[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 161 (Tuesday, August 20, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43222-43226]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17847]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-86683; File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2019-050]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Amending Its Fee Schedule Assessed on Members To Establish
a Monthly Trading Rights Fee

August 14, 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 Equities'')
proposes to amend its fee schedule assessed on Members to establish a
monthly Trading Rights 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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to establish a monthly
Trading Rights Fee under the ``Membership Fees'' section of the fee
schedule. The Trading Rights Fee will be assessed on Members that trade
more than a specified volume in U.S. equities, and will assist in
covering the cost of a well-regulated and maintained Exchange. Self-
regulation, with oversight by the Commission, is a basic premise of the
Exchange Act.\3\ For example, Congress recognized the regulatory role
of national securities exchanges in section 6 of the Exchange Act,
requiring all existing securities exchanges to register with the
Commission and to function as self-regulatory organizations.\4\ The
Exchange remains committed to its regulatory responsibilities under the
Exchange Act, and has devoted significant resources to providing a
fair, orderly, and well-regulated market for its members. The proposed
Trading Rights Fees will help fund a small portion of the Exchange's
regulatory efforts, and therefore facilitate effective regulation of
the U.S. equities markets, consistent with the goals of Congress and
the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58092 (July 3,
2008), 73 FR 40143 (July 11, 2008).
    \4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed Trading Rights Fee represents a modest charge to firms
that have chosen to become members of the Exchange, and that therefore
both consume more regulatory resources, and benefit from the Exchange's
regulatory efforts by having access to a well-regulated market.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to charge Member firms a monthly
Trading Rights Fee of $500 per month for the ability to trade on the
Exchange. So as to continue to encourage active participation on the
Exchange by smaller Members, the Trading Rights Fee would not be
charged to Members with a monthly ADV \5\ of less than 100,000 shares.
Similarly, to continue to support individual investor order flow on the
Exchange, the Trading Rights Fee would not be charged to Members in
which at least 90% of their order volume on the Exchange per month is
retail order volume. In addition to this, the proposed fee will not be
charged to new Exchange Members for their first three months of
Membership. The Exchange intends to implement the proposed fee on
August 1, 2019. The proposed fee and waivers are described in detail
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``ADV'' means average daily volume calculated as the number
of shares added or removed, combined, per day. ADV is calculated on
a monthly basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Membership Fee per Month
    As stated, the Exchange will apply a $500 Trading Rights charge to
Members per month. The Exchange believes the proposed Trading Rights
Fee assessed aligns with the benefit provided by allowing Members to
trade on an efficient and well-regulated market. The proposed Trading
Rights Fee will fund a portion of the costs incurred by the Exchange in
regulating and maintaining its equities market. These costs incurred by
the Exchange are necessary to maintain an efficient equities exchange,
as a well-regulated exchange is inherent in the nature of all self-
regulatory organizations (``SROs''). Due to the importance of effective
regulation of the securities markets, an efficient regulatory division
must be appropriately funded at all times. In particular, in order to
successfully carry out the purposes of the Act and maintain fair,
orderly, and efficient markets, and the protection of investors, SROs
must invest in robust programs, policies, and procedures to enforce
member compliance with both the rules of the exchange and federal
securities laws.\6\ In order to achieve this objective, the Exchange
continuously invests in compliance, surveillance, technology,
resources, and staff necessary to build and maintain such programs,
policies,

and procedures, some of which must be implemented in order to carry out
industry-wide plans adopted by the Commission. For example, the
Exchange's Regulatory Service Agreement (``RSA'') costs alone, which
include funding for regulatory services in connection with market and
financial surveillance, examinations, investigations, and disciplinary
procedure, have increased 17.5% from 2016 to 2019. In addition to this,
the Exchange's overall regulatory costs have grown 117% from 2016 to
2019. These costs have been incurred as a result of the allocation of
increased regulatory resources and capabilities to implement and
conduct regular surveillance for initiatives and programs such as
regulatory software and infrastructure, alerts for various rules and
initiatives, new and continued product listings, improvements to
investigative processes, and so on. Therefore, the Exchange believes
the proposed fee is appropriate to cover a portion of costs for the
surveillance, technology, and vast resources necessary to ensure that
the Exchange is effectively organized and has the capacity to be able
to carry out the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange operates in a highly-competitive market in which
market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues
if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or
incentives to be insufficient. The Exchange represents a small
percentage of the overall market, and broker-dealers routinely choose
among a number of different venues to execute their equity order flow.
These venues include thirteen registered equities exchanges, as well as
a number of alternative trading systems and other off-exchange venues
that do not have similar self-regulatory responsibilities under the
Exchange Act. Broker-dealers are not compelled to be Members of the
Exchange, and a significant proportion of broker-dealers that trade
U.S. equity securities have, in fact, chosen not to apply for
membership on the Exchange. The Exchange currently has 135 registered
members. By contrast, the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'') has
approximately 337 current members,\7\ which is more than twice as many
as EDGX. Indeed, broker-dealers even choose between affiliated
exchanges in deciding where to become a member. Of the Exchange's
affiliated exchanges, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'') currently has
158 members, Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. (``EDGA'') 116 members, and Cboe
BYX Exchange, Inc. (``BYX'') 124 members. None of the Exchange's
Members or members of any of the affiliated exchanges are required to
hold memberships across the affiliated exchanges. The same is true for
participation on the Exchange itself; Membership is not a requirement
to participate on the Exchange. Indeed, a number of firms, including
larger firms with significant daily trading volume, currently
participate on the Exchange though sponsored access arrangements rather
than by becoming a member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See NasdaqTrader.com Symbol Lookup (July 31, 2019),
available at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/trader.aspx?id=symbollookup.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The cost of membership on the Exchange, including the proposed
Trading Rights Fees, is significantly lower than the cost of membership
in a number of other SROs.\8\ For example, the Exchange's proposed
Trading Rights Fee at $500 a month is substantially lower than Nasdaq's
analogous fee, which assesses a monthly Trading Rights Fee of $1,250
per member. In sum, the Exchange believes the fee is priced
appropriately as it is competitive with other exchanges that offer
membership to their exchanges while also helping to pay for the
increased cost of regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Nasdaq Stock Market Equity Rules, Equity 7, Sec. 10(a)
(assessing a trading rights fee of $1,250 per month per each
member); New York Stock Exchange Price List 2019, ``Trading
Licenses'' (assessing an annual fee $50,000 for the first trading
license held by a member, to which the Exchange notes that the
Exchange assesses a $2,500 annual fee for membership, and that this
annual fee coupled with 12 months of the proposed Trading Rights
Fees remains substantially lower than NYSE's annual trading license
fee); see also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81133 (July 12,
2017), 82 FR 32904 (July 18, 2017) (The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
To Increase the Trading Rights Fee) (SR-NASDAQ-2017-065). The
Exchange notes that this Nasdaq filing supports its implemented
Trading Rights Fee without explanation as to why an increase in
funding was necessary or as to specific items covered under the
broad umbrella of a well-regulated market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Member Waiver
    As stated above, the proposed fee would not apply to new Members
for their first three months of Exchange Membership. The Exchange
recognizes that new Members provide new and important sources of
liquidity. As such, the Exchange proposes that new Exchange Members
will not be charged the proposed Trading Rights Fee for their first
three months of Membership. The Exchange believes that the proposed
waiver will allow new firms the flexibility in resources needed to
initially adjust to the Exchange's market-model and functionality. The
Exchange notes that for any month in which a firm is approved for
Membership with the Exchange, the monthly Trading Rights Fee will be
pro-rated in accordance with the date on which Membership is approved.
For example, if a firm's Membership is approved on August 15, 2019,
then, as proposed, it would not be charged for its first three months
of Membership. The month of November would then be pro-rated and the
Trading Rights Fee would be assessed from November 15, 2019 through the
end of the month. During any month in which a firm terminates
Membership with the Exchange, the monthly Trading Rights Fee will not
be pro-rated.
ADV Threshold Waiver
    As stated above, the Exchange would also waive the monthly Trading
Rights fee for Members with a monthly ADV \9\ of less than 100,000
shares. The proposed waiver is designed to reduce the costs of smaller
Members that transact on the Exchange. Smaller Members execute low
volumes on the Exchange, and, as a result, consume few regulatory
resources. In addition, allowing smaller Members to trade on the
Exchange without incurring a Trading Rights Fee may encourage
participation from such Members as they grow their business, and
thereby contribute to a more diverse and competitive market for equity
securities traded on the Exchange. The median ADV per firm per month on
the Exchange is 443,192. Therefore, the Exchange believes that ADV of
100,000 serves as an appropriate threshold to capture firms that are
truly smaller volume firm outliers as compared to the overall ADV
across all firms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ ``ADV'' means average daily volume calculated as the number
of shares added or removed, combined, per day. ADV is calculated on
a monthly basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Retail Order Threshold Waiver
    Similar to that of the ADV threshold waiver, the Exchange would
waive the monthly Trading Rights fee for Members if at least 90% of
their order volume on the Exchange per month is Retail Order volume.
The Exchange believes that this will serve to support individual
investor order flow on the Exchange by ensuring that retail broker
Members can continue to submit orders for individual investors at a
lower cost, thereby continuing to encourage retail investor
participation on the Exchange. Like the small Member waiver, the
Exchange believes this will contribute to a more diverse and
competitive market for equity securities traded on the Exchange.
Furthermore, the Exchange notes that continued liquidity in retail
orders may incentivize other Members to send order flow to the Exchange
to trade with such retail

orders. Also, retail participation is more likely to reflect long-term
investment intentions, and may therefore positively impact market
quality. Retail order flow is highly competitive across trading venues,
particularly as it relates to exchange versus off-exchange venues as
many retail brokers route the majority of their retail orders to off-
exchange venues. Accordingly, competitive forces compel the Exchange to
use incentives to compete for retail order flow. The Exchange believes
that the proposed 90% retail order volume threshold will capture
broker-dealers that are primarily in the business of handling orders on
behalf of retail investors rather than larger broker-dealers that may
route retail orders on behalf of other broker-dealers but are also
engaged in significant other activity that is not related to servicing
retail investors. As such, the Exchange believes that the 90% retail
order volume threshold will function to best capture those firms whose
overall business and trading model focuses on the handling and
execution of orders for retail clients.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\10\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\11\ which requires that Exchange rules provide for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges
among its Members and other persons using its facilities. The Exchange
also believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) requirements that the rules of an
exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest,
and, particularly, 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)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed Trading
Rights Fee is reasonable because the fee will assist in funding the
overall regulation and maintenance of the Exchange. Effective
regulation is central to the proper functioning of the securities
markets. Recognizing the importance of such efforts, Congress decided
to require national securities exchanges to register with the
Commission as self-regulatory organizations to carry out the purposes
of the Exchange Act. The Exchange therefore believes that it is
critical to ensure that regulation is appropriately funded. While the
proposed Trading Rights Fees are set at a modest level, and will fund
only a relatively small portion of the Exchange's total regulatory
costs, the Exchange believes that such fees will contribute
appropriately to ensuring that adequate resources are devoted to
regulation, as contemplated by Congress.
    The proposed Trading Rights Fee is reasonable because it represents
a modest charge to firms that have chosen to become members of the
Exchange, and that therefore both consume more regulatory resources,
and benefit from the Exchange's regulatory efforts by having access to
a well-regulated market. As stated, the Exchange will apply a $500
Trading Rights charge to Members per month. Allocating the proposed
Trading Rights Fee to fund a portion of the cost incurred by the
Exchange in regulating and maintaining its equities market is
reasonable because the costs incurred are necessary to maintain an
efficient and well-regulated equities exchange. In order to
successfully carry out the purposes of the Act and maintain fair,
orderly, and efficient markets, and the protection of investors, the
Exchange, like all SROs, continuously invests in robust programs,
policies, and procedures to enforce member compliance with both the
rules of the exchange and federal securities laws.\12\ As discussed
above, from 2016 to 2019, the Exchange's RSA costs alone, which cover
regulatory services in connection with market and financial
surveillance, examinations, investigations, and disciplinary procedure,
have increased 17.5%, while the Exchange's overall regulatory costs
have grown 117%. Such regulatory costs have been incurred as a result
of the allocation of increased regulatory resources and capabilities to
implement and conduct regular surveillance for initiatives and programs
such as regulatory software and infrastructure, alerts for various
rules and initiatives, new and continued product listings, improvements
to investigative processes, and so on. It is reasonable to apply the
proposed fee to contribute to a small portion of such costs that will
help to fund surveillance, technology, and vast resources necessary to
ensure that the Exchange is so organized and has the capacity to be
able to carry out the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Additionally, the Exchange believes the fee is reasonable because
the cost of this membership fee is generally less than the analogous
membership fees of other markets. As indicated above, the Exchange's
proposed Trading Rights Fee at $500 a month is substantially lower than
Nasdaq's analogous fee, which assesses a monthly Trading Rights Fee of
$1,250 per member. Trading Rights Fees, like those proposed here, are
not new in the equities markets. A number of national securities
exchanges currently charge such fees to assist in funding their
regulatory efforts. The Exchange believes that it is appropriate to
institute a similar fee to fund its increasing regulatory costs.
    The Exchange believes that not charging its new Members the
proposed Trading Rights Fee for their first three months of Membership
is reasonable because it provides an incentive for firms and other
participants that are not currently Members of the Exchange to apply
for Membership and bring additional liquidity to the market, thus
greater trading opportunities, to the benefit of all market
participants. The proposed waiver is also reasonable because it will
allow new firms the flexibility in resources needed to initially adjust
to the Exchange's market-model and functionality. The Exchange believes
that not charging a Trading Rights Fee for new Members will incentivize
firms to become Members of the Exchange. Furthermore, creating
incentives for new Exchange Members protects investors and the public
interest by increasing the competition and liquidity across the
Exchange.
    Similarly, the Exchange believes that not charging a Trading Rights
Fee for Members that trade less than a monthly ADV of 100,000 shares is
reasonable because it ensures that smaller Members who do not trade
significant volume on the Exchange can continue to trade on the
Exchange at a lower cost. Because smaller Members with lower volumes
executed on the Exchange consume fewer regulatory resources the
Exchange believes it is reasonable to apply a waiver to Members on the
lower side of the ADV scale for all firms. Moreover, the Exchange
believes that the proposed threshold is reasonable because the median
ADV per firm per month on the Exchange is 443,192, therefore, an ADV
threshold of 100,000 will serve as an

appropriate threshold to capture firms which are true, smaller volume
firm outliers as compared to the overall ADV across all firms.
    The Exchange also believes that not charging a Trading Rights Fee
for Members whose retail order volume comprises 90% or more of their
order volume per month is reasonable because it ensures retail broker
Members can continue to submit orders for individual investors at a
lower cost, thereby continuing to encourage retail investor
participation on the Exchange. Furthermore, encouraging continued
retail broker Members to trade on the Exchange without incurring a
Trading Rights Fee may encourage additional participation from such
Members and thereby contribute to a more diverse and competitive market
for equity securities traded on the Exchange. Furthermore, the Exchange
notes that continued liquidity in retail orders would incentivize other
Members to send order flow to the Exchange to trade with such retail
orders; such increased liquidity provides more trading opportunities to
the benefit of all market participants. In addition to this, retail
participation is more likely to reflect long-term investment
intentions, and may therefore positively impact market quality, also to
the benefit of all market participants. In addition to this, the
Exchange believes that the 90% or more retail order volume threshold is
reasonable because it will serve to capture broker-dealers that are
primarily in the business of handling orders on behalf of retail
investors rather than larger broker-dealers that may route retail
orders on behalf of other broker-dealers but are also engaged in
significant other activity that is not related to servicing retail
investors. Therefore, the 90% retail order volume threshold reasonably
ensures that those firms whose overall business and trading model
focuses on the handling and execution of orders for retail clients, are
identified for the waiver to appropriately apply.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed Trading Rights Fee is
equitable and is not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply
equally to all Members with an ADV of 100,000 shares or more traded per
month, all Members in which less than 90% of their order volume is
comprised of retail order volume per month,\13\ and all Members that
are not within their first three months of new Membership on the
Exchange. As proposed, all members that do not qualify for a waiver
would be charged the same, modest fee for their membership. The
proposed fee is therefore charged on an equal and non-discriminatory
basis for all such members. At the same time, the Exchange believes
that it is important to continue to encourage participation from firms
that represent ordinary investors, that have more limited trading
activity, or that are new members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ A Member will not be charged if it meets either one (or
both) of the exceptions. To illustrate, if a Member executes 5% of
its total order volume as retail order volume but only has an ADV of
90,000 shares traded, that Member will not be charged the proposed
Trading Rights Fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange believes that not charging the Trading
Rights Fee for Members that do not meet the ADV threshold in a month is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply equally
to all such firms that meet this criteria and it considers the fact
that smaller firms with significantly lower volume than most firms
consume less regulatory resources, therefore, it ensures that disparate
treatment does not exist for firms that are much smaller than the
average firm on the Exchange. The Exchange believes that not charging
the Trading Rights Fee for Members that do not meet the 90% retail
order volume threshold is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because it will apply equally to all such firms that meet this
criteria. The waiver is equitable as it will encourage continued retail
participation and liquidity on the Exchange which is more likely to
reflect long-term investment intentions, and may therefore positively
impact market quality, as well as incentivize other Members to send
order flow to the Exchange to trade with such retail orders, which
benefits all market participants by providing more trading
opportunities. Finally, the Exchange believes that not charging a
Trading Rights Fee for a new Member for the first three months of
Membership is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the
proposed waiver will be offered to all market participants that wish to
become Members of the Exchange and is equitable because it will allow
new firms the flexibility in resources needed to initially adjust to
the Exchange's market-model and functionality. In addition to this, the
proposed waiver intends to incentivize new Membership which will bring
increased liquidity and competition to the benefit of all market
participants.
    The Exchange also notes that the proposed fee is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because it will contribute to a portion of the
costs incurred by the Exchange in providing its Members with an
efficient and well-regulated market, which benefits all Members. As
stated, as an SRO, it is necessary for the Exchange to continuously
invest in robust programs, policies, and procedures to ensure its
markets are well-regulated in order to successfully carry out the
purposes of the Act and maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets,
and the protection of investors.

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 intramarket competition that is not necessary in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed rule change
will apply equally to all Members that reach an ADV of 100,000 shares
traded or greater, those in which less than 90% of their order volume
is retail order volume per month, and those that are not within their
first three months of new Membership on the Exchange. Although smaller
Members would be excluded from the proposed fee, the Exchange believes
that this may increase competition by encouraging additional order flow
from such smaller Members thereby contributing to a more diverse,
vibrant, and competitive market. In addition to this, though true
retail firms would be excluded from the proposed fee, the Exchange
believes that encouraging retail order flow to the Exchange will
benefit all market participants by providing more trading opportunities
and encouraging other Members to send orders which will contribute to
more robust levels of liquidity. While the proposed tier is only
available for Retail Orders, the Exchange notes it is attempting to
increase retail participation and that, as noted above, retail
participation is more likely to reflect long-term investment
intentions, and may therefore positively impact market quality.
Finally, while the proposed three month waiver of the Trading Rights
Fee only applies to new Members, this incentivizes new Members which
can be an important source of liquidity and facilitate competition
within the market.
    Next, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As previously
discussed, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market,
including competition for exchange memberships. Members have numerous
alternative venues that they may participate on, including 12 other
equities exchanges, as well as off-exchange venues, including over 50

alternative trading systems.\14\ The Exchange represents a small
percentage of the overall market. Based on publicly available
information, no single equities exchange has more than 20% market
share, and no exchange group has more than 22% market share.\15\
Indeed, while trade through and best execution obligations may require
a firm to access the Exchange, no firm is compelled to be a Member of
the Exchange in order to participate in the Exchange and may freely
choose to participate on the Exchange without holding a Membership. If
the proposed fee is unattractive to members, it is likely that the
Exchange will lose membership and market share as a result. As a
result, the Exchange carefully considers any increases to its fees in
concert, balancing the utility in remaining competitive with other
exchanges and with alternative trading systems exempted from compliance
with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges, including the
requirement to regulate their members, and in covering costs described
in the filing that are associated with maintaining its equities market
and its regulatory programs to ensure that the Exchange remains an
efficient and well-regulated marketplace. In addition to this the
Exchange notes that other exchanges currently have trading rights fees
in place,\16\ which have been previously filed with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Alternative
Trading Systems (``ATS'') List (June 30, 2019), available at https://www.sec.gov/foia/docs/atslist.htm.
    \15\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Equities Market Volume Summary
(July 31, 2019), available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share.
    \16\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, the Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference
for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices,
products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically, in
Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market
forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized
that current regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably
successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that
are most important to investors and listed companies.'' The fact that
this market is competitive has also long been recognized by the courts.
In NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit
stated as follows: ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow
is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market
system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that
act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of
where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to
take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange
possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of
order flow from broker dealers'. . . .''. Accordingly, the Exchange
does not believe its proposed fee change imposes any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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 \17\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \18\
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \18\ 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 Number SR-CboeEDGX-2019-050 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2019-050. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2019-050 and should be
submitted on or before September 10, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-17847 Filed 8-19-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


                EPA ICR No. 1365.11; OMB Control No. 2070-0091

                                 Attachment B

              Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act, Section 206
                               (15 U.S.C. 2646)

Sec. 2646. Contractor and laboratory accreditation

(a) Contractor accreditation
     A person may not -
      (1) inspect for asbestos-containing material in a school building under the authority of a local educational agency or in a public or commercial building,
      (2) prepare a management plan for such a school, or
      (3) design or conduct response actions, other than the type of action described in sections 2643(f) and 2644(c) of this title, with respect to friable asbestos-containing material in such a school or in a public or commercial building, unless such person is accredited by a State under subsection (b) of this section or is accredited pursuant to an  Administrator-approved course under subsection (c) of this section.

(b) Accreditation by State
	(1) Model plan
		(A) Persons to be accredited
		Within 180 days after October 22, 1986, the Administrator, in consultation with affected organizations, shall develop a model contractor accreditation plan for States to give accreditation to persons in the following categories:
                  (i) Persons who inspect for asbestos-containing material in school buildings under the authority of a local educational agency or in public or commercial buildings.
                  (ii) Persons who prepare management plans for such schools.
                  (iii) Persons who design or carry out response actions, other than the type of action described in sections 2643(f) and 2644(c) of this title, with respect to friable asbestos-containing material in such schools or in public or commercial buildings.
		(B) Plan requirements
		The plan shall include a requirement that any person in a category listed in paragraph (1) achieve a passing grade on an examination and participate in continuing education to stay informed about current asbestos inspection and response action technology. The examination shall demonstrate the knowledge of the person in areas that the Administrator prescribes as necessary and appropriate in each of the categories. Such examinations may include requirements for knowledge in the following areas:
                  (i) Recognition of asbestos-containing material and its physical characteristics.
                  (ii) Health hazards of asbestos and the relationship between asbestos exposure and disease.
                  (iii) Assessing the risk of asbestos exposure through a knowledge of percentage weight of asbestos-containing material, friability, age, deterioration, location and accessibility of materials, and advantages and disadvantages of dry and wet response action methods.
            (iv) Respirators and their use, care, selection, degree of protection
            afforded, fitting, testing, and maintenance and cleaning procedures.

                  (v) Appropriate work practices and control methods, including the use of high efficiency particle absolute vacuums, the use of amended water, and principles of negative air pressure equipment use and procedures.
                  (vi) Preparing a work area for response action work, including isolating work areas to prevent bystander or public exposure to asbestos, decontamination procedures, and procedures for dismantling work areas after completion of work.
                  (vii) Establishing emergency procedures to respond to sudden releases.
                  (viii) Air monitoring requirements and procedures.
                  (ix) Medical surveillance program requirements.
                  (x) Proper asbestos waste transportation and disposal procedures.
                  (xi) Housekeeping and personal hygiene practices, including the necessity of showers, and procedures to prevent asbestos exposure to an employee's family.
	(2) State adoption of plan
      Each State shall adopt a contractor accreditation plan at least as stringent as the model plan developed by the Administrator under paragraph (1), within 180 days after the commencement of the first regular session of the legislature of such State which is convened following the date on which the Administrator completes development of the model plan. In the case of a school operated under the defense dependents' education system provided for under the Defense Dependents' Education Act of 1978 (20 U.S.C. 921 et seq.), the Secretary of Defense shall adopt a contractor accreditation plan at least as stringent as that model.

(c) Accreditation by Administrator-approved course
	(1) Course approval
      Within 180 days after October 22, 1986, the Administrator shall ensure that any Environmental Protection Agency-approved asbestos training course is consistent with the model plan (including testing requirements) developed under subsection (b) of this section. A contractor may be accredited by taking and passing such a course.
	(2) Treatment of persons with previous EPA asbestos training
	A person who -
		(A) completed an Environmental Protection Agency-approved asbestos training course before October 22, 1986, and
            (B) passed (or passes) an asbestos test either before or after October 22, 1986, may be accredited under paragraph (1) if the Administrator determines that the course and test are equivalent to the requirements of the model plan developed under subsection (b) of this section. If the Administrator so determines, the person shall be considered accredited for the purposes of this subchapter until a date that is one year after the date on which the State in which such person is employed establishes an accreditation program pursuant to subsection (b) of this section.
	(3) Lists of courses
      The Administrator, in consultation with affected organizations, shall publish (and revise as necessary) -
 a list of asbestos courses and tests in effect before October 22, 1986,
                     which qualify for equivalency treatment under paragraph (2), and
            (B) a list of asbestos courses and tests which the Administrator determines under paragraph (1) are consistent with the model plan and which will qualify a contractor for accreditation under such paragraph.

(d) Laboratory accreditation
      (1) The Administrator shall provide for the development of an accreditation program for laboratories by the National Institute of Standards and Technology in accordance with paragraph (2). The Administrator shall transfer such funds as are necessary to the National Institute of Standards and Technology to carry out such program.
      (2) The National Institute of Standards and Technology, upon request by the Administrator, shall, in consultation with affected organizations -
            (A) within 360 days after October 22, 1986, develop an accreditation program for laboratories which conduct qualitative and semi-quantitative analyses of bulk samples of asbestos-containing material, and
            (B) within 720 days after October 22, 1986, develop an accreditation program for laboratories which conduct analyses of air samples of asbestos from school buildings under the authority of a local educational agency.
      (3) A laboratory which plans to carry out any such analysis shall comply with the requirements of the accreditation program.

(e) Financial assistance contingent on use of accredited persons
      (1) A school which is an applicant for financial assistance under section 505 of the Asbestos School Hazard Abatement Act of 1984 (20 U.S.C. 4014) is not eligible for such assistance unless the school, in carrying out the requirements of this subchapter -
            (A) uses a person (or persons) -
                  (i) who is accredited by a State which has adopted an accreditation plan based on the model plan developed under subsection (b) of this section, or
                  (ii) who is accredited pursuant to an Administrator-approved course under subsection (c) of this section, and
            (B) uses a laboratory (or laboratories) which is accredited under the program developed under subsection (d) of this section.
      (2) This subsection shall apply to any financial assistance provided under the Asbestos School Hazard Abatement Act of 1984 (20 U.S.C. 4011 et seq.) for activities performed after the following dates:
            (A) In the case of activities performed by persons, after the date which is one year after October 22, 1986.
            (B) In the case of activities performed by laboratories, after the date which is 180 days after the date on which a laboratory accreditation program is completed under subsection (d) of this section.

(f) List of EPA-approved courses
Not later than August 31, 1988, and every three months thereafter until August 31, 1991, the Administrator shall publish in the Federal Register a list of all Environmental Protection Agency-approved asbestos training courses for persons to achieve accreditation in each category described in subsection (b)(1)(A) of this section and for laboratories to achieve accreditation. The Administrator may continue publishing such a list after August 31, 1991, at such times as the Administrator considers it useful. The list shall include the name and address of each approved trainer and, to the extent available, a list of all the geographic sites where training courses will take place. The Administrator shall provide a copy of the list to each State official on the list published by the Administrator under section 2645(d)(6) of this title and to each regional office of the Environmental Protection Agency.


[Federal Register: February 25, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 37)]
[Notices]
[Page 10019-10020]
[DOCID:fr25fe08-60]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings  1

February 15, 2008.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:
    Docket Numbers: EC08-15-000.
    Applicants: Calpine Corporation and Its Public Utili; Harbinger
Capital Partners Master Fund I; Harbinger Capital Partners Special
Situa; SPO Partners II, L.P.; San Francisco Partners II, L.P.
    Description: Calpine Corporation et al submits a Notification of
Change in Circumstances in compliance with Ordering Paragraph 7 of
FERC's 12/31/07 Order.
    Filed Date: 02/05/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080214-0060.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 26, 2008.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:
    Docket Numbers: EG08-36-000.
    Applicants: High Prairie Wind Farm II, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of High Prairie Wind Farm II, LLC.
    Filed Date: 02/13/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080213-5044.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 05, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: EG08-37-000.
    Applicants: Old Trail Wind Farm, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Old Trail Wind Farm, LLC.
    Filed Date: 02/13/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080213-5046.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 05, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: EG08-38-000.
    Applicants: Telocaset Wind Power Partners, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Telocaset Wind Power Partners, LLC.
    Filed Date: 02/13/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080213-5047.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 05, 2008.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER96-149-012; ER97-2414-011.
    Applicants: Lowell Cogeneration Company Limited Partnership;
Dartmouth Power Associates Limited Partnership.
    Description: Lowell Cogeneration Company Limited Partnership
submits notice of change.
    Filed Date: 02/12/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080214-0049.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, March 04, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER01-1011-014; 20080214-0047; ER01-1335-012; ER01-
642-010; ER07-312-002.
    Applicants: CottonWood Energy Company, LP; Dogwood Energy, LLC;
Magnolia Energy, LP; Redbud Energy, LP.
    Description: Cottonwood Energy Co, LP et al submits notice of
change in status.
    Filed Date: 02/12/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080214-0047.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, March 04, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER02-1633-004; ER04-1099-003; ER03-25-003; ER00-38-
006; ER03-290-004; ER00-1115-005; ER04-1080-003; ER00-3562-005; ER03-
209-004; ER05-816-002; ER05-1422-004; ER05-819-002; ER05-820-002; ER05-
48-002; ER04-831-004; ER03-36-006; ER02-1367-004; ER03-446-004; ER03-
341-004; ER03-342-004; ER02-1959-004; ER02-2227-006; ER06-441-001;
ER02-600-007; ER99-1983-005; ER01-2688-009; ER02-2229-005; ER02-1257-
004; ER03-24-005; ER04-1221-001; ER05-67-002; ER01-480-005; ER05-68-
002; ER04-1081-003; ER03-838-005; ER03-49-003; ER99-970-005; ER03-1288-
003; ER07-1335-003; ER01-2887-006; ER04-1100-003; ER02-1319-005; ER06-
754-003; ER06-755-002; ER06-749-002; ER06-751-003; ER06-753-002; ER06-
741-002; ER06-756-002; ER06-750-002; ER06-742-002; ER06-752-002.
    Applicants: Auburndale Peaker Energy Center, LLC; Bethpage Energy
Center 3, LLC; Blue Spruce Energy Center, LLC; Broad River Energy, LLC;
Calpine California Equipment Finance Company, LLC; Calpine Construction
Finance Company, LP; Calpine Energy Management, LP; Calpine Energy
Services, LP; CES Marketing V, LLC; CES Marketing VI, LP; Calpine
Merchant Services Company, Inc.; CES Marketing IX, LLC; CES Marketing
X, LLC; Calpine Bethpage 3, LLC; Calpine Newark, LLC; Calpine
Northbrook Energy Marketing, LLC; Calpine Oneta Power, LP; Calpine
Philadelphia, Inc.; Calpine Power America--OR, LLC; Calpine Power
America--CA, LLC; CPN Bethpage 3rd Turbine, Inc.; Creed Energy Center,
LLC; Decatur Energy Center, LLC; Delta Energy Center, LLC; Geyers Power
Company, LLC; Gilroy Energy Center, LLC; Goose Haven Energy Center,
LLC; Hermiston Power Partnership; Los Esteros Critical Energy Facility,
LLC; Mankato Energy Center, LLC; Metcalf Energy Center, LLC; Mobile
Energy, LLC; Pastoria Energy Center, LLC; PCF2, LLC; Power Contract
Financing, LLC; Riverside Energy Center, LLC; RockGen Energy, LLC;
Rocky Mountain Energy Center, LLC; Santa Rosa Energy Center, LLC; South
Point Energy Center, LLC; Zion Energy LLC; Auburndale Power Partners,
LP; Calpine Gilroy Cogen, LP; Carville Energy, LLC; Columbia Energy,
LLC; CPN Pryor Funding Corporation; KIAC Partners; Los Medanos Energy
Center, LLC; Morgan Energy Center, LLC; Nissequogue Cogen Partners;
Pine Bluff Energy, LLC.
    Description: Auburndale Peaker Energy Center, LLC et al submits a
joint notification of changes in status.
    Filed Date: 01/31/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080214-0050.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 21, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER03-1331-003; ER99-1722-005.
    Applicants: Williams Power Company, Inc.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Williams Gas Marketing,
Inc.
    Filed Date: 02/14/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080214-5047.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, March 06, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-67-001.
    Applicants: Ameren Services Company.
    Description: Union Electric Company submits a report concerning
refunds provided to the City of Farmington, Missouri.
    Filed Date: 01/28/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080130-0077.

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 19, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-169-002.
    Applicants: Ameren Energy Marketing Company.
    Description: Refund Report of Ameren Energy Marketing Company.
    Filed Date: 02/14/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080214-5036.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, March 06, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-92-001.
    Applicants: Virginia Electric and Power Company.
    Description: Virginia Electric and Power Company requests an
extension of time to provide responses to Questions 1 and 2 of the FERC
Staff's 12/19/07 deficiency letter until 2/29/08.
    Filed Date: 02/12/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080214-0057.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, March 04, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-116-000.
    Applicants: Avista Corporation.
    Description: Withdrawal of Filing of Avista Corporation.
    Filed Date: 02/12/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080211-5113.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, March 04, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-124-001.
    Applicants: Dynegy Oakland, LLC.
    Description: Dynegy Oakland, LLC submits a request for an Annual
Fee In Lieu of a Return to be included in the calculation of the Annual
Fixed Revenue Requirement for Contract Year 2008.
    Filed Date: 02/13/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080214-0020.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 05, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-127-000.
    Applicants: Avista Corporation.
    Description: Withdrawal of Filing of Avista Corporation.
    Filed Date: 02/12/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080211-5112.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, March 04, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-234-001.
    Applicants: EWO Marketing, LP.
    Description: EWO Marketing, LP submits compliance filing.
    Filed Date: 02/12/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080213-0087.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, March 04, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-553-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Company submits a revised
rate sheet to the Amended and Restated Mandalay Generating Station
Radial Lines Agreement with Reliant Energy Mandalay Inc.
    Filed Date: 02/12/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080213-0083.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, March 04, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-554-000.
    Applicants: Allegheny Power.
    Description: Allegheny Power requests acceptance of the revisions
to its FERC Electric Tariff, Second Revised Volume 6 to go into effect
3/14/08.
    Filed Date: 02/12/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080213-0084.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, March 04, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-555-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: ISO New England, Inc submits its Capital Projects
Report and schedule of the unamortized costs of the ISO's funded
capital expenditures for the quarter ending 12/31/07.
    Filed Date: 02/12/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080213-0085.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, March 04, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-556-000; ER06-615-020.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corp.
    Description: California Independent System Operator Corporation
submits proposed amendments to the approved MRTU Tariff to implement an
Interim Capacity Procurement Mechanism.
    Filed Date: 02/08/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080213-0088.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, February 29, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-557-000.
    Applicants: Xcel Energy Services, Inc.
    Description: Public Service Company of Colorado submits Notice of
Cancellation for 39 legacy point to point transmission service
agreements etc.
    Filed Date: 02/13/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080214-0018.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 05, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-558-000.
    Applicants: WSPP Inc.
    Description: WSPP, Inc submits a request to amend the WSPP
Agreement to include Entergy Texas Inc et al.
    Filed Date: 02/13/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080214-0019.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 05, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-560-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: New York Independent System Operator, Inc submits
proposed Attachment BB to its Open Access Transmission Tariff to
incorporate a New York State Gas-Electric Coordination Protocal in is
tariff sheets.
    Filed Date: 01/31/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080214-0021.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 21, 2008.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-3434 Filed 2-22-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 109 (Thursday, June 6, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34139-34140]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13336]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2013-23]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to
improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of
FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the
inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to
affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number involved and must be received on or before June 26, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2013-
0189 using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Theresa White, ANM-113,
Standardization Branch, Transport Airplane Directorate, Federal
Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(425) 227-2956; Andrea Copeland, ARM-208,
Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202)
267-3664.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 23, 2013.
Lirio Liu,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2013-0189.
    Petitioner: AIRBUS.
    Section of 14 CFR Affected: 25.813(e) at Amendment 46,
121.310(f)(5); and 121.310(f)(6).
    Description of Relief Sought: Relief from the requirements of
Sec. Sec.  25.813(e) and 121.310(f)(5) & (6) of Title 14, Code of
Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to allow the installation of four mini-
suites with doors in the cabin of the AIRBUS Model A321 for Jet Blue
Airlines, a U.S. operator.

[FR Doc. 2013-13336 Filed 6-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P