[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 3, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31138-31139]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14222]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP18-118-000]

Rover Pipeline LLC; Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review
of the UGS-Crawford Meter Station Project

    On March 15, 2018, Rover Pipeline LLC filed an application in
Docket No. CP18-118-000 requesting a Certificate of Public Convenience
and Necessity pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act to
construct and operate certain natural gas pipeline facilities. The
proposed project is known as the UGS-Crawford Meter Station Project
(Project), and would receive up to 35 million standard cubic feet per
day of pipeline quality natural gas from an interconnect with the
gathering pipeline facilities of Utica Gas Services, LLC.
    On March 28, 2018, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the Project.
Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal
authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and
to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization
within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's
Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Project. This instant notice
identifies the FERC staff's planned schedule for the completion of the
EA for the Project.

Schedule for Environmental Review

    Issuance of EA: July 13, 2018.
    90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline: October 11, 2018.
    If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be
provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the
Project's progress.

Project Description

    The Project would consist of one new meter and regulating station
on agricultural land west of Highway 221 in Salem Township, Jefferson
County, Ohio. The station would consist of various components including
a horizontal filter separator, ultrasonic meter skid, flow control
skid, gas quality and measurement buildings, satellite communications,
and a condensate storage tank. The facility would be constructed on
3.64 acres of land, of which 0.9 acre would be fenced and maintained
for operation.

Background

    On May 1, 2018, the Commission issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare
an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed UGS-Crawford Meter Station
Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues (NOI). The NOI
was sent to affected landowners; federal, state, and local government
agencies; elected officials; Native American tribes; other interested
parties; and local libraries. In response to the NOI, the Commission
received comments from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding impacts
on multiple federally listed sensitive species. All substantive
comments will be addressed in the EA.

Additional Information

    In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to
keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets,
the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This can
reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by
automatically providing you with notification of these filings,
document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the
FERC website (www.ferc.gov). Using the eLibrary link, select General
Search from the eLibrary menu, enter the selected date range and Docket
Number excluding the last three digits (i.e., CP18-118), and follow the
instructions. For assistance with access to eLibrary, the helpline can
be reached at<PHONE_NUMBER>, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at
[email protected]. The eLibrary link on the FERC website also
provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule makings.

    Dated: June 26, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-14222 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 186 (Friday, September 25, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57803-57804]
[FR Doc No: 2015-24376]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. DI15-4-000]

Steve Patton; Notice of Declaration of Intention and Soliciting
Comments, Protests, and Motions To Intervene

    Take notice that the following application has been filed with the
Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Declaration of Intention.
    b. Docket No: DI15-4-000.
    c. Date Filed: May 11, 2015.
    d. Applicant: Steve Patton.
    e. Name of Project: Patton Colorado Hydropower Project.
    f. Location: The proposed Patton Colorado Hydropower Project will
be located on Columbine Creek (feeder to South Fork of Rio Grande) in
the town of Southfork, Mineral County, Colorado.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act, 16
U.S.C 817(b) (2012).
    h. Applicant Contact: Steve Patton, 2418 Hawthorne, Amarillo, TX
79109; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed
to Jennifer Polardino,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to intervene
is: 30 days from the issuance date of this notice by the Commission.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, protests, and motions to intervene using the Commission's
eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without
prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact
information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll
free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please
send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any
filing should include docket number DI15-04-000.
    k. Description of Project: The proposed run-of-river Patton
Colorado Hydropower Project would consist of: (1) Diverting water from
Columbine Creek through either a 10-inch-diameter pipe or two 6-inch
diameter pipes, by 220-foot-long, leading to a gravitation water vortex
type generating unit; (2) a generating unit rated between 2 to 10
kilowatt (kW) with a rated head of 8 feet; and (3) appurtenant
facilities.
    When a Declaration of Intention is filed with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, the Federal Power Act requires the Commission to
investigate and determine if the project would affect the interests of
interstate or foreign commerce. The Commission also determines whether
or not the project: (1) Would be located on a navigable waterway; (2)
would occupy public lands or reservations of the United States; (3)
would utilize surplus water or water power from a government dam; or
(4) would be located on a non-navigable stream over which Congress has
Commerce Clause jurisdiction and would be constructed or enlarged after
1935.
    l. Locations of the Application: This filing may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket
number field to access the document. You may

also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-
208-3676 or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call (202) 502-
8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the
address in item (h) above.
    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: All filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTESTS'', AND
``MOTIONS TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the Docket 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.

    Dated: September 3, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-24376 Filed 9-24-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: December 9, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 237)]
[Notices]
[Page 74754-74756]
[DOCID:fr09de08-82]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-V05-2-2006-0785]

AmerenUE; American Airlines, Inc.; CBS Outdoor, Inc.; Dixie
Divers, Inc.; Graver Tank and Mfg. Co.; Hamon Custodis, Inc.;
International Paper Co.; Metalplate Galvanizing, Inc.; Fisher Mills,
Inc.; Pullman Power, LLC; U.S. Ecology Idaho, Inc.; West Pharmaceutical
Services, Inc.; Zurn Industries, Inc.; and 3M Co: Technical Amendments
to, and Revocation of, Permanent Variances

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA),
Department of Labor.

ACTION: Notice of technical amendments to, and revocation of, permanent
variances.

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

SUMMARY: With this notice, the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (``OSHA'' or ``the Agency'') is making technical
amendments to existing permanent variances, and revoking several
others. The technical amendments involve renaming the employers
identified on eight of the variances, and also revising the worksites
covered by one of these variances. In addition, the Agency is revoking
six variances based on evidence that the employers no longer need the
variances.

DATES: The effective date of the permanent variance is December 9,
2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Contact Ms. MaryAnn Garrahan, Director, Office
of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, Room N-3655, OSHA,
U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20210; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Access electronic
copies of this notice at OSHA's Web site, http://www.osha.gov, by
selecting Federal Register, ``Date of Publication,'' and then ``2008.''

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Agency has 23 permanent variances currently in effect. After
reviewing these variances, OSHA found that employers identified in
eight of these variances had new names (two resulting from the sale of
company assets), and one of these employers relocated several worksites
specified in the variance. The review also found that six of the
employers do not need variances because: The conditions requiring the
variance no longer exist; a new standard replaced the standard from
which the employer received the variance; or the employer is no longer
in business. With this notice, the Agency is correcting these problems.
OSHA believes this notice will: Enable the Agency to accurately and
expeditiously determine the employers covered by a variance, thereby
enhancing enforcement of the variance; ensure that a variance
identifies and covers the appropriate worksites; and, for revoked
variances, notify employees that the employer is no longer covered by
the variance and must comply with the appropriate OSHA standard.
    The technical amendments implemented by this notice do not alter
the substantive requirements of the variances that remain in effect.
For variances revised by this notice, these amendments maintain the
regulatory obligations specified in the variances granted to the
employers, thereby continuing to ensure the safety and health
protection afforded to employees by the variances. For variances
revoked by this notice, existing OSHA standards will provide employees
with the necessary protection. A list of variances that remain in
effect by this notice is available on OSHA's Web site at http://
www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/variances/variances.html.
    With this notice, the Agency is making only technical corrections
to existing variances, or revoking variances no longer needed by
employers for employee protection. Accordingly, this notice will not
have a substantive effect on employers or employees, and OSHA therefore
finds that public notice-and-comment procedures specified under Section
6(d) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655),
and by 29 CFR 1905.11 or 1905.13, are unnecessary.
    The following table provides details about the variances affected
by this notice:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Federal Register     OSHA standards
 Name of  employer  (company) *      Variance No.        Date granted            cite              affected
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Airlines, Inc..........  V-73-3............  06/27/1973........  38 FR 16944.......  1910.107(g)(7) and
                                                                                1910.108(f)(4).
Custodis Construction Co., Inc.   V-73-13...........  04/03/1973........  38 FR 8545........  1926.552(c),
 (now Hamon Custodis, Inc.).                                                                   1926.451(1),
                                                                                1926.451(4), and
                                                                                1926.451(5).
Dixie Divers, Inc...............  V-97-1............  12/20/1999........  64 FR 71242.......  1910.423(b)(2),
                                                                                1910.423(c)(3)(ii
                                                                                i), and
                                                                                1910.426(b)(1).
Hammermill Papers Group (now      V-83-1............  09/07/1983........  48 FR 40463.......  1910.261(c)(9)(i).
 International Paper Co.).
Envirosafe Services of Idaho,     V-93-1............  06/07/1994........  59 FR 29440.......  1910.106(b)(2)(vii
 Inc. (now US Ecology Idaho,                                                                   i)(F).
 Inc.).
Fisher Mills, Inc...............  V-74-2............  01/11/1974........  39 FR 1677-1678...  1910.176(f).
Gannett Outdoor Companies (now    V-90-1............  03/01/1991........  56 FR 8801........  1910.27(d)(1)(ii),
 CBS Outdoor, Inc.).                                                                           1910.27(d)(2),
                                                                                and
                                                                                1910.27(d)(5).
Graver Tank & Mfg. Co., Inc.....  V-85-6............  04/03/1973........  39 FR 8545-8548...  1926.552(c).
Metalplate and Coatings, Inc.     V-74-49...........  12/28/1976........  41 FR 56110.......  1910.22(c) and
 (now Metalplate Galvanizing,                                                                  1910.23(c)(3).
 Inc.).
Minnesota Mining and              V-77-4............  03/10/1978........  43 FR 9887........  1910.106(d)(5)(vi)
 Manufacturing Co. (now the 3M    V-77-14...........                                           (B).
 Co.).
M. W. Kellogg Co. (now Pullman    V-73-13...........  04/03/1973........  38 FR 8545........  1926.552(c).
 Power, LLC).
Union Electric Co. (now           V-74-5............  10/18/1974........  39 FR 37278.......  1910(28)(g)(1).
 AmerenUE).
West Co., Inc. (now West          V-77-9............  01/20/1978........  43 FR 2945........  1910.217(c)(3)(iii
 Pharmaceutical Services, Inc.).                                                               )(E).
Zurn Industries, Inc............  V-82-7............  05/14/1985........  50 FR 2145-2149...  1926.552(c)(1),
                                                                                1926.552(c)(2),
                                                                                1926.552(c)(3),
                                                                                and
                                                                                1926.552(c)(14)(i
                                                                                ).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* As listed on the original variance.

II. Technical Amendments to Permanent Variances

A. Renaming Companies

    1. AmerenUE; CBS Outdoor, Inc.; Metalplate Galvanizing, Inc.; U.S.
Ecology Idaho, Inc.; Viacom Outdoor, Inc.; West Pharmaceutical
Services, Inc.; and the 3M Co. In the original variances, the names of
these companies were, respectively, Union Electric Co.; Gannett Outdoor
Services; Metalplate and Coatings, Inc.; Envirosafe Services of Idaho,
Inc.; West Co., Inc.; and Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co.
Recently, officers of these companies sent letters to OSHA stating that
these names were no longer valid, and requesting the Agency to correct
the variances using the new names (Exs. OSHA-V05-2-2006-0785-0002-004).
    2. Hamon Custodis, Inc. By letter dated June 20, 1989, Charles
Williams, Director of Marketing and Construction for Custodis Cottrell,
Inc., notified the Agency that the company changed its name from
Custodis Construction Co., Inc., the name under which OSHA granted the
original variance (Ex. OSHA-V05-2-2006-0785-0005). In a letter dated
April 27, 2005, Thomas Pratt, Director of Health, Safety, and Quality
at Hamon Custodis, informed OSHA that ``Hamon Custodis'' was now the
corporate name for Custodis Cottrell, Inc. (Ex. OSHA-V05-2-2006-0785-
0006). A subsequent letter dated August 10, 2005, provided
documentation showing that Hamon Custodis acquired the business assets,
including the chimney-construction assets, of Custodis Cottrell, Inc.
on July 23, 1998 (Ex. OSHA-V05-2-2006-0785-0007). This documentation
also included certification from the Director of Construction for Hamon
Custodis, John Huchko, attesting that Hamon Custodis continues to
perform chimney-construction work under the conditions specified by the
variance order (Ex. OSHA-V05-2-2006-0785-0008).
    3. Pullman Power, LLC. A letter from Pullman Power, LLC (``Pullman
Power'') dated July 7, 2005, provided OSHA with a copy of an Asset
Purchase Agreement showing that Pullman Power acquired the business
assets of Pullman Power Products Corp., including equipment and
property, on October 4, 2000 (Ex. OSHA-V05-2-2006-0785-0009). In this
letter, Mr. Dan Fangio, president of Pullman Power, stated that the
company continues to perform chimney-construction work as described in
the variance, and complies with the conditions specified in the
variance order when doing so. In a subsequent letter from Pullman
Power, Mr. Fangio verified that Pullman Power was a successor to the M.
W. Kellogg Co., the employer identified in the original variance (Ex.
OSHA-V05-2-2006-0785-0010). In this letter, Mr. Fangio also certified
the following merger-and-acquisition history of Pullman Power:
    (a) 1980--M. W. Kellogg Co. acquired by Wheelabrator-Frye, Inc.
    (b) 1983--Wheelabrator-Frye, Inc. merged with the Signal Companies.
    (c) 1985--the Signal Companies merged with Allied Corp. to form
Allied-Signal, Inc.
    (d) 1986--Allied-Signal, Inc. formed a holding corporation, the
Henley Group, Inc., that included Wheelabrator Technologies, Inc. as a
wholly owned subsidiary.
    (e) 1990--Waste Management, Inc. assumed control of Wheelabrator
Technologies, Inc., forming Pullman Power Products Corp. as a
subsidiary corporation.
    (f) 2000--Resco Holdings, Inc., a subsidiary of Waste Management,
Inc., sold Pullman Power Products Corp. to Pullman Power and Structural
Technologies, LLC (the parent company of Pullman Power).

B. Revising Covered Worksites

    West Pharmaceutical Services, Inc. By facsimile letter dated May
19, 2004, (Ex. OSHA-V05-2-2006-0785-0011), West Pharmaceutical
Services, Inc., asked OSHA to revise the worksites covered by the
variance. This letter also noted that several of the original
facilities, in Phoenixville, PA, Millville, NJ, and Kinston, NC, either
did not require coverage by the variance or were no longer in
operation. The employer is retaining coverage for the worksites at
Kearny, NE, and St. Petersburg, FL, and is requesting to add coverage
to the following worksites:
    West Pharmaceutical Services, Inc., 347 Oliver Street, Jersey
Shore, PA 17740.
    West Pharmaceutical Services, Inc., 101 Gordon Drive, Lionville, PA
19341.
    West Pharmaceutical Services, Inc., 179 West Airport Road, Lititz,
PA 17543.
    West Pharmaceutical Services, Inc., Route 70, Kinston, NC 28501.

C. Revoking Permanent Variances

    1. American Airlines, Inc. The Agency granted American Airlines,
Inc. a variance permitting it to use painted lines instead of ``no
smoking'' signs to identify smoking areas at its Maintenance and
Engineering Center in Tulsa, OK. The employer subsequently prohibited
smoking at this facility, and, in an e-mail to OSHA, stated that it no
longer needed the variance (Ex. OSHA-V05-2-2006-0785-0012).
    2. Dixie Divers, Inc. On February 17, 2004, OSHA published a final
rule that added Appendix C to its Commercial Diving Operations
(``CDO'') Standard at 29 CFR 1910, subpart T (69 FR 7351). The appendix
permits employers of recreational diving instructors and diving guides
to comply with an alternative set of requirements instead of the
decompression-chamber requirements specified in the CDO Standard. This
set of requirements duplicates the conditions of the variance granted
to Dixie Divers, Inc. Therefore, these requirements provide the
employer with the same relief, and employees with the same protection,
afforded to them by the variance. Accordingly, the variance is
redundant and unnecessary.
    3. Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. On March 28, 1996, Graver Tank was
acquired by Astrotech International Corporation. Effective October 28,
1997, Astrotech merged with ITEQ Storage Systems Inc., as noted in a
1998 10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) (Ex.
OSHA-V05-2-2006-0785-0013). In February 2000, ITEQ sold Graver Tank's
assets to a private entity. The company was liquidated soon thereafter,
obviating the need for a variance, as documented by SEC Proxy Statement
Form DEF 14A, dated May 1, 2000 (Ex. OSHA-V05-2-2006-0785-0014).
    4. Fisher Mills, Inc. On March 20, 2001, Fisher Communications Inc.
sold the assets of Fisher Mills to Pendleton Flour Mills, Inc.
Pendleton subsequently closed the mill's operations, obviating the need
for a variance. This sale is documented in Fisher Communication's 8-K
form filed with the SEC on March 16, 2001 (Ex. OSHA-V05-2-2006-0785-
0015). The mill site, which is no longer in operation, was purchased by
King County, WA, on July 28, 2003 (Ex. OSHA-V05-2-2006-0785-0016).
    5. International Paper Co. International Paper Co. submitted a
letter to OSHA dated August 11, 2005, stating that it was the successor
to Hammermill Papers Group (Ex. OSHA-V05-2-2006-0785-0017). In this
letter, International Paper Co. noted that its Erie, PA, mill, the only
mill covered by the variance granted to Hammermill, is no longer in
operation, thereby obviating the need for the variance.
    6. Zurn Industries. Zurn Industries submitted a letter to OSHA
dated April 16, 2004, stating that it sold its chimney- and tower-
erection businesses (Ex. OSHA-V05-2-2006-0785-0018), thereby making the
variance unnecessary.

III. Decision

    Based on the information described herein, including the finding
that this notice will not alter the substantive requirements of the
variances and will maintain the protection afforded to employees by the
variances, the Agency is taking the following actions:
    A. Revising the names of employers as shown in the following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Name in original variance                  Revised name
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metalplate and Coatings, Inc..............  Metalplate Galvanizing, Inc.
West Co...................................  West Pharmaceutical
                                             Services, Inc.
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co.....  3M Co.
Custodis Construction Co., Inc............  Hamon Custodis, Inc.
M. W. Kellogg Co..........................  Pullman Power, LLC
Envirosafe Services of Idaho, Inc.........  US Ecology Idaho, Inc.
Union Electric Co.........................  AmerenUE
Gannett Outdoor Services..................  CBS Outdoor, Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    B. Adding worksites at Jersey Shore, Pa., Lionville, Pa., Lititz,
Pa., and Kinston, N.C. to the variance granted to West Pharmaceutical
Services, Inc. (formerly the West Co.).
    C. Revoking the variances granted to American Airlines, Inc., Dixie
Divers, Inc., Graver Tank and Mfg. Co., Fisher Mills Co., International
Paper Co. (the successor employer to Hammermill Papers Group), and Zurn
Industries.

IV. Authority and Signature

    Thomas M. Stohler, Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC, directed the preparation of this
notice. This notice is issued under the authority specified by Section
6(d) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655),
Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2007 (72 FR 31160), and 29 CFR part
1905.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on November 18, 2008.
Thomas M. Stohler,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. E8-29002 Filed 12-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register: October 29, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 210)]
[Notices]
[Page 64373-64374]
[DOCID:fr29oc08-99]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday,
November 6, 2008 at 2 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (5), (6), (7), 9(ii) and (10) permit consideration of
the scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Aguilar, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday,
November 6, 2008 will be:
    Formal orders of investigation;
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an
enforcement nature;
    Adjudicatory matters; and

    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 23, 2008.
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-25715 Filed 10-28-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 28, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12062-12063]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4669]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0001]

Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of
Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). At least one
portion of the meeting will be closed to the public.

    Name of Committee: Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory
Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on March 27, 2012, from 8
a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Location: FDA White Oak Campus, Building 31 Conference Center, the
Great Room (rm. 1503), 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD
20993-0002. Information regarding special accommodations due to a
disability, visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed at:
http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm; under the heading
``Resources for You,'' click on ``Public Meetings at the FDA White Oak
Campus.'' Please note that visitors to the White Oak Campus must enter
through Building 1.
    Contact Person: Kristina Toliver, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave. Bldg.
31, rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX: 301-847-
8533, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FDA Advisory Committee Information
Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC area), and
follow the prompts to the desired center or product area. Please call
the Information Line for up-to-date information on this meeting. A
notice in the Federal Register about last minute modifications that
impact a previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always
be published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you
should always check the Agency's Web site and call the appropriate
advisory committee hot line/phone line to learn about possible
modifications before coming to the meeting.
    Agenda: On March 27, 2012, the committee will begin with a closed
session from 8 a.m. to 10:45 a.m. Following the closed session, from 11
a.m. to 5 p.m., the meeting will be open to the public. The committee
will discuss biologics license application 125410, proposed tradename
REPLAGAL (agalsidase alfa), submitted by Shire Human Genetics
Therapies, for an enzyme replacement therapy for patients with Fabry
disease.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee link.
    Procedure: On March 27, 2012, from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m., the meeting
is open to the public. Interested persons may present data,
information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before
the committee. Written submissions may be made to the contact person on
or before March 13, 2012. Oral presentations from the public will be
scheduled between approximately 2:10 p.m. and 3:10 p.m. Those
individuals interested in making formal oral presentations should
notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general
nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and
addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the
approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before
March 5, 2012. Time allotted

for each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants
requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated
during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a
lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing
session. The contact person will notify interested persons regarding
their request to speak by March 6, 2012.
    Closed Presentation of Data: On March 27, 2012, from 8 a.m. to
10:45 a.m., the meeting will be closed to permit discussion and review
of trade secret and/or confidential information (5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (4)).
During this session, the committee will discuss confidential
manufacturing information.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Kristina Toliver at
least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: February 23, 2012.
Jill Hartzler Warner,
Acting Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
[FR Doc. 2012-4669 Filed 2-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 25 (Thursday, February 6, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6982-6986]
[FR Doc No: 2020-02280]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88109; File No. SR-NYSENAT-2019-31]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE National, Inc.; Suspension of
and Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or
Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change To Establish Fees for the NYSE
National Integrated Feed

January 31, 2020.

I. Introduction

    On December 4, 2019, NYSE National, Inc. (``NYSE National'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to establish fees for the NYSE National Integrated
Feed. The proposed rule change was immediately effective upon filing
with the Commission pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act.\3\ The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on December 26, 2019.\4\ The Commission received two comment letters on
the proposal.\5\ Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act,\6\ the
Commission is hereby: (1) Temporarily suspending the proposed rule
change; and (2) instituting proceedings to determine whether to approve
or disapprove the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). A proposed rule change may take
effect upon filing with the Commission if it is designated by the
exchange as ``establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by the self-regulatory organization on any person, whether
or not the person is a member of the self-regulatory organization.''
15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). However, the Commission notes that, by
its terms, the proposed rule change would not impose any fees for
the NYSE National Integrated Feed until February 3, 2020. See infra
note 7 and accompanying text.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87797 (December 18,
2019), 84 FR 71025 (December 26, 2019) (``Notice'').
    \5\ See Letter from Tyler Gellasch, Executive Director, The
Healthy Markets Association, to Vanessa Countryman, Office of the
Secretary, Commission, dated January 16, 2020 (``Healthy Markets
Letter''); Letter from Robert Toomey, Managing Director and
Associate General Counsel, Securities Industry and Financial Markets
Association (``SIFMA''), to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary,
Commission, dated January 21, 2020 (``SIFMA Letter'').
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to establish fees for the NYSE National
Integrated Feed and to make these fees operative on February 3,
2020.\7\ According to the Exchange, the NYSE National Integrated Feed
is a NYSE National-only market data feed that provides vendors and
subscribers on a real-time basis with a unified view of events, in
sequence, as they appear on the NYSE National matching engine.\8\ The
NYSE National Integrated Feed includes depth-of-book order data, last
sale data, security status updates (e.g., trade corrections and trading
halts), and stock summary messages.\9\ It also includes information
about the Exchange's best bid or offer at any given time.\10\ The
Exchange proposes the following fees for the NYSE National Integrated
Feed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange currently does not charge any fees for the NYSE
National Integrated Feed. See Notice, supra note 4, at 71026.
    \8\ See id.
    \9\ See id.
    \10\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     $2,500 per month access fee, which would be charged (once
per firm) to any data recipient that receives a data feed of the NYSE
National Integrated Feed; \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Data recipients that only use display devices to view NYSE
National Integrated Feed data and do not separately receive a data
feed would not be charged an access fee. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     $1,500 per month redistribution fee, which would be
charged (once per redistributor account) to any redistributor \12\ of
the NYSE National Integrated Feed;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ A redistributor would be a vendor or person that provides a
real-time NYSE National market data product externally to a data
recipient that is not its affiliate or wholly owned subsidiary, or
to any system that an external data recipient uses, irrespective of
the means of transmission or access. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     $10 per month professional per user fee and $1 per month
non-professional per user fee, which would apply to each display device
that has access to the NYSE National Integrated Feed; \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Non-display use \14\ fees:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Non-display use would mean accessing, processing, or
consuming the NYSE National Integrated Feed, delivered directly or
through a redistributor, for a purpose other than in support of a
data recipient's display or further internal or external
redistribution. See id. at 71026-27. As proposed, non-display use
would include trading uses such as high frequency or algorithmic
trading, as well as any trading in any asset class, automated order
or quote generation and order pegging, price referencing for
algorithmic trading or smart order routing, operations controls
programs, investment analysis, order verification, surveillance
programs, risk management, compliance, and portfolio management. See
id. at 71027. One, two, or three categories of non-display use may
apply to a data recipient. See id. Moreover, data recipients that
receive the NYSE National Integrated Feed for non-display use would
be required to complete and submit a non-display use declaration
before they would be authorized to receive the feed. See id. In
addition, if a data recipient's use of the NYSE National Integrated
Feed data changes at any time after the data recipient submits a
non-display use declaration, the data recipient must inform the
Exchange of the change by completing and submitting an updated
declaration reflecting the change of use at the time of the change.
See id.

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

    [cir] $5,000 per month category 1 non-display fee, which would
apply when a data recipient's non-display use of real-time market data
is on its own behalf;
    [cir] $5,000 per month category 2 non-display fee, which would
apply when a data recipient's non-display use of real-time data is on
behalf of its clients;
    [cir] $5,000 per platform per month category 3 non-display fee
(capped at $15,000), which would apply when a data recipient's non-
display use of real-time market data is for the purpose of internally
matching buy and sell orders within an organization, including matching
customer orders on a data recipient's own behalf and on behalf of its
clients; \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ According to the Exchange, category 3 non-display fees
would apply to non-display use in trading platforms, such as, but
not limited to, alternative trading systems (``ATSs''), broker
crossing networks, broker crossing systems not filed as ATSs, dark
pools, multilateral trading facilities, exchanges, and systematic
internalization systems. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     $1,000 per month non-display use declaration late fee,
which would apply to any data recipient that is paying an access fee
for the NYSE National Integrated Feed and that fails to complete and
submit the annual non-display use declaration by December 31 of the
year, and would apply beginning January 1 and for each month thereafter
until the data recipient has completed and submitted the annual non-
display use declaration; \16\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     $200 per month multiple data feed fee, which would apply
to any data recipient that takes a data feed for a market data product
in more than two locations, and would apply to each location, beyond
the first two locations, where the data recipient receives a data
feed.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The access fees, professional user fees, and non-display fees would
not apply to Federal agencies \18\ that subscribe to the products
listed on the proposed fee schedule that includes such fees.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The term ``Federal agencies'' as used in the proposed fee
schedule would include all Federal agencies subject to the Federal
Acquisition Regulation (``FAR''), as well as any Federal agency not
subject to FAR that has promulgated its own procurement rules. See
id. All Federal agencies that subscribe to the NYSE National real-
time proprietary market data products would continue to be required
to execute the appropriate subscriber agreement, which includes,
among other things, provisions against the redistribution of data.
See id. at 70128.
    \19\ The proposed fee schedule lists NYSE National BBO, NYSE
National Trades, and NYSE National Integrated Feed, and specifies
that there would be no fees for NYSE National BBO and NYSE National
Trades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, first-time subscribers \20\ would be eligible for a free
trial by contacting the Exchange and would not be charged the access
fee, the non-display fee, any applicable professional and non-
professional user fee, and the redistribution fee for one calendar
month for each of the products listed on the proposed fee schedule.\21\
The free trial would be for the first full calendar month following the
date a subscriber is approved to receive trial access to NYSE National
market data.\22\ As proposed, the Exchange would provide the one-month
free trial for a particular product to each subscriber only once.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ A first-time subscriber would be any firm that has not
previously subscribed to a particular product listed on the proposed
fee schedule. See Notice, supra note 4, at 70128.
    \21\ See id.
    \22\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Suspension of the Proposed Rule Change

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act,\23\ at any time within
60 days of the date of filing of an immediately effective proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Act,\24\ the Commission
summarily may temporarily suspend the change in the rules of a self-
regulatory organization (``SRO'') 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. As discussed below, the Commission believes a temporary
suspension of the proposed rule change is necessary and appropriate to
allow for additional analysis of the proposed rule change's consistency
with the Act and the rules thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to adopt fees for the NYSE National
Integrated Feed and provides various arguments to support the
proposal's consistency with the Act. With respect to whether the
proposed fees are reasonable, the Exchange states that exchanges in
general function as platforms between consumers of market data and
consumers of trading services, and that overall competition between
exchanges will limit their overall profitability.\25\ In connection
with these arguments, the Exchange also attaches a report by Marc
Rysman,\26\ which finds that the introduction of the NYSE Integrated
Feed in 2015 attracted more trading to NYSE by both subscribers and
non-subscribers to the NYSE Integrated Feed,\27\ and concludes that
overall competition between exchanges will limit their overall
profitability (not margins on any particular side of the platform).\28\
According to the Exchange, given the conclusion in the Rysman Paper
that exchanges are platforms for market data and transaction services,
competition for order flow on the trading side of the platform acts to
constrain the pricing of market data on the other side of the
platform.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 71030.
    \26\ See Marc Rysman, Stock Exchanges as Platforms for Data and
Trading (December 2, 2019) (``Rysman Paper''), available at https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/nysenat/2019/34-87797-ex3b.pdf.
    \27\ The Exchange also states that, since May 2018, when NYSE
National relaunched trading, the Exchange has observed a direct
correlation between the steady increase of subscribers to the NYSE
National Integrated Feed and the increase in the Exchange's
transaction market share volume over the same period. See Notice,
supra note 4, at 71028. The Exchange states that, over an 18-month
period since it commenced operations in May 2018, it has grown from
0% to nearly 2% market share of consolidated trading volume, and the
number of NYSE National Integrated Feed subscribers increased from
12 to 56. See id. at 71028, 71031.
    \28\ See id. at 71030.
    \29\ See id. at 71031.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange argues that, due to the ready
availability of substitutes and the low cost to move order flow to the
substitute trading venues, an exchange setting market data fees that
are not at competitive levels would expect to quickly lose business to
alternative platforms with more attractive pricing.\30\ The Exchange
argues that subscribing to the NYSE National Integrated Feed is
optional, that its customers may choose to discontinue using the feed
once the proposed fees are effective, and that any customers who choose
to discontinue using the feed may choose to shift order flow away from
the Exchange.\31\ Similarly, the Exchange argues that its market data
pricing is constrained by the availability of numerous substitute
platforms offering competing proprietary market data products and
trading services.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See id.
    \31\ See id. at 71029, 71031.
    \32\ See id. at 71031.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, the Exchange argues that its market data is sold in a
competitive market and attaches a report by Charles M. Jones,\33\ which
concludes that exchanges compete with each other in selling proprietary
market data products, as well as with consolidated data feeds and with
data provided by ATSs.\34\ The Exchange also more

specifically argues that NYSE National BBO (which includes best bid and
offer information for NYSE National on a real-time basis), NYSE
National Trades (which includes NYSE National last sale information on
a real-time basis), and consolidated data feeds are substitutes for the
NYSE National Integrated Feed and constrain the Exchange's ability to
charge supracompetitive prices for the feed.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See Charles M. Jones, Understanding the Market for U.S.
Equity Market Data (August 31, 2018) (``Jones Paper''), available at
https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/nysenat/2019/34-87797-ex3a.pdf.
    \34\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 71029. The Jones Paper also
states that the market for order flow and the market for market data
are closely linked, and that an exchange needs to consider the
negative impact on its order flow if it raises the price of market
data. See id.
    \35\ See id. at 71032.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the other requirements under the Act, the Exchange
argues that the proposed fees are equitably allocated and are not
unfairly discriminatory because they would apply on an equal basis to
all data recipients that choose to subscribe to the data in a manner
that is subject to an applicable fee and because any differences among
categories of users are justified.\36\ Specifically, the Exchange
argues that the professional and non-professional user fee structure
has long been used by the Exchange to reduce the price of data to non-
professional users and make it more broadly available, and that the
non-display fee structure results in subscribers with greater uses of
the data paying higher fees and subscribers with fewer uses of the data
paying lower fees.\37\ For similar reasons, and because it claims
numerous substitute market data products are available, the Exchange
argues that the proposed fees do not impose an unnecessary or
inappropriate burden on competition.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See id. at 71034-36.
    \37\ See id.
    \38\ See id. at 71036.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the redistribution fee, the Exchange argues that
the proposed fee is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly
discriminatory because vendors that would be charged the proposed fee
would profit by re-transmitting the Exchange's market data to their
customers.\39\ Similarly, with respect to category 3 non-display fees,
which would be charged to each trading platform on which the customer
uses non-display data (capped at three platforms), the Exchange argues
that the proposal is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly
discriminatory because such use of data is directly in competition with
the Exchange and the Exchange should be permitted to recoup some of its
lost trading revenue by charging for the data that makes such
competition possible.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See id. at 71032.
    \40\ See id. at 71033, 71035-36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, with respect to the non-display use declaration late fee
and the multiple data feed fee, the Exchange claims that these fees are
reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory because they
would offset the Exchange's administrative burdens and costs associated
with incorrect billing, late payments, and tracking data usage
locations.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See id. at 71033-36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission received two comment letters that express concerns
regarding the proposed rule change. One commenter states that the
Exchange does not provide sufficient information to establish that the
proposed fees are consistent with the Act and Commission rules.\42\
This commenter states its belief that the Exchange's discussions
regarding the reasonableness of the proposed fees (i.e., the comparison
to similar fees charged by affiliated exchanges, the nature of the
market for order flow, the availability of other data options, and the
lack of a relation between the proposed fees and the costs of
production) do not support a finding that the proposed fees are
reasonable.\43\ This commenter also states that the Exchange does not
provide any information about the costs of production for the NYSE
National Integrated Feed, how much revenue the Exchange projects to
generate from the proposed fees, how the proposed fees would impact
subscribers, the competition between subscribers and non-subscribers,
and how the proposed fees would be equitably allocated and would not
impose any undue burden on competition.\44\ In addition, the commenter
states that the Exchange does not provide any information about the
latency difference between the NYSE National Integrated Feed and the
consolidated data feed or other methods of getting comparable data.\45\
Moreover, this commenter questions the Exchange's assertion that market
participants have the ability to choose whether or not to connect to
the NYSE National Integrated Feed and believes instead that many market
participants must buy the feed.\46\ The commenter also objects to what
it describes as conflicting statements by the Exchange: That the NYSE
National Integrated Feed is valuable to market participants, but that
the feed is also not essential for market participants because it can
be sufficiently replaced by substitutes.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See Healthy Markets Letter, supra note 5.
    \43\ See id. at 5.
    \44\ See id. at 5-6.
    \45\ See id. at 6.
    \46\ See id. at 3-4. The commenter states that a market
participant that does not purchase the NYSE National Integrated Feed
would be at a competitive disadvantage to firms that have purchased
it and questions how a non-purchasing broker could provide best
execution to its customers. See id. at 4.
    \47\ See id. at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another commenter also states that the Exchange fails to provide
the necessary information to demonstrate that the proposed fees meet
the requirements of the Act.\48\ This commenter similarly argues that
the NYSE National Integrated Feed is not subject to competitive forces
because there are no available substitutes for the Exchange's depth-of-
book product.\49\ The commenter also claims that depth-of-book
information is ``essential'' for many broker-dealers to provide
customers with the best and most competitive order routing capabilities
and execution quality, and that the Exchange is the exclusive purveyor
of that information.\50\ With respect to competition by data vendors,
the commenter argues that because any vendors must first purchase the
data from the Exchange (subject to the Exchange's terms and pricing)
before being able to resell such data, these vendors cannot offer a
competing product.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See SIFMA Letter, supra note 5, at 1.
    \49\ See id. at 2. Specifically, the commenter states that the
Exchange cites alternatives to the NYSE National Integrated Feed
that do not contain depth-of-book information, which the commenter
claims are ``inferior products.'' See id.
    \50\ See id.
    \51\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, this commenter disagrees that fees for the NYSE
National Integrated Feed will be constrained by competition for order
flow under the ``platform theory'' of competition.\52\ The commenter
argues that the decision of where to trade occurs in milliseconds,
while market data is purchased and charged monthly, independent of
decisions on where to trade.\53\ The commenter also states that not all
purchasers of market data execute trades solely on exchanges, which
limits the theoretical ability to constrain market data prices by
routing order flow to other exchanges.\54\ Moreover, the commenter
cites a report by Lawrence R. Glosten to support its claim that
exchanges have little incentive to reduce the prices for their own
market data, because any theoretical increase in demand would be shared
with other exchanges.\55\ The commenter further

states that the exchanges have yet to show an increase (or decrease) in
trading volume after reducing (or increasing) a respective exchange's
price of market data.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See id.
    \53\ See id.
    \54\ See id.
    \55\ See id. (citing Lawrence R. Glosten, Economics of the Stock
Exchange Business: Proprietary Market Data (January 2020), available
at https://www.sec.gov/comments/4-729/4729-6678493-203560.pdf).
    \56\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, this commenter argues that the Exchange fails to provide
supporting information for its claim that the proposed fees for the
NYSE National Integrated Feed are based on the purported increased
value of such data as measured by the Exchange's expanded market
share.\57\ The commenter states that, during the same May 2018 to
December 2019 time period that NYSE National's market share increased
from 0% to 2.12%, the market shares of New York Stock Exchange LLC
(``NYSE'') and NYSE Arca, Inc. decreased, but neither exchange
responded by reducing the cost of its market data.\58\ The commenter
thus asserts that the Exchange's proposal would ``significantly
increase the overall cost of market data for NYSE exchanges when the
overall market share for NYSE exchanges increased by only 0.34% from
May 2018 to December 2019.'' \59\ The commenter believes that the
Exchange has offered no evidence to show that competition for order
flow constrains the price for market data and that the Exchange should
provide additional information on the cost of its market data to
support its proposal.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ See id.
    \58\ See id. The commenter also states that the market share of
NYSE Chicago, Inc. decreased during this period. See id. Moreover,
the commenter states that the market share of NYSE American LLC
(``NYSE American'') increased during this period and that NYSE
American similarly charges various fees for its market data
products. See id.
    \59\ Id. at 3 (footnote omitted).
    \60\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When exchanges file their proposed rule changes with the
Commission, including fee filings like the Exchange's present proposal,
they are required to provide a statement supporting the proposal's
basis under the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable
to the exchange.\61\ The instructions to Form 19b-4, on which exchanges
file their proposed rule changes, specify that such statement ``should
be sufficiently detailed and specific to support a finding that the
proposed rule change is consistent with [those] requirements.'' \62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ See 17 CFR 240.19b-4 (Item 3 entitled ``Self-Regulatory
Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for,
the Proposed Rule Change'').
    \62\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 6 of the Act, including Sections 6(b)(4), (5), and (8),
require the rules of an exchange to: (1) Provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable fees among members, issuers, and other persons
using the exchange's facilities; \63\ (2) perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, protect investors
and the public interest, and not be designed to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers; \64\
and (3) not impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \64\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \65\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In temporarily suspending the Exchange's proposed rule change, the
Commission intends to further consider whether the proposal to
establish fees for the NYSE National Integrated Feed is consistent with
the statutory requirements applicable to a national securities exchange
under the Act. In particular, the Commission will consider whether the
proposed rule change satisfies the standards under the Act and the
rules thereunder requiring, among other things, that an exchange's
rules provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable fees among
members, issuers, and other persons using its facilities; not permit
unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers;
and do not impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5), and (8), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the Commission finds that it is appropriate in the
public interest, for the protection of investors, and otherwise in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, to temporarily suspend the
proposed rule change.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ For purposes of temporarily suspending the proposed rule
change, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove the
Proposed Rule Change

    In addition to temporarily suspending the proposal, the Commission
also hereby institutes proceedings pursuant to Sections 19(b)(3)(C)
\68\ and 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \69\ to determine whether the
Exchange's proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Institution of proceedings does not indicate that the Commission has
reached any conclusions with respect to any of the issues involved.
Rather, the Commission seeks and encourages interested persons to
provide additional comment on the proposed rule change to inform the
Commission's analysis of whether to approve or disapprove the proposed
rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C). Once the Commission temporarily
suspends a proposed rule change, Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act
requires that the Commission institute proceedings under Section
19(b)(2)(B) to determine whether a proposed rule change should be
approved or disapproved.
    \69\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\70\ the Commission is
providing notice of the grounds for possible disapproval under
consideration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ Id. Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act also provides that
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove a proposed rule
change must be concluded within 180 days of the date of publication
of notice of the filing of the proposed rule change. See id. The
time for conclusion of the proceedings may be extended for up to 60
days if the Commission finds good cause for such extension and
publishes its reasons for so finding, or if the exchange consents to
the longer period. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether the Exchange has demonstrated how its proposed
fees are consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, which requires
that the rules of a national securities exchange ``provide for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among
its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities''; \71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether the Exchange has demonstrated how its proposed
fees are consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires,
among other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange
not be ``designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers''; \72\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether the Exchange has demonstrated how its proposed
fees are consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, which requires
that the rules of a national securities exchange ``not impose any
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of [the Act].'' \73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in Section III above, the Exchange made various
arguments in support of its proposal and the Commission received two
comment letters that expressed concerns regarding the proposal,
including in particular that the Exchange did not provide sufficient
information to establish that the proposed fees are consistent with the
Act and the rules thereunder.
    Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, the ``burden to
demonstrate that a proposed rule change is consistent with the [Act]
and the rules and regulations issued thereunder . . . is on the [SRO]
that proposed the rule

change.'' \74\ The description of a proposed rule change, its purpose
and operation, its effect, and a legal analysis of its consistency with
applicable requirements must all be sufficiently detailed and specific
to support an affirmative Commission finding,\75\ and any failure of an
SRO to provide this information may result in the Commission not having
a sufficient basis to make an affirmative finding that a proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act and the applicable rules and
regulations.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ 17 CFR 201.700(b)(3).
    \75\ See id.
    \76\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional
consideration and comment on the issues raised herein, including as to
whether the proposed fees are consistent with the Act, and
specifically, with its requirements that exchange fees be reasonable
and equitably allocated, not be unfairly discriminatory, and not impose
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5), and (8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Commission's Solicitation of Comments

    The Commission requests written views, data, and arguments with
respect to the concerns identified above as well as any other relevant
concerns. Such comments should be submitted by February 27, 2020.
Rebuttal comments should be submitted by March 12, 2020. Although there
do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that
would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and
arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any
request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). Section 19(b)(2) of the Act grants the
Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding--either
oral or notice and opportunity for written comments--is appropriate
for consideration of a particular proposal by an SRO. See Securities
Acts Amendments of 1975, Report of the Senate Committee on Banking,
Housing and Urban Affairs to Accompany S. 249, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th
Cong., 1st Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency and
merit of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, in
addition to any other comments they may wish to submit about the
proposed rule change.
    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the proposed rule change, 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-NYSENAT-2019-31 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-NYSENAT-2019-31. The file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make publicly available. All submissions
should refer to File No. SR-NYSENAT-2019-31 and should be submitted on
or before February 27, 2020. Rebuttal comments should be submitted by
March 12, 2020.

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the
Act,\79\ that File No. SR-NYSENAT-2019-31, be and hereby is,
temporarily suspended. In addition, the Commission is instituting
proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be
approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
    \80\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57) and (58).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\80\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-02280 Filed 2-5-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P