that it provides fair procedures for the disciplining
of members \22\ and persons associated with members, the denial of
membership to any person seeking membership therein, the barring of any
person from becoming associated with a member thereof, and the
prohibition or limitation by the Exchange of any person with respect to
access to services offered by the Exchange or a member thereof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(7).
    \22\ The Exchange's equivalent to the term member in this
context is member organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed change to Rule 8210 would provide greater
harmonization between Exchange and FINRA rules of similar purpose,
resulting in greater uniformity in investigative rules and less
burdensome and more efficient regulatory compliance. As previously
noted, the proposed rule text is substantially the same as FINRA's
recently adopted rule text, which already has been approved by the
Commission.\23\ As such, the proposed rule change would foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities and would remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed change to Rule 8320 would prevent any potential gap in
the rules concerning non-payment of fines, monetary sanctions, and
costs and clarify the transition from the old to the new disciplinary
rules. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will provide
respondents with better notice of potential sanctions, thereby
improving the fairness of its disciplinary proceedings.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed
rule change is not designed to address any competitive issues but
rather is designed to provide greater harmonization among Exchange and
FINRA rules of similar purpose for investigations, resulting in less
burdensome and more efficient regulatory compliance for common members
and facilitating FINRA's performance of its regulatory functions under
the RSA. The proposed rule changes are also intended to provide greater
clarity and notice to respondents during the transition from the old
disciplinary rules to the new disciplinary rules.

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.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act\24\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\25\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \25\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6) (2013). In addition, Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice
of the Exchange's 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 under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \26\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\27\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange stated its
belief that this proposal is non-controversial

and will not significantly affect the protection of investors because
the Exchange is not proposing any substantive changes and is merely
amending its rule text to mirror FINRA's rules. Further, the Commission
has previously considered the amendments to FINRA Rule 8210, which this
proposed rule change mirrors, as well as comments responding to the
amendments to FINRA Rule 8210.\28\ Based on the Exchange's statements
and the Commission's previous experiences with FINRA Rule 8210
amendments, the Commission believes that waiving the operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
Accordingly, the Commission hereby grants the Exchange's request and
waives the 30-day operative delay.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6) (2013).
    \27\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii) (2013).
    \28\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68386 (Dec. 7,
2012), 77 FR 74253 (Dec. 13, 2012) (SR-FINRA-2009-060). FINRA
initially filed its proposed rule change to FINRA Rule 8210 with the
Commission on September 10, 2009. The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on October 22, 2009.
See Exchange Act Release No. 60836 (Oct. 16, 2009), 74 FR 54614
(Oct. 22, 2009). The Commission received seven comment letters on
the proposed rule change. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
68386 (Dec. 7, 2012), 77 FR 74253 (Dec. 13, 2012) (SR-FINRA-2009-
060). On December 22, 2009, FINRA filed a letter with the Commission
responding to these comments, and on December 21, 2011, FINRA filed
Amendment No. 1 with the Commission to further respond to the
comments and to propose amendments in response. See letter from Stan
Macel, Assistant General Counsel, Regulatory Policy and Oversight,
FINRA, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, SEC, dated December 22,
2009, available at http://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-finra-2009-060/finra2009060.shtml. On December 5, 2012, FINRA filed Amendment No. 2
with the Commission to modify a phrase that was included in
Amendment No. 1. The Commission published notice of the filing on
December 7, 2012 and solicited comments on Amendments Nos. 1 and 2.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68386 (Dec. 7, 2012), 77 FR
74253 (Dec. 13, 2012) (SR-FINRA-2009-060). The Commission did not
receive comments in response to the amendments.
    \29\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay, the
Commission 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 such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-NYSE-2013-49 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-NYSE-2013-49. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-NYSE-2013-49 and should be
submitted on or before August 6, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12) (2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-16936 Filed 7-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 29, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 125)]
[Notices]
[Page 37074]
[DOCID:fr29jn06-50]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Application for Non-Project Use of Project Lands and
Waters, Amendment of License, and Soliciting Comments, Motions to
Intervene, and Protests

June 22, 2006.
    Take notice that the following application has been filed with the
Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Non-Project Use of Project Lands and Waters
and Amendment of License.
    b. Project No: 2452-191.
    c. Date filed: June 12, 2006.
    d. Applicant: Consumers Energy Company.
    e. Name of Project: Hardy Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the Muskegon River in
Newaygo County, MI.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r)
and 799 and 801.
    h. Applicant Contact: James Bernier, 330 Chestnut St., Cadillac, MI
49601,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Hillary Berlin at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    j. Deadline for filing comments and or motions: July 21, 2006.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please include the project
number (P-2452-191) on any comments or motions filed. Comments,
protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the
Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the
instructions on the Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing'' link.
The Commission strongly encourages e-filings.
    k. Description of Application: The licensee requests Commission
approval to convey an interest in project land to Muskegon River
Development (MRD) to operate a private marina by reconstructing
existing docks at the former Buck's Landing to increase the number of
boat slips from 18 to 38. The proposal may include the future
development of a public, non-motorized, unpaved foot path on project
lands. The licensee also requests to amend their land management plan
to designate a proposed Davis Bridge Park as a public recreation
facility and add it to an existing recreational lease. Developing Davis
Bridge Park would involve the upgrade of an existing access road,
installation of an entry station, development of car and trailer
parking spaces, installation of a single boat ramp with upstream and
downstream erosion control measures, and picnic tables.
    l. Location of Application: The filing is available for review at
the Commission in the Public Reference Room, located at 888 First
Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''

link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please
contact FERC Online support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free
(866) 208-3676 or TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as
applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to
which the filing refers. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be
served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the
particular application.
    p. Agency Comments: Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
    q. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov

under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-10170 Filed 6-27-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Tebuthiuron Use Closure Memo (PC Code 105501)

FROM: Michael McDavit, Acting Chief Special Review Branch TO: Margaret Stasikowski, Director Health Effects Division Elizabeth Leovey, Acting Director Environmental Fate and Effects Division This memo serves as the Tebuthiuron Use Closure Memo and clarifies Tebuthiuron uses for the TRED risk assessment.

The SMART meeting for Tebuthiuron was held May 2, 2001. The updated Quantitative Usage Analysis (QUA) for Tebuthiuron, which is developed by the Economic Analysis Branch of the Biological and Economic Analysis Division is scheduled for completion on September 9, 2001. Attached is the most recent version of the QUA.

Tebuthiuron is a relatively nonselective, soil activated herbicide that acts by inhibiting photosynthesis. It is used to control broadleaf and woody weeds, grasses, and brush on terrestrial feed crop sites (pastures and rangeland) primarily in Texas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico and on terrestrial non food crop sites including airports/ landing fields, outdoor industrial areas, nonagricultural rights of way, fencerows, hedgerows, uncultivated areas/ soils, and under paved roads and sidewalks in areas where no future landscaping is planned. Primary uses include rangelands and near railroads and other industrial facilities. Single active ingredient formulation include granular pelleted/ tableted, wettable powder, water dispersible granules and technical grade/ solid products. Three multiple active ingredient formulations (granulars) also are registered. All formulations may be applied as broadcast, banded or spot treatments using ground equipment. The pelleted/ tableted formulation also may be applied using aerial equipment. The LUIS report indicates no limit on the number of applications per season or crop cycle, but, the registrant provided information on the normal maximum and typical application use rates of Tebuthiuron at the SMART meeting. The attached tables reflect the use information (note: "NS" not specified) reflecting labeling current as of 02/ 21/ 2001 in the LUIS report and the registrants' use information.

The risk assessment for Tebuthiuron will be based on the use sites listed in the LUIS report. Based on our understanding, this information will allow EFED to submit it's draft TRED chapter to SRRD on December 1, 2001, and HED to submit it's draft TRED chapter to SRRD on February 22, 2002, as it is currently scheduled.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding this memorandum, please contact Wilhelmena Livingston at (703) 308 8025.

cc: Paula Deschamp Virginia Dobozy Sheila Piper Ken Dockter Kevin Costello Mark Corbin Steve Smearman Dan Rosenblatt Range and Pasture Typical vs.

Maximum Use Rates Use Site and Product Name Application Method and Equipment Registrant Maximum Application Per Use Rate Reflecting Label Maximum Application Per Use Registrant Typical Use Rate Reflecting Label Typical Use Rate Range and Pasture Oak Desert Species Sand Shinnery Spike 20P (20%

pellet)

Broadcast and spot treatment Applied by hand using canister delivery, ground and aerial application For vulnerable sites,

maximum application rate is dependent upon annual precipitation: °

<20"

in annual precipitation:

no more than 1 lb a. i./

acre once every 3 years °

>20"

in annual precipitation:

no more than 2 lbs a. i./

acre once every 3 years For non

vulnerable sites,

maximum application rate is dependent upon annual precipitation: °

<20"

in annual precipitation no more than 2 lbs once every 3 years and no more than two treatments totaling 6 lbs a. i./

acre in any 6

year period °

>20"

in annual precipitation:

on more than 4 lbs a. i./

acre once every 3 years and no more than two treatments totaling 6 lbs a. i./

acre in any 6

year period 4 lbs a. i./

acre/ NS for broadcast treatment 4 lbs a. i./

acre/ yr for spot treatment Typical application is once every 10 20 years 1.0 1.4 lbs for oak use 1.5 lbs for desert species 0.3 0.5 lbs for sand shinnery NS Industrial Vegetation Management Typical vs.

Maximum Use Rates Use Site and Product Name Application Method and Equipment Registrant Maximum Application Per Use Rate Reflecting Label Maximum Application Per Use Registrant Typical Use Rate Reflectin g Label Typical Use Rate Industrial Vegetation Management Non Cropland Railroad Industrial General Woody Plant Spike 80DF (80% dry flowable) Broadcast/ Ban ded and spot Applied by backpack sprayer, handgun sprayer, and groundboom sprayer For vulnerable sites, maximum application rate is dependent upon annual precipitation:

° <20" in annual precipitation for broadcast/ banded and spot application: no more than 1 lb a. i./ acreonce every 3 years °> 20" in annual precipitation for broadcast/ banded and spot application no more than 2 lb a. i./ acreonce every 3 years For non vulnerable sites, maximum application rate is dependent upon annual ° <20" and >20" in annual precipitation for broadcast/ banded application for vegetation control: no more than 4 lbs a. i./ acre once every 3 years and no more than two treatments totaling 6 lbs. a. i./ acre in any 6 year period; for total vegetation control and maintenance of bare ground (ground broadcast only) applied only once per year, however no more than 6 lbs a. i./ acre may be applied in any 3 year period.

° <20" and >20" in annual precipitation for spot application no more than 6 lb a. i./ acre once every three years Maximum application rate is 6 8 lbs/ acre, depending on the use site Typically applied to railroad and industrial annually for 2 3 years followed by rotation to other products Typically applied to general woody plant once every 3 8 years 1.6 2.4 lbs for railroad use 1.6 2.4 lbs for industrial use 3 4 lbs for general woody plant use NS


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 14, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40447-40449]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17391]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-86611; File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2019-051]

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

August 8, 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 August 1, 2019, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, 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

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

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

    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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to modify the fee schedule applicable to the
Exchange's options platform (``EDGX Options'') to amend the rate of its
Options Regulatory Fee (``ORF'').\3\ Currently, the Exchange charges an
ORF in the amount of $0.0001 per contract side. The Exchange proposes
to increase the amount of ORF from $0.0001 per contract side to $0.0002
per contract side. The proposed change to ORF should continue to
balance the Exchange's regulatory expenses against the anticipated
revenue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange initially filed the proposed fee change on
August 1, 2018 (SR-CboeEDGX-2018-028) for August 1, 2018
effectiveness. On business date August 9, 2018, the Exchange
withdrew that filing and submitted this filing. [sic]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ORF is assessed by the Exchange on each Member for options
transactions cleared by the Member that are cleared by the Options
Clearing Corporation (OCC) in the customer range, regardless of the
exchange on which the transaction occurs. In other words, the Exchange
imposes the ORF on all customer-range transactions cleared by a Member,
even if the transactions do not take place on the Exchange. The ORF is
collected by OCC on behalf of the Exchange from the Clearing Member or
non-Clearing Member that ultimately clears the transaction. With
respect to linkage transactions, the Exchange reimburses its routing
broker providing Routing Services for options regulatory fees it incurs
in connection with the Routing Services it provides.
    Revenue generated from ORF, when combined with all of the
Exchange's other regulatory fees and fines, is designed to recover a
material portion of the regulatory costs to the Exchange of the
supervision and regulation of Member customer options business.
Regulatory costs include direct regulatory expenses and certain
indirect expenses for work allocated in support of the regulatory
function. The direct expenses include in-house and third party service
provider costs to support the day to day regulatory work such as
surveillances, investigations and examinations. The indirect expenses
include support from such areas as human resources, legal, information
technology and accounting. These indirect expenses are estimated to be
approximately 37% of EDGX Options' total regulatory costs for 2019.
Thus, direct expenses are estimated to be approximately 63% of total
regulatory costs for 2019. In addition, it is EDGX Options' practice
that revenue generated from ORF not exceed more than 75% of total
annual regulatory costs.
    The Exchange monitors its regulatory costs and revenues at a
minimum on a semi-annual basis. If the Exchange determines regulatory
revenues exceed or are insufficient to cover a material portion of its
regulatory costs, the Exchange will adjust the ORF by submitting a fee
change filing to the Commission. The Exchange also notifies Members of
adjustments to the ORF via regulatory circular.\4\ Based on the
Exchange's most recent semi-annual review, the Exchange is proposing to
increase the amount of ORF that will be collected by the Exchange from
$0.0001 per contract side to $0.0002 per contract side. The proposed
increase is based on the Exchange's estimated projections for its
regulatory costs, balanced with recent options volumes. These
expectations are estimated, preliminary and may change. There can be no
assurance that the Exchange's final costs for 2019 will not differ
materially from these expectations and prior practice, nor can the
Exchange predict with certainty whether options volume will remain at
the current level going forward; however, the Exchange believes that
revenue generated from the ORF (as amended), when combined with all of
the Exchange's other regulatory fees and fines, would cover a

material portion, but not all, of the Exchange's regulatory costs.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange provides Members with such notice at least 30
calendar days prior to the effective date of the change. The
Exchange notified Members of the proposed rate change for August 1,
2019 on June 25, 2019. See EDGX Regulatory Circular RG19-020
``Modification of the Options Regulatory Fee.''
    \5\ The Exchange notes that its regulatory responsibilities with
respect to Member compliance with options sales practice rules have
largely been allocated to FINRA under a 17d-2 agreement. The ORF is
not designed to cover the cost of that options sales practice
regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange will continue to monitor the amount of revenue
collected from the ORF to ensure that it, in combination with its other
regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed the Exchange's total
regulatory costs.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and,
in particular, with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act.\6\
Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\7\ in that it provides for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and other persons using its facilities. The Exchange
notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market
participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues or
providers of routing services if they deem fee levels to be excessive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes the proposed fee change is reasonable because
the modest increase is necessary to offset the anticipated regulatory
costs, and which, in combination with other regulatory fees and fines,
still is not expected to exceed the Exchange's total regulatory costs.
The Exchange has designed the ORF to generate revenues that would be
less than or equal to 75% of the Exchange's regulatory costs, which is
consistent with the view of the Commission that regulatory fees be used
for regulatory purposes and not to support the Exchange's business
side. As discussed above, the Exchange determined to increase ORF after
its semi-annual review of its regulatory costs and regulatory revenues,
which includes revenues from ORF and other regulatory fees and fines.
When taking into account recent options volume, coupled with the
anticipated regulatory fees, the Exchange believes it's reasonable to
increase the ORF amount by $0.0001 per contract side.
    Moreover, the Exchange believes the ORF ensures fairness by
assessing higher fees to those Members that require more Exchange
regulatory services based on the amount of customer options business
they conduct. Regulating customer trading activity is much more labor
intensive and requires greater expenditure of human and technical
resources than regulating non-customer trading activity, which tends to
be more automated and less labor-intensive. As a result, the costs
associated with administering the customer component of the Exchange's
overall regulatory program are materially higher than the costs
associated with administering the non-customer component (e.g., Member
proprietary transactions) of its regulatory program.\8\ The Exchange
believes the proposed fee change is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory in that it is charged to all Members on all their
transactions that clear in the customer range at the OCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ If the Exchange changes its method of funding regulation or
if circumstances otherwise change in the future, the Exchange may
decide to modify the ORF or assess a separate regulatory fee on
Member proprietary transactions if the Exchange deems it advisable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. This proposal does not create
an unnecessary or inappropriate intra-market burden on competition
because the ORF applies to all customer activity, thereby raising
regulatory revenue to offset regulatory expenses. It also supplements
the regulatory revenue derived from non-customer activity. The Exchange
notes, however, the proposed change is not designed to address any
competitive issues. Indeed, this proposal does not create an
unnecessary or inappropriate inter-market burden on competition because
it is a regulatory fee that supports regulation in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. The Exchange is obligated to ensure that the
amount of regulatory revenue collected from the ORF, in combination
with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed regulatory
costs.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \10\
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 will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2019-051 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 No. SR-CboeEDGX-2019-051. 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 No. SR-CboeEDGX-2019-051, and should
be submitted on or before September 4, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-17391 Filed 8-13-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P