[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 190 (Tuesday, October 3, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68270-68271]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21810]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No.: FAA-2018-0835; Summary Notice No. 2023-38]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Wing
Aviation

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The
purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and
participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither

publication of this notice nor the inclusion nor 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 and must be received on or before October 23, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2018-0835
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140,
West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kara White,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office of
Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue
SW, Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on 28 September, 2023.
Brandon Roberts,
Executive Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2018-0835.
    Petitioner: Wing Aviation LLC.
    Sections of 14 CFR Affected: 91.113(b) and 91.155(a).
    Description of Relief Sought: Wing Aviation LLC (Wing) seeks an
amendment of its Exemption No. 18163D to change certain conditions and
limitations from prescriptive requirements to a performance-based
approach. Also, Wing requests to use ADS-B for primary detect and avoid
during beyond visual line-of-sight operations without visual observers.
Finally, Wing requests to modify current conditions and limitations for
weather requirements, and instead, comply with existing weather
minimums in Sec.  91.155.

[FR Doc. 2023-21810 Filed 10-2-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


From: 	Amy Hambrick, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

To: 	Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0009

Re:  	September 15, 2009 Meeting Between the U.S. EPA and Parts Cleaning
Technology Regarding the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning Reconsideration

Date: 	September 15, 2009

On September 15, 2009, a teleconference meeting was held between the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and representatives from
Parts Cleaning Technology (PCT) - a narrow tube cleaner and solvent
distributor.  The meeting participants are listed below:

Name	Organization

Tim Benner	EPA/ORD

Susmita Dubey	EPA/OGC

Winifred Okoye 	EPA/OGC

Amy Hambrick	EPA/OAQPS

Dennis Pagano	EPA/OAQPS

Dave Crandell	Parts Cleaning Technology

Farrell Costello	Parts Cleaning Technology

Meeting Agenda:

1.	Introductions and Meeting Purpose

2.	Issues for Discussion

3.	Open Discussion

Meeting Summary:

Introductions and Meeting Purpose

Ms. Hambrick of the U.S. EPA began the meeting with introductions and by
stating the purpose for the meeting.  The meeting was as a follow up to
PCT’s January 26, 2009 and February 4, 2009 public comments on the
October 20, 2008, Proposed Notice of Reconsideration and Request for
Public Comment for Halogenated Solvent Cleaning (73 FR 62384).
Specifically, EPA wanted to obtain clarification and additional details
regarding PCT’s products, halogenated solvent cleaning machines, and
trichloroethylene (TCE) emission controls.

Ms. Hambrick indicated that a meeting summary would be developed for the
meeting and this summary would be made available to the public in the
docket.

Issues for Discussion

Background on PCT’s operations at the Bowling Green, Kentucky
facility.

PCT’s corporate headquarters are located in Michigan.  At the Bowling
Green, Kentucky facility PCT builds and designs cleaning units for the
metal cleaning industry, and contract cleans for other narrow tube
manufacturers..  PCT cleans narrow tubes that are then inspected and
shipped to customers.  This is usually the final cleaning step before
shipping to PCT’s customers who may use the narrow tubes for medical,
oxygen, and refrigeration applications. PCT returns the cleaned tubes to
the original manufacture for shipping to the end user.  All tubes are
cleaned to the same specifications.

The narrow tubes range in size from 1/16th of an inch to 2 and 1/8 of an
inch inner diameter (I.D.).  The tubes cleaned are up to 21.5 feet long,
the shortest tube cleaned is 3 inches long. PCT has one cleaning unit
(EP01).  The unit is 22 feet long by 3 feet wide by 4 feet of vapor
space.  The unit is 10 feet tall and can hold up to 1,200 gallons of
solvent.

What were the TCE emissions from EP01 in CY 2008?

The net emissions were 17,985 pounds (18.44 tons).  EP01 is a top
loading unit with a CAS.  The CAS removes 95% of the solvent in the air
that reaches it.  However, not all the solvent makes it into the air
that reaches the CAS.  Thus the CAS achieves about 50% overall reduction
in emissions in the cleaning process.  The cleaning cycle for a bundle
of tubes can range from 30 to 45 minutes.  Before the bundle is unloaded
from the unit, it is held for about 1.5 minutes.  The unit is only
covered during down time.  The unit is uncovered during the cleaning
process.  The majority of the emissions result from solvent carried out
with bundles of tubing as they are removed from the cleaning unit.  PCT
currently only has EP01 in operation.

Has PCT explored the use of alternative solvents, such as nPB or
vacuum-to-vacuum (VTV) technology for the narrow tube industry?

Yes, PCT has explored using aqueous cleaning solvents, nPB, and VTV
technology.  PCT determined that aqueous solvents do not clean as
thoroughly, and the tubes do not dry as rapidly after cleaning.
Residual moisture can damage the annealing furnaces used for narrow
tubing.  Some facilities have switched from aqueous cleaners back to
chlorinated solvents, and some states with water shortages have
disapproved permits for aqueous cleaning systems.  PCT determined that
although nPB cleans adequately, it is not as stable as TCE, and its use
would require additional monitoring equipment.  PCT determined that VTV
is not a practical option for them and that the technology is not yet
cost effective.  VTV has limited options for top-loading units, leading
to a need for additional building space to accommodate end-loading
units.  The cleaning cycle time frame in a VTV system is doubled, and
PCT feels that the tubes used in medical devices would not be able to
meet stringent cleaning specifications in a VTV system.  PCT felt that
VTV systems were OK for shorter tube lengths, but they had no real
advantage over regular vapor systems for such tubes.  PCT explained that
the cost of nPB ranges from $2.25 to $3.00 per gallon, and the cost of
TCE ranges from 85 cents to $1.00 per gallon.

Does PCT see the industry technology changing in the next 3 years?

PCT does not see any anticipated major breakthroughs on solvent or VTV
technology.  An appropriate tube size to switch solvents is about ½
inch I.D. and greater than 20 feet long.  PCT described that new
facilities should have an easier time of designing improved buildings
and units to accommodate to newer technologies like VTV, but that for
existing entities the economic cost is very challenging.

What is a reasonable emissions limit for narrow tube manufacturing
operations?

PCT stated that the narrow tube industry has significantly reduced
emissions in the past decade.  PCT has seen in some applications that
annual emissions have been reduced fifty per cent by installing CAS
systems and improving material handling.  PCT feels that if a facility
has already made these improvements and still has emissions in excess of
30 tons per year, reducing emissions to fewer than 20 tons per year is
not achievable.  PCT feels that a reasonable emission limit for a narrow
tube manufacture is not a static limit but one that ensures facilities
have installed best available technology for their production capacity.

Does PCT have any pictures of their cleaning machines that they could
send to EPA?

PCT will send photographs of their cleaning machine.

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  1


5/27/08 DRAFT

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

HUMAN STUDIES REVIEW BOARD (HSRB)

JUNE 24-25, 2008

PUBLIC MEETING

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Environmental Protection Agency

Conference Center - Lobby Level

One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.)

2777 S. Crystal Drive

 Arlington, VA 22202

HSRB WEB SITE   http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb/

Docket Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Docket Number: EPA-HQ-ORD-2008-0355

( 8:30 AM	Convene Meeting and Identification of Board Members – Celia
Fisher, Ph.D. (HSRB Chair)

( 8:40 AM	Welcome – George Gray, Ph.D. (EPA Science Advisor)

( 8:50 AM	Opening Remarks – Debbie Edwards, Ph.D. (Director, Office of
Pesticide Programs, [OPP], EPA)

( 9:00 AM	Meeting Administrative Procedures - Paul Lewis, Ph.D.
(Designated Federal Officer [DFO], HSRB, OSA, EPA)

( 9:10 AM	EPA Follow-up on Pesticide Specific HSRB Recommendations –
Mr. William Jordan (OPP, EPA)

AHETF Pesticide Handler Protocols: Closed-Cab Airblast Scenario

( 9:30 AM	Overview - Mr. William Jordan (OPP, EPA)

( 9:45 AM	Science and Ethics Assessment of AHETF Protocol – Mr.
Jeffrey Evans, (OPP, EPA), Mr. Matthew Crowley (OPP, EPA) and Mr. John
Carley (OPP, EPA)

( 10:30 AM	Break

( 10:45 AM	Science and Ethics Assessment of AHETF Protocol (continued)
– Mr. Jeffrey Evans, (OPP, EPA), Mr. Matthew Crowley (OPP, EPA) and
Mr. John Carley (OPP, EPA)

( 11:30 AM	Public Comments

( 12:00 PM	Lunch

( 1:30 PM	Board Discussion

If AHETF’s proposed closed-cab airblast application scenario design,
field study protocols AHE55 and AHE56, and supporting documentation are
revised as suggested in EPA’s reviews:

Does the research appear likely to generate scientifically reliable
data, useful for assessing the exposure of handlers who apply liquid
pesticides using airblast equipment drawn by vehicles with closed cabs?

Does the research appear to meet the applicable requirements of 40 CFR
part 26, subparts K and L?

( 3:30 PM	Break

Completed ICR Mosquito Repellent Efficacy Study A117

( 3:45 AM	EPA Science and Ethics Assessment of Completed ICR Mosquito
Repellent Efficacy Study A117– Mr. Kevin Sweeney (OPP, EPA) and Mr.
John Carley (OPP, EPA)

( 4:45 PM	Public comments

( 5:15 PM	Adjournment - Celia Fisher, Ph.D. (HSRB Chair) and Paul Lewis,
Ph.D. (HSRB DFO)

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

HUMAN STUDIES REVIEW BOARD (HSRB)

JUNE 24-25, 2008 *

PUBLIC MEETING

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Environmental Protection Agency

Conference Center - Lobby Level

One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.)

2777 S. Crystal Drive

 Arlington, VA 22202

( 8:30 AM	Convene Meeting –  Celia Fisher, Ph.D. (HSRB Chair)

( 8:35 AM	Follow-up From Previous Day’s Discussion – Mr. William
Jordan (OPP, EPA)

Completed ICR Mosquito Repellent Efficacy Study A117

( 8:45 AM	Board Discussion

Is this study sufficiently sound, from a scientific perspective, to be
used, in conjunction with other information, to assess the repellent
efficacy of the formulations tested against mosquitoes of the genus
Culex?

Does available information support a determination that this study was
conducted in substantial compliance with subparts K and L of EPA
regulations at 40 CFR Part 26?

Review of April 9-10, 2008 HSRB Meeting Report

( 9:45 AM	Review Process - Celia Fisher, Ph.D. (HSRB Chair)

( 9:55 AM	Public Comments

( 10:15 AM	Break

( 10:30 AM	Board Discussion and Decision on Report - Celia Fisher, Ph.D.
(HSRB Chair)

( 12:30 PM	Concluding Remarks  - Mr. William Jordan (OPP, EPA)

( 12:35 PM	Adjournment - Celia Fisher, Ph.D. (HSRB Chair) and Paul
Lewis, Ph.D. (HSRB DFO)

* Please be advised that agenda times are approximate and subject to
change. For further information, please contact the Designated Federal
Officer for this meeting, Paul Lewis, via telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or
email:   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

  PAGE  1  of   NUMPAGES  3


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 67 (Monday, April 8, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 20960]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08196]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

Face Up Entertainment Group, Inc.; Order of Suspension of Trading

April 4, 2013.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Face Up Entertainment Group, Inc. (``Face Up'') because of questions
concerning the adequacy and accuracy of publicly available information
about Face Up, including, among other things, its financial condition,
the control of the company, its business operations, and trading in its
securities. Face Up is a Florida corporation based in Valley Stream,
New York and is traded under the symbol ``FUEG.''
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed company.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the
above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT, on
April 4, 2013 through 11:59 p.m. EDT, on April 17, 2013.

    By the Commission.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-08196 Filed 4-4-13; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 4 (Tuesday, January 7, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 821-822]
[FR Doc No: 2014-00013]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 3

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2178-008; ER10-2172-019; ER11-2016-014; ER10-
2184-019; ER10-2183-016; ER10-1048-016; ER10-2192-019; ER11-2056-013;
ER10-2178-019; ER10-2174-019; ER11-2014-016; ER11-2013-016; ER10-3308-
018; ER10-1020-015; ER13-1536-002; ER10-1078-015; ER10-1080-015; ER11-
2010-016; ER10-1081-015; ER10-2180-019; ER11-2011-015; ER12-2528-007;
ER11-2009-015;

ER10-1143-015; ER11-2007-014; ER11-2005-016.
    Applicants: AV Solar Ranch 1, LLC, Baltimore Gas and Electric
Company, Cassia Gulch Wind Park, LLC, CER Generation, LLC, CER
Generation II, LLC, Commonwealth Edison Company, Constellation Energy
Commodities Group Maine, LLC, Constellation Mystic Power, LLC,
Constellation NewEnergy, Inc., Constellation Power Source Generation
Inc., CR Clearing, LLC, Cow Branch Wind Power, LLC, Criterion Power
Partners, LLC, Exelon Framingham, LLC, Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Exelon New Boston, LLC, Exelon West Medway, LLC, Exelon Wind 4, LLC,
Exelon Wyman, LLC, Handsome Lake Energy, LLC, Harvest WindFarm, LLC,
High Mesa Energy, LLC, Michigan Wind 1, LLC, PECO Energy Company, Tuana
Springs Energy, LLC, Wind Capital Holdings, LLC.
    Description: Updated Market Power Analysis for the Northeast Region
of the Exelon Market-Based Rate Entities.
    Filed Date: 12/30/13.
    Accession Number: 20131230-5187.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/28/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-897-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Company submits Assignment
Agmt with APS & Resale Tariff Edison-Arizona Transmission Agmt to be
effective 2/28/2014.
    Filed Date: 12/30/13.
    Accession Number: 20131230-5193.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/21/14.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 30, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-00013 Filed 1-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P [FEDREG][VOL]*[/VOL][NO]*[/NO][DATE]*[/
DATE][NOTICES]


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 17 (Wednesday, January 26, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4708-4709]
[FR Doc No: 2011-1597]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2010-0061]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request, OMB No. 1660-NEW; Logistics Capability
Assessment Tool (LCAT)

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice; 30-day notice and request for comments; new information
collection; OMB No. 1660-NEW; FEMA Form 008-0-1, LCAT Booklet.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the
information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and
Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission will describe the
nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents,
the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort and resources used by
respondents to respond) and cost, and the actual data collection
instruments FEMA will use.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before February 25, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the proposed information
collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk
Officer

for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, and sent via electronic mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection should be made to Director,
Records Management Division, 1800 South Bell Street, Arlington, VA
20598-3005, facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Collection of Information

    Title: Logistics Capability Assessment Tool (LCAT).
    Type of Information Collection: New information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-NEW.
    Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA Form 008-0-1, LCAT Booklet.
    Abstract: The Logistics Capability Assessment Tool (LCAT) is a
voluntary model for States to self assess disaster logistics planning
and response capabilities and identify areas of relative strength and
weakness. The LCAT is facilitated through two-day collaborative
sessions at States and is hosted by the State emergency management
agency. FEMA provides State emergency management agencies with a
detailed analysis report and roadmap for continuous improvement if the
State decides to share the outcome.
    Affected Public: State, local, or Tribal Government.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 10.
    Frequency of Response: Once.
    Estimated Average Hour Burden per Respondent: FEMA Form 008-0-1,
LCAT Booklet, 12 hours; LCAT Briefing, 20 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 123.3 hours.
    Estimated Cost: There are no operation and maintenance, or capital
and start-up costs associated with this collection of information.

    Dated: January 19, 2011.
Lesia M. Banks,
Director, Records Management Division, Mission Support Bureau, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2011-1597 Filed 1-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-A9-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 166 (Monday, August 29, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52667-52668]
[FR Doc No: 2022-18428]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2021-1156; Airspace Docket No. 19-AAL-28]
RIN 2120-AA66

Establishment of United States Area Navigation (RNAV) Route T-
364; Kotzebue, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes United States Area Navigation (RNAV)
route T-364 in the vicinity of Kotzebue, AK, in support of a large and
comprehensive T-route modernization project for the state of Alaska.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, November 3, 2022. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11
and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Rules and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Rules and Regulations
Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it expands the availability of RNAV in Alaska and improves
the efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System
by lessening the dependency on ground based navigation.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No.
FAA-2021-1156 in the Federal Register (86 FR 74000; December 29, 2021),
establishing RNAV route T-364 the vicinity of Kotzebue, AK in support
of a large and comprehensive T-route modernization project for the
state of Alaska. Interested parties were invited to participate in this
rulemaking effort by submitting comments on the proposal. No comments
were received.
    United States Area Navigation Routes are published in paragraph
6011 of FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective
September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.
The RNAV route listed in this document will be published subsequently
in FAA Order JO 7400.11.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations
and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September
15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F lists Class
A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by establishing RNAV route T-364
in the vicinity of Kotzebue, AK, in support of a large and
comprehensive T-route modernization project for the state of Alaska.
The new route is described below.
    T-364: T-364 is a new RNAV route established between the COGNU, AK,
waypoint (WP) and the Kotzebue, AK (OTZ), VHF Omnidirectional Range/
Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) navigational aid.
    The full route description of the new route is listed in the
amendment to part 71 set forth below.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation
of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic
procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when
promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this airspace action of establishing
RNAV route T-364 in the vicinity of Kotzebue, AK, qualifies for
categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part
1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts:
Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes
from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that
designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and
reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D,
and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting
Points), and paragraph 5-6.5i, which categorically excludes from
further environmental review the establishment of new or revised air
traffic control procedures conducted at 3,000 feet or more above ground
level (AGL); procedures conducted below 3,000 feet AGL that do not
cause traffic to be routinely routed over noise sensitive areas;
modifications to currently approved procedures conducted below 3,000
feet AGL that do not significantly increase noise over noise sensitive
areas; and increases in minimum altitudes and landing minima. As such,
this action is not expected to result in any potentially significant
environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph
5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this
action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically

excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring
further analysis. Accordingly, the FAA has determined that no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10,
2021, and effective September 15, 2021, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6011 United States Area Navigation Routes.

* * * * *

T-364 COGNU, AK to Kotzebue, AK (OTZ) [New]
COGNU, AK                                       WP                             (Lat. 65[deg]48'29.23'' N, long. 167[deg]50'06.18'' W)
HIPIV, AK                                       WP                             (Lat. 66[deg]15'29.11'' N, long. 166[deg]03'23.59'' W)
Kotzebue, AK (OTZ)                              VOR/DME                        (Lat. 66[deg]53'08.46'' N, long. 162[deg]32'23.77'' W)

* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 23, 2022.
Scott M. Rosenbloom,
Manager, Airspace Rules and Regulations.
[FR Doc. 2022-18428 Filed 8-26-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 139 (Thursday, July 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 42502]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17555]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0766]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office
of Management and Budget Approval; Survey of ``Health Care Providers'
Responses to Medical Device Labeling''

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
collection of information entitled Survey of ``Health Care Providers'
Responses to Medical Device Labeling'' has been approved by the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Gittleson, Office of
Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr.,
PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 8, 2012, the Agency submitted a
proposed collection of information entitled Survey of ``Health Care
Providers' Responses to Medical Device Labeling'' to OMB for review and
clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor,
and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now
approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number
0910-0715. The approval expires on July 31, 2015. A copy of the
supporting statement for this information collection is available on
the Internet at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Dated: July 12, 2012.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-17555 Filed 7-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise

Chambers Works

Deepwater, NJ  08023

CERTIFIED MAIL – Return Receipt Requested

December 29, 2008

Document Control Office

US Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

EPA East

Room 6428

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Re: 	EPA – HQ – OPPT – 2003 - 0012

	DuPont Chambers Works NJPDES Permit No. NJ0005100

	PFOA Data Submittal – Outfall DSN662 Weekly Grab Samples

	October 2008 Sample Data

Dear Document Control Office:

As per Part IV, Section G.5.a of the NJPDES permit, we are submitting a summary of PFOA analytical results for the weekly grab samples taken at internal outfall DSN662A to NJDEP on a monthly basis. Per your request, we are sending you a paper and electronic copy of the report for samples taken during October 2008. We will continue to send you the reports each month.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (856) 540-3015.

Sincerely,

Karen L. Pinder

SET Environmental Coordinator

DuPont Chambers Works

Enclosures

Copies to:

Director, Chemical Control Division

US Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

EPA East

Room 4146

1201 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20004

Ms. Susan Rosenwinkel (cover letter only)

Principal Environmental Engineer

NJDEP Division of Water Quality

Bureau of Point Source Permitting – Region 2

401 E. State Street

P.O. Box 029

Trenton, NJ 08625-0029


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 239 (Thursday, December 12, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75659-75660]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29621]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71022; File No. SR-OCC-2013-17]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Concerning Charters for the Board
of Directors, the Membership/Risk Committee, the Audit Committee and
the Performance Committee

December 6, 2013.

I. Introduction

    On October 17, 2013, The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'')
proposed rule change SR-OCC-2013-17 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\2\ The proposed rule change was published for comment in
the Federal Register on October 30, 2013.\3\ The Commission received no
comments concerning the proposed rule change. For the reasons set forth
below, the Commission is approving the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70753 (October 24,
2013), 78 FR 65027 (October 30, 2013) (SR-OCC-2013-17).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description

    The proposed rule change concerns the charter of OCC's Board of
Directors (``Board''), as well as the charters of the Board's
Membership/Risk Committee (``MRC''), Audit Committee (``AC''), and
Performance Committee (``PC'') (collectively, ``Committee
Charters'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ OCC's Board adopted its charter on March 7, 2013. Although
OCC has had charters for its MRC, AC, and PC in place for a number
of years, it has not previously submitted those as proposed rule
changes pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Board of Directors Charter

    The Board's new charter (``Board Charter'') does not impose any new
responsibilities on the Board, but rather reflects the existing powers
and duties of the Board under OCC's By-Laws and Rules, as well as the
underlying practices that have been developed to aid the Board in
meeting its obligations. According to OCC, the Board adopted a charter
in an effort to provide outside parties with greater transparency into
the Board's oversight activities, to promote accountability, and to
align OCC with current best practices in corporate governance.
    The Board Charter addresses the organization, composition,
authority, functions, and responsibilities of the Board. With respect
to membership, the Board Charter sets forth the size and composition of
the Board, the qualifications for Board membership, and the term,
tenure, and age limits applicable to each category of Board member. The
Board Charter also addresses Board meetings, specifying that the Board
will meet at least five times annually, that the Chairman of the Board
will establish the agenda for each meeting in consultation with the
President and Secretary, and that individual Directors must prepare for
and attend each Board meeting. Additionally, the Board Charter
incorporates many provisions of OCC's existing By-Laws, including those
governing the election, resignation, and disqualification of
Directors,\5\ the establishment of Board committees and subcommittees,
and the existence of a quorum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Board Charter currently reflects that the Board has one
Management Director, who is both the Chairman of the Board and Chief
Executive Officer of OCC. OCC intends to split the office of the
Chairman into two offices, Executive Chairman and President, both of
whom will be elected as Management Directors. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 70076 (July 30, 2013), 78 FR 47449 (August
5, 2013) (SR-OCC-2013-09).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Board Charter also defines the scope of the Board's authority,
providing, among other things, that the Board may make any inquiries it
deems appropriate in executing its duties, and that the Board may
confer with OCC management or employees as needed.\6\ The Board Charter
reiterates the Board's authority under the By-Laws to elect certain
corporate officers annually, to form such committees and subcommittees
as it deems appropriate, and to delegate authority to committee
members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Chairman is permitted to ask OCC management or others to
attend meetings and provide pertinent information. The Board may
also hire specialists or rely on outside advisors or specialists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Board Charter describes the Board's cardinal duty as overseeing
OCC to ensure that it is managed and operates in a manner that is
consistent with OCC's regulatory responsibilities. The Board is also
tasked with

stewarding OCC to ensure it has the ability to achieve its objectives
in a safe, sound, and prudential manner. The Board Charter reiterates
many of the Board's responsibilities under OCC's By-Laws, including the
obligations to determine disqualifications from Board service, to fill
vacancies, to conduct hearings in connection with a denial or
suspension of membership, and to suspend clearing members when
appropriate. The Board Charter also lists additional Board
responsibilities that do not appear in the By-Laws.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ These additional responsibilities include the following: (i)
To oversee OCC's governance processes; (ii) to approve and oversee
OCC's business strategies; (iii) to monitor OCC's performance in
delivering clearance and settlement services; (iv) to oversee OCC's
processes and framework for assessing, managing, and monitoring
strategic, financial, and operational risk; (v) to oversee OCC's
financial reporting, auditing, accounting, and compliance processes;
(vi) to oversee OCC's system of internal controls; (vii) to foster
processes designed to ensure that OCC complies with applicable laws
and regulations, and that OCC operates in an ethical manner; (viii)
to oversee OCC's major capital expenditures and approve the annual
budget and corporate plan; (ix) to oversee the development and
design of employee compensation, incentive, and benefit programs;
(x) to evaluate senior management performance regularly and approve
the compensation of the Chairman and President; and (xi) to assure
management succession.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Board Charter also sets forth the duties and responsibilities
of individual Directors, including the duty to act in good faith in the
best interests of OCC, as well as with due regard for the fiduciary
responsibilities owed to OCC as a systemically important financial
market utility.\8\ Directors are also required to comply with the
provisions of the Code of Conduct for OCC Directors, including the
provisions relating to conflicts of interest and confidentiality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ On July 18, 2012, the Financial Stability Oversight Council
(``FSOC'') designated OCC as a systemically important financial
market utility under Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform
and Consumer Protection Act. Financial Stability Oversight Council,
2012 Annual Report, Appendix A, p.145, available at http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/fsoc/Documents/2012%20Annual%20Report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Committee Charters

    OCC has long maintained Charters for the MRC, AC, and PC (each, a
``Committee,'' and collectively, the ``Committees''). These Committee
Charters describe the purpose of each Committee as assisting the Board
in fulfilling certain of its oversight responsibilities. The Committee
Charters further specify the policies and procedures governing the
membership,\9\ organization, scope of authority, functions, and
responsibilities of each Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Each Committee Charter requires the inclusion of at least
one Public Director and empowers the Board to remove or replace any
Committee member at any time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to meetings, each Committee Charter establishes the
Committee's meeting schedule, quorum rules, minute-keeping, and
reporting requirements. Each Committee Charter further provides that
the meeting agenda is established by the Committee's chairman, or his
or her designee, in consultation with the Secretary and OCC's
management. A majority of the Committee members constitutes a quorum,
and if the chairman is not present at a meeting, the members who are
present must designate one of their number to serve as acting chairman.
All Committees are permitted to call executive sessions from which
guests of such Committee may be excluded, and Committee members are
permitted to participate in all meetings by teleconference or similar
means.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Meeting minutes must be kept and shared with the Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each Committee's charter describes the scope of its authority,
which includes the power to act, subject to the Board's direction, with
respect to any matter necessary or appropriate to accomplish the
purpose and responsibilities set forth in the Committee's Charter, as
well as the power to delegate this authority to any subcommittee that
the Committee may form. Each Committee is also authorized to make
inquiries into any matter related to its respective purpose and
responsibilities,\11\ and to confer with OCC's management and other
employees as it deems appropriate. Additionally, the chair of each
Committee is authorized to act on behalf of his or her Committee in the
event immediate action is required and it is impractical to convene
such Committee.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Committee Charters further permit each Committee to
hire specialists or rely on outside advisors or specialists to
assist in carrying out the Committee's activities, and further
confirm the Committees' authority to approve any related terms of
retention and fees. The MRC and PC's authority under these
provisions, however, is subject to Board approval.
    \12\ In such instances, the committee chair must, as soon as
practicable, seek ratification from the full committee for any
actions the chair has taken unilaterally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each Committee Charter sets forth a detailed list of the
Committee's respective functions and responsibilities, and also
requires each Committee to review its charter annually and to submit
any revised charters to OCC's Board for reapproval.

III. Discussion

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act \13\ directs the Commission to
approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it
finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements
of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such
organization. Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \14\ requires that the
rules of a registered clearing agency be designed to, among other
things, promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions, as well as protect investors and the public
interest. The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Act's requirements because the new and revised
Board charters will clarify the responsibilities and operations of
OCC's Board and its committees. This clarity will help ensure that OCC
maintains a robust and transparent governance structure that should
promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions, and should further safeguard investors and the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act, particularly
the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \15\ and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to OCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\16\ that proposed rule change SR-OCC-2013-17 be and hereby is
approved.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \17\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-29621 Filed 12-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 131 (Monday, July 9, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40403-40404]
[FR Doc No: 2012-16707]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: FAA
Acquisition Management System (FAAAMS)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The FAA Acquisition Management System establishes policies
and internal procedures for FAA acquisition. The information collection
is necessary to solicit, award, and administer contracts for supplies,
equipment, services, facilities, and real property to fulfill FAA's
mission.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted September 7, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy DePaepe at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0595.
    Title: FAA Acquisition Management System (FAAAMS).
    Form Numbers: 85 forms available at http://fast.faa.gov/ProcurementToolboxForms.cfm.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: Section 348 of Public Law 104-50 directed FAA to
establish an acquisition system. The information collection is carried
out as an integral part of FAA's acquisition process. Various portions
of the AMS describe information needed from vendors seeking or already
doing business with FAA. FAA contracting offices collect the
information to plan, solicit, award, administer and close individual
contracts. The FAA small business office collects information to
promote and increase small business participation in FAA contracts.
    Respondents: Approximately 15,298 vendors.
    Frequency: Data is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 7.5 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 2,000,719 hours.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ms. Kathy
DePaepe, Room 126B, Federal Aviation Administration, AES-200, 6500 S.
MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your

comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 2, 2012.
Albert R. Spence,
FAA Assistant Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises
Business Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. 2012-16707 Filed 7-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 29, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38786-38791]
[FR Doc No: 2022-13811]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95142; No. SR-NYSEArca-2022-36]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the NYSE
Arca Options Fee Schedule

June 23, 2022.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on June 22, 2022, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule
(the ``Fee Schedule'') regarding fees for Options Trading Permits
(``OTPs'') for NYSE Arca Market Makers.\4\ The proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange originally filed to amend the Fee Schedule on
May 31, 2022 (SR-NYSEArca-2022-33) and withdrew such filing on June
14, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to restructure fees relating to OTPs
for Market Makers. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to modify the
number of option issues a Market Maker may quote per OTP and modify the
fees applicable to Market Maker OTPs.
    Currently, the number of option issues a Market Maker may quote in
their assignment is based on the number of OTPs the Market Maker holds
per month. A Market Maker may quote up to 175 issues under its first
OTP; up to 350 issues with a second OTP; up to 1,000 issues with a
third OTP; and, with a fourth OTP, a Market Maker may quote in all
option issues on the Exchange.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Fee Schedule, NYSE Arca GENERAL OPTIONS and TRADING
PERMIT (OTP) FEES, available at: https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/arca-options/NYSE_Arca_Options_Fee_Schedule.pdf. A
Market Maker may trade any issue on the Exchange but may only submit
quotes in issues in its assignment. However, in accordance with NYSE
Arca Rule 6.35-O(i), at least 75% of a Market Maker's trading
activity must be in the Market Maker's appointment. The terms
``assignment'' and ``appointment,'' as used in this filing, have the
same meaning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange currently charges monthly fees for Market Maker OTPs
as set forth in the table below, and a Market Maker currently would pay
$18,000 in monthly OTP fees to quote in all option issues on the
Exchange: \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See id.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Number of option issues
          Monthly fee per OTP              permitted in market maker's
                                                    assignment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$6,000 for 1st OTP.....................  Up to 175 option issues.
$5,000 for the 2nd OTP.................  Up to 350 option issues.
$4,000 for the 3rd OTP.................  Up to 1,000 option issues.
$3,000 for the 4th OTP.................  All option issues traded on the
                                          Exchange.
$1,000 for the 5th and additional OTPs.  All option issues traded on the
                                          Exchange.
$175 for Reserve OTP...................  N/A.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to modify the number of option issues
``covered'' by a Market Maker OTP (i.e., the number of issues in which
a Market Maker may quote using a given OTP) and the monthly fee per
Market Maker OTP, as set forth in the table below. The Exchange notes
that its proposed fee structure is identical to the structure used by
its affiliated exchange, NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American''), for its
analogous Market Maker trading permit, the ATP, and the proposed
modifications to the Exchange's Market Maker OTP fees would provide
consistency between the permit fees on affiliated exchanges.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See NYSE American Options Fee Schedule, Section III.A.
Monthly ATP Fees, available at: https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/american-options/NYSE_American_Options_Fee_Schedule.pdf.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Monthly fee      Number of issues permitted in a market maker's
               Number of OTPs                    per OTP                     quoting  assignment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1st OTP....................................          $8,000  60 plus the Bottom 45%.
2nd OTP....................................           6,000  150 plus the Bottom 45%.
3rd OTP....................................           5,000  500 plus the Bottom 45%.
4th OTP....................................           4,000  1,100 plus the Bottom 45%.
5th OTP....................................           3,000  All issues.
6th to 9th OTP.............................           2,000  All issues.
10th or more OTPs..........................             500  All issues.
Reserve Market Maker OTP...................             175  N/A.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to increase both the monthly fee per Market
Maker OTP and the number of issues covered by each additional OTP
because, among other reasons, the number of issues traded on the
Exchange has increased significantly in recent years. At the time of
the last revision to the number of issues covered by a Market Maker
OTP, the Exchange was trading approximately 2,372 issues. At the
beginning of 2019, the Exchange listed 2,450 issues for options
trading. As of October 1, 2021, the Exchange listed 3,846 issues for
options trading. Thus, a fourth OTP, which currently permits a Market
Maker to quote in all issues on the Exchange, now covers over 1,400
more issues than when the Exchange instituted the current fee structure
for Market Maker OTPs. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to modify its
Market Maker OTP fee structure, as described in the above table, to
reflect the greater number of issues traded on the Exchange and the
resulting increase in trading opportunities available to Market Makers.
    Specifically, for the first four OTPs held by a Market Maker, the
Exchange proposes to allow a Market Maker to quote a certain number of
option issues (as set forth in the table above) plus the ``Bottom
45%.'' The Exchange proposes to define the ``Bottom 45%'' in the Fee
Schedule as the least actively traded issues on the Exchange in each
calendar quarter, as ranked by industry volume reported by the OCC.
Each calendar quarter, with a one-month lag, the Exchange will publish
on its website a list of the Bottom 45% of issues traded. Any newly
listed issues will automatically become part of the Bottom 45% until
the next evaluation period, at which time such issues will be evaluated
for inclusion in the Bottom 45% based on their trading volumes and
resultant rank among all issues traded on the Exchange.\8\ As further
proposed, with a fifth OTP (or more), a Market Maker would be permitted
to quote in all issues on the Exchange. Thus, as proposed, a Market
Maker that wishes to quote in all issues on the Exchange would incur
monthly permit fees of $26,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange notes that the NYSE American Options Fee
Schedule has adopted the same definition of ``Bottom 45%'' with
respect to issues traded on NYSE American. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed fee structure would better
align its Market Maker OTP fees with

the significantly greater number of option issues traded on the
Exchange in recent years and the enhanced benefits Market Makers derive
from access to those issues. The Exchange also believes that the
proposal would continue to incent Market Makers to quote in a broad
range of options, including less liquid and active issues, by offering
Market Makers access to the Bottom 45% of issues (approximately 1,730
issues, as of the end of the third quarter of 2021) beginning with the
first OTP. By promoting increased Market Maker quoting, the proposed
change would, in turn, encourage more liquid markets and quote
competition, which benefits all market participants.
    The Exchange also proposes to charge the same fee for each of the
sixth through ninth Market Maker OTPs ($2,000) and to decrease the fee
for the tenth Market Maker OTP or more from $1,000 to $500. Market
Maker firms that sponsor multiple individual Market Makers may choose
to purchase additional OTPs to allow those individual Market Makers to
each quote more issues (rather than purchasing one set of OTPs to be
shared across the firm).\9\ As a result, the Exchange believes that
these proposed changes could incent Market Maker firms to have more
individual Market Makers quoting on the Exchange if they so choose,
which would in turn encourage liquidity and depth of markets (including
in the less liquid issues that Market Makers would be able to quote in
with the first OTP and beyond). The Exchange also believes that the
proposed fees, to the extent they promote increased liquidity, could
make the Exchange a more attractive venue for trading and increase
trading opportunities for the benefit of all market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For example, a Market Maker firm that has three individual
Market Makers may, depending on its business preferences, choose to
separate those Market Makers into three distinct trading groups. In
that case, for each of those individual Market Makers to be able to
submit quotes in all issues traded on the Exchange, the Market Maker
firm would need to allot five OTPs to each such individual Market
Maker (and would thus need to hold 15 OTPs total).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange does not propose any changes to the monthly fee for
Reserve Market Maker OTPs.
    The Exchange proposes to implement this fee change on the first day
of the month following the completion of its migration to the Pillar
technology platform.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Exchange has announced that it will begin migrating
Exchange-listed options to the Pillar technology platform on July
11, 2022, available here: https://www.nyse.com/trader-update/history#110000421498. See also Securities Exchange Act Release Nos.
93193 (September 29, 2021), 86 FR 55926 (October 7, 2021) (SR-
NYSEArca-2021-47) (Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change for New
Rules 6.1P-O, 6.37AP-O, 6.40P-O, 6.41P-O, 6.62P-O, 6.64P-O, 6.76P-O,
and 6.76AP-O and Amendments to Rules 1.1, 6.1-O, 6.1A-O, 6.37-O,
6.65A-O and 6.96-O); 94637 (April 7, 2022), 87 FR 21959 (April 13,
2022) (SR-NYSEArca-2021-68) (Notice of Filing of Amendment Nos. 1
and 2 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule
Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, to Adopt New Exchange
Rule 6.91P-O).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\11\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\12\ in particular,
because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and other persons
using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

The Proposed Rule Change Is Reasonable
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. The
Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over
regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services
in the securities markets. 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.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (S7-10-04) (``Reg NMS
Adopting Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are currently 16 registered options exchanges competing for
order flow. Based on publicly-available information, and excluding
index-based options, no single exchange has more than 16% of the market
share of executed volume of multiply-listed equity and ETF options
trades.\14\ Therefore, currently no exchange possesses significant
pricing power in the execution of multiply-listed equity and ETF
options order flow. More specifically, in March 2022, the Exchange had
less than 14% market share of executed volume of multiply-listed equity
and ETF options trades.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The OCC publishes options and futures volume in a variety
of formats, including daily and monthly volume by exchange,
available here: https://www.theocc.com/Market-Data/Market-Data-Reports/Volume-and-Open-Interest/Monthly-Weekly-Volume-Statistics.
    \15\ Based on a compilation of OCC data for monthly volume of
equity-based options and monthly volume of ETF-based options, see
id., the Exchange's market share in equity-based options was 10.16%
for the month of March 2021 and 13.57% for the month of March 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Exchange believes that competitive forces
constrain options exchange fees, including Market Maker permit fees.
Market Makers serve a unique and important function on the Exchange
(and other options exchanges) given the quote-driven nature of options
markets. Because options exchanges rely on actively quoting Market
Makers to facilitate a robust marketplace that attracts order flow,
options exchanges must attract and retain Market Makers, including by
setting competitive Market Maker permit fees. Stated otherwise, changes
to Market Maker permit fees can have a direct effect on the ability of
an exchange to compete for order flow. The Exchange also believes that
the number of options exchanges on which Market Makers can effect
option transactions also ensures competition in the marketplace and
constrains the ability of exchanges to charge supracompetitive fees for
access to its market by Market Makers.
    Accordingly, the Exchange believes the proposed fees for Market
Maker OTPs are reasonably designed to enable the Exchange to remain
competitive with other options exchanges because they are based on the
Market Maker trading permit fees assessed by another options exchange
and are significantly lower than the Market Maker trading permit fees
assessed by at least one other options exchange for the ability to
quote in all issues.\16\ As noted above, a

Market Maker would pay monthly OTP fees of $26,000 to quote in all
issues under the Exchange's proposal, which is the same amount charged
by NYSE American for a Market Maker on the NYSE American Options
exchange to quote in all issues.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See NYSE American Options Fee Schedule, note 7, supra; Cboe
Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe'') Options Fee Schedule, Electronic Trading
Permit Fees & Market-Maker EAP Appointments Sliding Scale, available
at: https://cdn.cboe.com/resources/membership/Cboe_FeeSchedule.pdf.
It is the Exchange's understanding that a Market Maker on Cboe would
incur monthly fees of approximately $128,400 to quote in all issues.
Based on the Exchange's interpretation of Cboe's fee structure and
rules governing Market Maker appointments, a Cboe Market Maker would
be subject to a $5,000 fee to secure a trading permit and additional
fees based on the Appointment Units corresponding to the symbol(s)
in which the Market Maker wishes to quote. See Cboe Rule 5.50,
Market-Maker Appointments, available at: https://cdn.cboe.com/resources/regulation/rule_book/C1_Exchange_Rule_Book.pdf (providing
that a Market Maker may select for each of its Trading Permits any
combination of class appointments, and that all classes are placed
within a specific tier according to trading volume statistics
(except for the AA tier) and assigned an ``appointment weight''
depending upon its tier location, and setting forth the appointment
weights applicable to each of its Appointment Tiers). Thus, by the
Exchange's calculation based on Cboe's published Class Appointment
Units effective as of February 1, 2022 (available at: https://www.cboe.com/us/options/market_statistics/class_appointment/), a
Market Maker that wishes to quote in all issues on Cboe would
require 39 Appointment Units, which would result in fees of $123,400
in addition to the $5,000 trading permit fee.
    \17\ See NYSE American Options Fee Schedule, note 7, supra. The
Exchange notes that NYSE American Options' ATP fees have been in
effect since 2012, and, presumably, are reasonable as required by
the Act. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67764 (August 31,
2012), 77 FR 55254 (September 7, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the Exchange's proposed restructuring of Market Maker OTP
fees would increase the monthly fee for the first through third OTPs,
the Exchange believes that the increased cost to Market Makers is
reasonable given that a greater number of issues would be covered by an
OTP, as proposed. The Exchange also believes the proposal is reasonable
in that it offers Market Makers the ability to quote issues in the
Bottom 45% with just one OTP, which the Exchange believes would
encourage increased quoting in those issues, thereby promoting
increased quote competition and liquidity in a greater number of issues
(and, in particular, less active issues).
    The Exchange also believes that, although the proposal would
increase the fee for the fourth OTP while reducing the number of issues
that a Market Maker would be permitted to quote with four OTPs, the
increased fees are reasonable in the context of the proposed
restructuring of OTP fees, as well as in light of the overall increase
in issues listed on the Exchange as compared to when the Exchange
implemented the current fee structure for OTPs. Similarly, while the
proposed fees for the fifth through ninth OTPs would increase while
still affording Market Makers the ability to quote in all issues on the
Exchange, the Exchange believes that the increase is likewise
reasonable in the context of the proposed restructuring of OTP fees and
reflects the increased number of issues traded on the Exchange and
corresponding enhanced opportunities for trading, as discussed above.
    Thus, although the fees for certain of the monthly Market Maker
OTPs would increase in relation to the number of issues ``covered'' by
such OTP, the Exchange believes that, on balance, the proposed
restructuring is reasonably and equitably designed to align its Market
Maker OTP fees with the current level of activity on the Exchange,
while continuing to incent Market Makers to quote in a broad range of
options, thereby promoting more liquid markets and quote competition
for the benefit of all market participants. Specifically, the Exchange
believes that, to the extent the proposed change increases the monthly
fees per Market Maker OTP, such increases reasonably reflect the
significantly greater number of issues traded on the Exchange since its
last revision of the Market Maker OTP fee structure and the resulting
enhancement in trading opportunities for Market Makers, even with the
same number of OTPs. Moreover, with respect to the proposed increase in
fees for the first through third Market Maker OTPs, the Exchange
believes the proposed change is reasonable in light of the
significantly increased number of issues that would be covered by those
OTPs, which would allow a Market Maker to quote a greater number of
issues with the same number of OTPs. The Exchange further believes that
the proposed change would continue to incent Market Makers to quote in
a broad range of options, including the less active issues in the
Bottom 45%, thereby improving market quality for all market
participants.
    The Exchange also believes that the proposed fees have been
reasonably designed in response to significant competitive forces in
the market for order flow, which constrain the Exchange's pricing
determinations, including with respect to Market Maker permit fees.
Courts have long recognized that the market for order flow is
competitive; for example, in NetCoalition v. SEC, the United States
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit noted that market participants
``have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for execution''
and that because ``no exchange possesses a monopoly, regulatory or
otherwise, in the execution of order flow . . . [exchanges] must
compete vigorously for order flow to maintain [their] share of trading
volume.'' \18\ The Commission has historically examined competitive
forces to evaluate whether proposed fees are reasonable, equitable, and
not unfairly discriminatory, based on the underlying belief that ``the
operation of competitive forces `will work powerfully to constrain
unreasonable or unfair pricing behavior, including the level of any
fees.' '' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(internal citations omitted).
    \19\ See U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, ``Staff
Guidance on SRO Rule Filings Relating to Fees'' (May 21, 2019),
available at: https://www.sec.gov/tm/staff-guidance-sro-rule-filings-fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Market Makers are free to choose to access any of the other
available options exchanges instead of, or in addition to, the
Exchange. A Market Maker's decision to access an exchange or not could
be based on several criteria, including, but not limited to, the level
of permit fees, and Market Makers may take into consideration
transaction fees and other costs and benefits associated with doing
business on a given exchange when determining whether to access such
market. For example, although Market Makers on the Exchange are subject
to OTP fees that other market participants are not assessed, the
Exchange's Fee Schedule also offers various incentives to Market Makers
based on the important function they serve on the Exchange.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See, e.g., Market Maker Incentive for Penny Issues; Market
Maker Incentive for Non-Penny Issues; Market Maker Incentives for
SPY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Competitive forces thus constrain the Exchange's ability to set
Market Maker OTP fees and militate against any exchange's ability to
charge supracompetitive fees for access to its market by Market Makers.
Specifically, the Exchange believes that its Market Maker OTP fees are
constrained by competitive considerations because unreasonable permit
fees could discourage prospective Market Makers from choosing to access
the Exchange or cause existing Market Makers to reevaluate their
participation on the Exchange. If the Exchange were to set Market Maker
OTP fees at a level that would disincentivize Market Makers from
quoting and trading on the Exchange or cause Market Makers to
disconnect from the Exchange altogether, such attrition would impact
the Exchange's ability to compete with other options exchanges for
order flow and make the Exchange a less attractive venue for trading.
    As noted above, there are currently 16 registered options exchanges
that trade options; one such exchange has Market Maker permit fees
identical to those proposed by the Exchange, and at least one other has
Market Maker permit fees much higher than those proposed by the
Exchange.\21\ Furthermore, relatively low barriers to entry mean that
new exchanges may rapidly and inexpensively enter the market and offer
additional substitute platforms that would also compete with the
Exchange for Market Maker order flow. For example, four exchanges have
been added in the U.S. options markets in the last five years (Cboe
EDGX, Inc.; Nasdaq MRX, LLC; MIAX Pearl, LLC; and MIAX Emerald, LLC).
Based on publicly

available information, no single options exchange currently has more
than 16% of the market share. The Exchange is also not aware of any
evidence that has been offered or demonstrated that a market share of
less than 14% provides the Exchange with anti-competitive pricing
power. Moreover, the Exchange believes that the fact that its market
share changes from month to month demonstrates that the competitive
forces to which it is subject. As noted above, while the Exchange's
market share as of March 2022 was 13.57%, its market share was 10.16%
in March 2021 and fluctuated between 9.07% and 13.99% in the
intervening period.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See note 16, supra.
    \22\ See note 15, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further believes that its ability to set Market Maker
permit fees is constrained by competitive forces based on the fact that
Market Makers can, and have, chosen to terminate their status as a
Market Maker if they deem Market Maker permit fees to be unreasonable
or excessive. Specifically, the Exchange notes that a BOX participant
modified its access to BOX in connection with the implementation of a
proposed change to BOX's Market Maker permit fees.\23\ The Exchange has
also observed that another options exchange group experienced decreases
in market share following its proposed modifications of its access fees
(including Market Maker trading permit fees), suggesting that market
participants (including Market Makers) are sensitive to changes in
exchanges' access fees and may respond by shifting their order flow
elsewhere if they deem the fees to be unreasonable or excessive.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ According to BOX, a Market Maker on BOX terminated its
status as a Market Maker in response to BOX's proposed modification
of Market Maker trading permit fees. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 94894 (May 11, 2022), 87 FR 29987 (May 17, 2022) (SR-
BOX-2022-17) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fee Schedule on the BOX Options
Market LLC Facility to Adopt Electronic Market Maker Trading Permit
Fees). BOX noted, and the Exchange agrees, that this Market Maker's
decision demonstrates that Market Makers can, and do, alter their
membership status if they deem permit fees at an exchange to be
unsuitable for their business needs, thus demonstrating the
competitive environment for Market Maker permit fees and the
constraints on options exchanges when setting Market Maker permit
fees.
    \24\ The Exchange observed that exchanges in the MIAX Group
introduced multiple access fee increases in July and August 2021. In
June 2021, prior to these fee increases, the aggregate MIAX Group
share of multi-list options volume was 15.45%. In the months after
the introduction of higher access fees, MIAX Group's market share
declined: by September 2021, the aggregate MIAX Group market share
was 14.50%, and as of March 2022, market share was 13.75%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There is no requirement, regulatory or otherwise, that any Market
Maker connect to and access any (or all of) the available options
exchanges.\25\ The Exchange also is not aware of any reason why a
Market Maker could not cease being a permit holder in response to
unreasonable price increases. The Exchange does not assess any
termination fee for a Market Maker to drop its OTP, nor is the Exchange
aware of any other costs that would be incurred by a Market Maker to do
so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The Exchange notes that, according to BOX, of the 62 market
making firms that are registered as Market Makers across Cboe, Miami
International Securities Exchange, LLC, and BOX, 42 firms access
only one of the three exchanges. See Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 94894 (May 11, 2022), 87 FR 29987 (May 17, 2022) (SR-BOX-2022-
17) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule
Change to Amend the Fee Schedule on the BOX Options Market LLC
Facility To Adopt Electronic Market Maker Trading Permit Fees). The
Exchange believes that BOX's observation demonstrates that market
making firms can, and do, select which exchanges they wish to
access, and, accordingly, options exchanges must take competitive
considerations into account when setting fees for such access.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that its
ability to modify Market Maker OTP fees is constrained by competitive
forces and that its proposed modifications to the Market Maker OTP fee
structure are reasonably designed in consideration of the competitive
environment in which the Exchange operates, by balancing the value of
the enhanced benefits available to Market Makers due to the current
level of activity on the Exchange with a fee structure that will
continue to incent Market Makers to support increased liquidity, quote
competition, and trading opportunities on the Exchange, for the benefit
of all market participants.
The Proposed Rule Change Is an Equitable Allocation of Credits and Fees
and Is Not Unfairly Discriminatory
    The proposed change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because it applies to all Market Makers, all of whom are required to
have at least one OTP to correlate to the options issues in their
assignments. The Exchange further believes that the proposed change is
not unfairly discriminatory to Market Makers because only Market Makers
are required to submit quotes as part of their obligations to operate
on the Exchange. The Exchange also believes that, to the extent the
proposal increases fees that only apply to Market Makers, the proposed
change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory given both the
benefits to Market Makers derived from the increased number of issues
on the Exchange and the function that Market Makers fulfill on the
Exchange (which requires the Exchange to allocate more supporting
bandwidth and resources, particularly in light of the greater number of
issues in which Market Makers can quote).\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The Exchange also notes that the Fee Schedule provides for
various incentives to Market Makers (that are not available to other
market participants). See note 20, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed change is equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because it is designed to encourage
Market Makers to quote additional issues, including less active issues,
which would promote more liquid markets and quote competition, to the
benefit all market participants. The Exchange further believes that, to
the extent the proposed change results in increased monthly fees, such
increases represent an equitable allocation of fees in the context of
the proposed restructuring of Market Maker OTP fees, as well as in
consideration of the increased number of issues traded on the Exchange
since its last revision of the Market Maker OTP fee structure, which in
turn has increased trading opportunities for Market Makers on the
Exchange.
    For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal
is consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\27\ the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden
on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above, the Exchange
believes that the proposed changes would encourage the submission of
additional liquidity to a public exchange, thereby promoting market
depth, price discovery and transparency and enhancing order execution
opportunities for all market participants. As a result, the Exchange
believes that the proposed change furthers the Commission's goal in
adopting Regulation NMS of fostering integrated competition among
orders, which promotes ``more efficient pricing of individual stocks
for all types of orders, large and small.'' \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \28\ See Reg NMS Adopting Release, supra note 13, at 37499.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Intramarket Competition. The Exchange does not believe that the
proposed rule change would impose an undue burden on competition
because it impacts all Market Makers, all of whom require at least one
OTP to satisfy their quoting obligations on the Exchange. The Exchange
also does not believe that the proposed change would impose any burden
on competition that is not

necessary or appropriate, as Market Makers fulfill a unique role on the
Exchange; only Market Makers are required to submit quotes as part of
their obligations to operate on the Exchange, and, in light of that
role, are eligible for certain incentives that are not offered to other
market participants.\29\ While the proposed change generally increases
fees for Market Maker OTPs, the Exchange does not believe that it
imposes any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
because it would align Market Maker OTP fees with the current level of
activity and benefits available to Market Makers on the Exchange and,
by continuing to incent Market Makers to quote in a broad range of
options, would promote quote competition and trading opportunities on
the Exchange. In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed
change, to the extent it expands the number of covered issues per
Market Maker OTP, would encourage increased liquidity, quote
competition, and trading opportunities on the Exchange, which in turn
would benefit all market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See note 20, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Intermarket Competition. The Exchange operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor one
of the 16 competing options exchanges if they deem fee levels at a
particular venue to be excessive. Based on publicly-available
information, and excluding index-based options, no single exchange has
more than 16% of the market share of executed volume of multiply-listed
equity and ETF options trades. Therefore, the Exchange believes that no
exchange currently possesses significant pricing power in the execution
of multiply-listed equity and ETF options order flow. The Exchange also
believes that the number of options exchanges on which a Market Maker
can transact also ensures competition in the marketplace and constrains
the ability of exchanges to charge supracompetitive fees to Market
Makers for access to its market. In such an environment, the Exchange
must continually review, and consider adjusting, its fees and credits
to remain competitive with other exchanges.
    The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change would impose
any undue burden on intermarket competition and instead believes that
the proposal would promote competition among options exchanges.
Specifically, the Exchange believes that its proposed fee structure for
Market Maker OTPs would promote competition because, as discussed
above, it would be identical to the Market Maker permit fees assessed
by another options exchange and remains significantly lower than the
Market Maker permit fees assessed by another options exchange for the
ability to quote in all issues.\30\ Thus, the Exchange believes that
the proposed change would not discourage Market Makers from continuing
to quote in a broad range of options, thereby supporting increased
liquidity, quote competition, and trading opportunities on the
Exchange, which in turn could make the Exchange a more attractive venue
for market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See note 16, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \31\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \32\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \32\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \33\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2022-36 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-NYSEArca-2022-36.
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-NYSEArca-2022-36, and should
be submitted on or before July 20, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-13811 Filed 6-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 226 (Wednesday, November 23, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 84572]
[FR Doc No: 2016-28165]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OR17-2-000]

Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P.; Notice of Petition for
Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on November 14, 2016, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2)
of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2) (2016), Magellan Midstream
Partners, L.P. (``Magellan''), filed a petition for a declaratory order
seeking confirmation that certain proposed marketing affiliate
transactions are permissible under the Interstate Commerce act (ICA)
and Elkins Act, as more fully explained in the petition.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Petitioner.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to theFederal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street N.E., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on December 14, 2016.

    DATED: November 16, 2016.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-28165 Filed 11-22-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P