[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 74 (Tuesday, April 20, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20569-20574]
[FR Doc No: 2021-08033]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-91559; File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2021-020]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Its Fees Schedule

April 14, 2021.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on April 7, 2021, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule for its options
platform (``EDGX Options'') by updating certain Customer-related fee
codes, amending certain Customer-related volume tiers, and amending the
Fees Schedule to reflect the adoption of the Penny Program on a
permanent basis.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange initially filed the proposed fee changes on
April 1, 2021 (SR-CboeEDGX-2021-017). On April 7, 2021, the Exchange
withdrew that filing and submitted this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the
Exchange is only one of 16 options venues to which market participants
may direct their order flow. Based on publicly available information,
no single options exchange has more than 15% of the market share and
currently the Exchange represents only approximately 4% of the market
share.\4\ Thus, in such a low-concentrated and highly competitive
market, no single options exchange, including the Exchange, possesses
significant pricing power in the execution of option order flow. The
Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
shift order flow or discontinue to reduce use of certain categories of
products, in response to fee changes. Accordingly, competitive forces
constrain the Exchange's transaction fees, and market participants can
readily

trade on competing venues if they deem pricing levels at those other
venues to be more favorable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Options Market Monthly Volume
Summary (March 24, 2021), available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/options/market_statistics/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's Fees Schedule sets forth standard rebates and rates
applied per contract. For example, the Exchange provides standard
rebates ranging from $0.01 up to $0.21 per contract for Customer orders
in both Penny and Non-Penny Securities. The Fee Codes and Associated
Fees section of the Fees Schedule also provides for certain fee codes
associated with certain order types and market participants that
provide for various other fees or rebates. Fee code ZA, for example, is
appended to Customer complex orders which execute against a contra non-
Customer order in Penny Securities and currently offers a rebate of
$0.45 per contract. Similarly, fee code ZB is appended to Customer
complex orders which execute against a contra non-Customer order in
non-Penny Securities and currently offers a rebate of $0.80 per
contract. Fee code BC is appended to Customer Agency orders executed in
the Automated Improvement Mechanism (``AIM'' or ``AIM Auction'') and
currently offers a rebate of $0.11 per contract. Additionally, the Fee
Schedule offers tiered pricing which provides Members \5\ opportunities
to qualify for higher rebates or reduced fees where certain volume
criteria and thresholds are met. Footnote 1 of the Fee Schedule
currently offers three Complex Customer Penny Tiers which provide
enhanced rebates between $0.47 and $0.49 per contract for qualifying
Customer orders that yield fee code ZA where a Member meets certain
liquidity thresholds, and three Complex Customer Non-Penny Tiers which
provide enhanced rebates between $0.85 and $0.95 per contract for
qualifying Customer orders that yield fee code ZB for Members that meet
certain liquidity thresholds. Footnote 9 of the Fee Schedule currently
also offers an AIM Volume Tier which provides an enhanced rebate of
$0.14 for qualifying Customer orders that yield fee code BC where a
Member meets the tier's volume threshold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Exchange Rule 1.5(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend the rebate amounts provided to
orders yielding fee codes ZA, ZB, and BC, the Customer Complex Penny
and Non-Penny Tiers, and the AIM Volume Tier. As described above,
qualifying Customer orders yielding fee codes ZA, ZB, and BC are
currently provided a rebate in the amount of $0.45, $0.80, and $0.11
per contract, respectively. The proposed rule change proposes to
incrementally decrease each of these amounts to a rebate of $0.39 per
contract for orders yielding fee code ZA, $0.75 per contract for orders
yielding fee code ZB, and $0.06 for orders yielding fee code BC. The
proposed rule change also reflects the change in these amounts in the
Fee Codes and Associated Fees section of the Fee Schedule, as well as
in Footnote 6 (AIM and SAM Pricing) and Footnote 8 (Complex Order
Types) of the Fee Schedule. The Exchange notes that these rates for
Customer orders are in line with, yet also competitive with, rates
assessed by other options exchanges, which offer lower rates for
Customer orders but more volume incentive opportunities for enhanced
pricing (which the Exchange also proposes to incorporate for Customer
orders herein this proposal).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See e.g., MIAX Emerald Options Exchange Fee Schedule,
Section 1(a)(i). Section 1(a)(i) provides a range of base rebates
for customer Penny and Non-Penny transactions depending on meeting
various volume tiers (Section 1(a)(ii)). For example, base rebates
for Customer complex transactions in Penny classes range from $0.25
to $0.50 and for Customer complex transaction in non-Penny classes
range from $0.40 to $0.87; see also MIAX Options Fee Schedule,
Section 1(a)(v) which offers a base rate of $0.00 for Customer
transactions in MIAX's auction mechanism (``PRIME''), and Section
1(a)(iii), which then offers a rebate of $0.10 or $0.11 for Customer
transactions in PRIME if a member meets certain volume thresholds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change amends the Customer Complex Penny Tiers.
Currently, Tier 1 offers an enhanced rebate of $0.47 per contract for a
Member's qualifying orders (i.e., yielding fee code ZA) if a Member has
an ADV \7\ in Customer orders greater than or equal to 0.40% of average
OCV.\8\ Tier 2 currently offers an enhanced rebate of $0.48 per
contract for qualifying orders if a Member has an ADV in Customer
orders greater than or equal to 0.55% of average OCV. Tier 3 currently
offers an enhanced rebate of $0.49 per contract for qualifying orders
if a Member has an ADV in Customer orders greater than or equal to
0.75% of average OCV. The proposed rule change amends the Customer
Complex Penny Tiers by modestly reducing the enhanced rebate amount
offered per each tier, modestly reducing the percentage of average OCV
that a Member's ADV in Customer orders must reach in Tier 1 and Tier 2,
adding an alternative prong of criteria in each tier, and adopting two
new tiers, Tier 4 and Tier 5. The proposed rule change reduces the
enhanced rebate offered by Tier 1 from $0.47 to $0.40, by Tier 2 from
$0.48 to $0.45, and by Tier 3 from $0.49 to $0.47. The proposed rule
change reduces the percentage of average OCV that a Member's ADV in
Customer orders must meet in Tier 1 from 0.40% to 0.25% and in Tier 2
from 0.55% to 0.50%. The proposed rule change adds an alternative prong
of criteria regarding a Member's ADV in complex non-crossing orders
(that is, orders not executed in a two sided auction mechanism such as
AIM or the Solicitation Auction Mechanism (``SAM'') or in a crossing
mechanism such as a Qualified Contingent Cross (``QCC'')) as a
percentage of average OCV in each tier that a Member may choose to meet
in lieu of the existing criteria (Customer order ADV as a percentage of
average OCV) to receive the corresponding enhanced rebate.
Specifically, a Member may reach the proposed alternative criteria in
Tier 1 if the Member has an ADV in complex non-crossing orders that is
greater than or equal to 0.10% of average OCV, the proposed alternative
criteria in Tier 2 if the Member has an ADV in complex non-crossing
orders that is greater than or equal to 0.25% of average OCV, and the
proposed alternative criteria in Tier 3 if the Member has an ADV in
complex non-crossing orders that is greater than or equal to 0.45% of
average OCV. Finally, the proposed rule change adopts Tier 4, which
provides an enhanced rebate of $0.49 per contract for qualifying orders
if a Member has an ADV in complex non-crossing orders greater than or
equal to 0.60% of average OCV or if a Member has an ADV in Customer
orders greater than or equal to 1.00% of average OCV, and adopts Tier
5, which provides an enhanced rebate of $0.50 per contract for
qualifying orders if a Member has an ADV in complex non-crossing orders
greater than or equal to 1.00% of average OCV or Member has an ADV in
Customer orders greater than or equal to 2.00% of average OCV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ ``ADV'' means average daily volume calculated as the number
of contracts added or removed, combined, per day.
    \8\ ``OCC Customer Volume or ``OCV'' means the total equity and
ETF options volume that clears in the Customer range at the Options
Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') for the month for which the fees
apply, excluding volume on any day that the Exchange experiences an
Exchange System Disruption and on any day with a scheduled early
market close.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change amends the Customer Complex Non-Penny
Tiers. Currently, Tier 1 offers an enhanced rebate of $0.85 per
contract for a Member's qualifying orders (i.e., yielding fee code ZB)
if a Member has an ADV in Customer orders greater than or equal to
0.40% of average OCV. Tier 2 currently offers an enhanced rebate of
$0.87 per contract for qualifying orders if a Member has an ADV in
Customer orders greater than or equal to 0.55% of average OCV. Tier 3
currently offers an enhanced rebate of $0.95 per contract

for qualifying orders if a Member has an ADV in Customer orders that is
greater than or equal to 0.75% of average OCV. In particular, the
proposed rule change amends the Customer Complex Non-Penny Tiers by
modestly reducing the enhanced rebate amount offered in Tier 1 and Tier
2, modestly increasing the percentage of average OCV that a Member's
ADV in Customer orders must reach in each tier, adding an alternative
prong of criteria in each tier, and adopting new Tier 4. The proposed
rule change reduces the enhanced rebate offered by Tier 1 from $0.85 to
$0.80 and by Tier 2 from $0.87 to $0.85. The proposed rule change
increases the percentage of average OCV that a Member's ADV in Customer
orders must meet in Tier 1 from 0.40% to 0.50%, in Tier 2 from 0.55% to
0.75%, and in Tier 3 from 0.75% to 1.00%. The proposed rule change adds
an alternative prong of criteria regarding a Member's ADV in complex
non-crossing orders as a percentage of average OCV in each tier that a
Member may choose to meet in lieu of the existing criteria (Customer
order ADV as a percentage of average OCV) to receive a corresponding
enhanced rebate. Specifically, a Member may reach the proposed
alternative criteria in Tier 1 if the Member has an ADV in complex non-
crossing orders that is greater than or equal to 0.25% of average OCV,
the proposed alternative criteria in Tier 2 if the Member has an ADV in
complex non-crossing orders that is greater than or equal to 0.45% of
average OCV, and the proposed alternative criteria in Tier 3 if the
Member has an ADV in complex non-crossing orders that is greater than
or equal to 0.60% of average OCV. Finally, the proposed rule change
adopts Tier 4, which provides an enhanced rebate of $1.00 per contract
for qualifying orders if a Member has an ADV in complex non-crossing
orders greater than or equal to 1.00% of average OCV or if a Member has
an ADV in Customer orders greater than or equal to 2.00% of average
OCV.
    The proposed rule change to the existing Customer Complex Penny/
Non-Penny Tiers eases the overall difficulty in reaching the tiers'
criteria by adding an alternative criteria option that Members may
choose to meet in lieu of the existing criteria and amends the enhanced
rebates to correspond with the ease in criteria. While the proposed
change incrementally increases the ADV as a percentage of average OCV
in the existing Customer Complex Non-Penny Tiers' criteria, the
Exchange notes that the overall difficulty of meeting the criteria in
these existing tiers is eased by the opportunity to meet alternative
criteria. Also, as a result of the increase in the percentage of
Customer order ADV in the existing Customer Complex Non-Penny Tiers,
the proposed corresponding enhanced rebates are not as reduced as the
proposed enhanced rebates that correspond to the less difficult
criteria (due to the addition of the alternative criteria plus the
decrease in ADV as a percentage of average OCV) proposed in the
existing Customer Complex Penny Tiers. The proposed overall ease in
criteria and new tiers offered under the Customer Complex Penny/Non-
Penny Tiers provide Members an additional opportunity to receive a
rebate on their qualifying Customer complex orders (i.e., yielding fee
code ZA and ZB), which, in turn, provides Members with increased
incentives to increase their Customer order flow and their overall
complex non-crossing order flow in order to achieve the proposed eased
and/or additional criteria and receive enhanced rebates on their
qualifying Customer complex orders.
    The proposed rule change also amends the AIM Volume Tier.
Currently, Tier 1 offers an enhanced rebate of $0.14 per contract for a
Member's qualifying orders (i.e. yielding fee code BC) if a Member has
an ADV in Customer Orders greater than or equal to 0.35% of average
OCV. The proposed rule change adopts a new Tier 1 (and, as a result,
updates current Tier 1 to Tier 2),\9\ which offers an enhanced rebate
of $0.11 per contract for qualifying orders if a Member has an ADV in
Customer Orders greater than or equal to 0.30% of average OCV. The
proposed rule change also incrementally increases the percentage of a
Member's Customer Order ADV into average OCV from 0.35% to 0.50% in
Tier 2 (current Tier 1). The corresponding enhanced rebate remains the
same Like the proposed additional Customer Complex Penny/Non-Penny
Tiers, the proposed new AIM Volume Tier provide Members with an
additional opportunity to achieve tier criteria and receive an enhanced
rebate, thus providing further incentive to submit Customer order flow
to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ As a result of the proposed additional tier, the proposed
rule change also updates the heading of Footnote 9 from singular to
plural ``Tiers.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to the Customer
Complex Penny/Non-Penny Tiers and AIM Volume Tiers are designed overall
to incentivize more Customer order flow and to direct an increase of
order flow to the EDGX Options Order Book. The Exchange believes that
an increase in Customer order flow and overall order flow to the
Exchange's Book creates more trading opportunities, which, in turn
attracts Market-Makers. A resulting increase in Market-Maker activity
may facilitate tighter spreads, which may lead to an additional
increase of order flow from other market participants, further
contributing to a deeper, more liquid market to the benefit of all
market participants by creating a more robust and well-balanced market
ecosystem.
    Finally, the proposed rule change updates the term ``Penny Pilot''
throughout the Fee Schedule to reflect the 2020 adoption of the pilot
program on a permanent basis.\10\ More specifically, on April 1, 2020
the Commission approved an amendment the Plan for the Purpose of
Developing and Implementing Procedures Designed to Facilitate the
Listing and Trading of Standardized Options (the ``OLPP'') to make
permanent the Penny Pilot Program, and the Exchange accordingly
conformed its Rules to the OLPP Program by deleting Interpretation and
Policy .01 to Rule 21.5 (the ``Penny Pilot Rule''), replacing it with
Rule 21.5(e) (Requirements for Penny Interval Program). As a result,
the proposed rule change now updates the Fee Schedule to reflect the
permanent Penny Program, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89080 (June 17,
2020), 85 FR 37722 (June 23, 2020) (SR-CboeEDGX-2020-028).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Removes the term ``Pilot'' from the descriptions of fee
codes PB, PC, PF, PM, PN, PO, PP, PT, RN, and RQ in the Fees Codes and
Associated Fees section; \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Exchange notes that this update harmonizes these fee
code descriptions with existing fee code descriptions that currently
refer to just ``Penny''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     replaces ``Pilot'' with ``Program'' where applicable in
the Standard Rates table, Footnote 4, Footnote 6, Footnote 8, and
Marketing Fees table; and
     amends the term ``Penny Pilot Securities'' to reflect the
definition of ``Penny Program Securities'' in the Definition section
and updates the definition to reflect Rule 21.5(e), which now governs
the Penny Program.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will provide
additional clarity in the Fee Schedule by updating references to the
current permanent Penny Program and the corresponding Rule that now
governs the program. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change
does not alter the securities eligible for the Penny Program nor any of
the rates currently assessed for Penny Program Securities.

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\12\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\13\ in particular, as it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its Members and issuers and other persons
using its facilities. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \14\
requirements that the rules of an exchange be designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest, and, particularly, is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or incentives to be insufficient. The proposed rule change
reflects a competitive pricing structure designed to incentivize market
participants to direct their order flow to the Exchange, which the
Exchange believes would enhance market quality to the benefit of all
Members.
    The Exchange believes the proposed reduction in rebate amounts for
orders yielding fee codes ZA, ZB, and BC is reasonable, equitable, and
not unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange believes that amending the
rebates for Customer orders yielding fee code ZA, ZB, or BC is
reasonable because, as stated above, in order to operate in the highly
competitive equities markets, the Exchange and its competing exchanges
seek to offer similar pricing structures, including assessing
comparable rates and offering multiple enhanced pricing opportunities
for various types of orders. Thus, the Exchange believes the proposed
rate changes (along with the proposed offering of additional tiered
pricing opportunities) are reasonable as they are generally aligned
with and competitive with the amounts assessed for similar Customer
orders on other options exchanges.\15\ The Exchange also believes that
amending the rebate amounts associated with fee codes ZA, ZB, and BC
represents an equitable allocation of fees and is not unfairly
discriminatory because they will continue to automatically and
uniformly apply to all Members' respective qualifying Customer orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed changes to the Customer Complex
Penny/Non-Penny Tiers and AIM Volume Tier are reasonable overall
because they amend the tiers in a manner that incentivizes increased
Customer order flow and/or overall order flow to the EDGX Book by
providing Members with additional opportunities to meet criteria, both
via reduction in difficulty and additional tiers, in order to receive
enhanced rebates a Member's qualifying orders. The Exchange notes that
relative volume-based incentives and discounts have been widely adopted
by exchanges,\16\ including the Exchange,\17\ and are reasonable,
equitable and non-discriminatory because they are open to all members
on an equal basis and provide additional benefits or discounts that are
reasonably related to (i) the value to an exchange's market quality and
(ii) associated higher levels of market activity, such as higher levels
of liquidity provision and/or growth patterns. Additionally, as noted
above, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. The
Exchange is only one of several options venues to which market
participants may direct their order flow, and it represents a small
percentage of the overall market. Competing options exchanges offer
similar tiered pricing structures to that of the Exchange, including
schedules of rebates and fees that apply based upon members achieving
certain volume and/or growth thresholds and offer comparable pricing to
members for achieving such tiers.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See e.g., Cboe BZX U.S. Options Exchange Fee Schedule,
Footnote 1, Customer Penny Add Volume Tiers; and Footnote 12,
Customer Non-Penny Add Volume Tiers, both of which provide for
various tiers with different, incrementally more difficult criteria,
many of which are based on average volumes as a percentage of
average OCV and offer enhanced rebates ranging from $0.35 to $1.06
per contract.
    \17\ See i.e., Cboe EDGX U.S. Options Exchange Fee Schedule,
Footnote 1, Customer Volume Tiers.
    \18\ See supra note 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes to
the Customer Complex Penny/Non-Penny Tiers and the AIM Volume Tier are
reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange
believes that the additional, alternative criteria and modification of
existing criteria in the Customer Complex Penny/Non-Penny Tiers are
reasonable because they amend existing opportunities to receive
enhanced rebates by easing the level of difficulty in each set of the
three existing tiers and maintain the current structure of step-up in
difficulty in achieving each ascending tier. The proposed new Customer
Complex Penny/Non-Penny Tiers are reasonable because they provide
Members with additional, also incrementally more challenging,
opportunities to receive enhanced rebates. Likewise, the proposed new
AIM Volume Tier 1 provides Members with an additional opportunity to
achieve easier tier criteria (than that of current Tier 1) and receive
an enhanced rebate, while slightly increasing the difficulty in
reaching the criteria in the existing AIM Volume Tier (current Tier 1)
to also reflect an incremental step-up in difficulty in the AIM Volume
Tiers. The Exchange believes that the proposed additional opportunities
in the Customer Penny/Non-Penny Tiers and AIM Volume Tiers for Members
to receive enhanced rebates on their qualifying orders via new tiers
and an overall ease in tier difficulty (while still maintaining the
current structure of step-up in difficulty through ascending tiers) are
reasonably designed to provide further incentive to Members to increase
Customer order flow to the Exchange overall order flow directly to the
Exchange's Book. As described above, Customer order flow and overall
order flow to the Exchange's Book creates more trading opportunities,
which, in turn attracts Market-Makers. A resulting increase in Market-
Maker activity may facilitate tighter spreads, which may lead to an
additional increase of order flow from other market participants.
Increased overall order flow benefits all investors by deepening the
Exchange's liquidity pool, potentially providing even greater execution
incentives and opportunities, offering additional flexibility for all
investors to enjoy cost savings, supporting the quality of price
discovery, promoting market transparency, and improving investor
protection.
    The Exchange further believes that the proposed changes to the
enhanced rebate amounts and new enhanced rebates in the Customer
Complex Penny/Non-Penny Tiers and AIM Volume Tiers are reasonable as
they represent the proposed proportional decreases in difficulty per
adjacent tiers. The Exchange believes that providing reduced enhanced
rebates per tier is

reasonable as they are commensurate with the proposed criteria, in
that, they are line with the easing the level of difficulty or the
proposed new relative levels of difficulty in the Customer Complex
Penny/Non-Penny Tiers and AIM Volume Tiers. Also, as noted above, while
the proposed criteria changes to the existing Customer Complex Non-
Penny Tiers decrease the overall difficulty in meeting the tiers'
criteria, the difficulty in reaching the modified criteria in these
tiers is incrementally greater than the difficulty in reaching the
modified criteria in the proposed Customer Complex Penny Tiers.
Therefore, Exchange believes it is reasonable to offer, as proposed, a
slightly less reduced enhanced rebate per corresponding Customer
Complex Non-Penny Tier. Also, the proposed reduced enhanced rebates
and/or proposed additional enhanced rebates in the Customer Complex
Penny/Non-Penny Tiers and AIM Volume Tiers, as applicable, do not
represent a significant departure from the enhanced rebates currently
offered under the tiers as the proposed rate changes merely
incrementally shift the range of enhanced rebates offered to most
appropriately align with the corresponding shift in criteria difficulty
per each tier (existing and new).
    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to the Customer
Complex Penny/Non-Penny Tiers and AIM Volume Tier represent an
equitable allocation of rebates and are not unfairly discriminatory.
All Members will continue to be eligible for the existing Customer
Complex Penny/Non-Penny Tiers and AIM Volume Tier, as amended, and will
be eligible for the proposed tiers by submitting the requisite order
flow. The proposed changes to the tiers' criteria are designed as an
incentive to any and all Members interested in meeting modified and new
tier criteria to submit additional Customer orders and/or overall order
flow directly to the Exchange's Book. Each Member will have the same
opportunity to submit the requisite order flow and the corresponding
enhanced rebates (existing and as amended) will apply uniformly to all
Members that meet the modified or new tier criteria. Without having a
view of activity on other markets and off-exchange venues, the Exchange
has no way of knowing whether this proposed rule change would
definitely result in any Members qualifying for the proposed tiers.
While the Exchange has no way of predicting with certainty how the
proposed tiers will impact Member activity, the Exchange anticipates
that at least one to three Members will be able to compete for and
potentially achieve the amended criteria in each of the existing
Customer Complex Penny Tiers and Customer Complex Non-Penny Tiers. The
Exchange also anticipates at least one or two Members will be able to
compete for and potentially achieve the two new Customer Complex Penny
Tiers and new Customer Non-Penny Tier. The Exchange anticipates that
approximately two to three Members will be able to compete for and
potentially achieve each of the AIM Volume Tiers, as proposed. The
Exchange also notes that the proposed tiers will not adversely impact
any Member's pricing or their ability to qualify for other rebate
tiers. Rather, should a Member not meet the proposed criteria for a
tier, the Member will merely not receive the corresponding enhanced
rebate.
    Finally, the Exchange believes the proposed update to the Penny
Program language and Rule reference in the Fee Schedule is reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it is intended to
provide additional clarity in the Fee Schedule by updating references
to the current permanent Penny Program and the corresponding Rule that
now governs the program and does not alter the securities eligible for
the Penny Program nor any of the rates currently assessed for Penny
Program Securities.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intramarket or intermarket competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Rather, as discussed above, the Exchange believes that the proposed
change would encourage the submission of additional order flow to a
public exchange, thereby promoting market depth, execution incentives
and enhanced execution opportunities, as well as price discovery and
transparency for all Members. As a result, the Exchange believes that
the proposed change furthers the Commission's goal in adopting
Regulation NMS of fostering competition among orders, which promotes
``more efficient pricing of individual stocks for all types of orders,
large and small.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808, 70 FR 37495,
37498-99 (June 29, 2005) (S7-10-04) (Final Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not impose any
burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Particularly, the proposed
change to the rebate amounts associated with fee codes ZA, ZB, and BC
will continue to apply uniformly and automatically to all Members'
respective qualifying orders. The proposed tier changes apply to all
Members equally in that all Members are eligible to achieve the tiers'
proposed criteria, have a reasonable opportunity to meet the tiers'
proposed criteria and will all receive the corresponding enhanced
rebates (existing and as amended) if such criteria is met. Overall, the
proposed change is designed to attract additional Customer order flow
to the Exchange and overall order flow directly to the Exchange's Book.
The Exchange believes that the modified and new tier criteria will
incentivize market participants to strive to increase such order flow
to the Exchange to receive the corresponding enhanced rebates and, as a
result, increase trading opportunities, attract further Market-Maker
activity, further incentivize the provision of liquidity and continued
order flow to the Book, and improve price transparency on the Exchange.
Greater overall order flow and pricing transparency benefits all market
participants on the Exchange by generally providing a cycle of more
trading opportunities, enhancing market quality, and continuing to
encourage Members to submit order flow and continue to contribute
towards a robust and well-balanced market ecosystem to the benefit of
all market participants. The Exchange additionally notes that the
proposed rule change to reflect the current Penny Program is
noncompetitive, nonsubstantive and merely clarifying in nature.
    Next, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As previously
discussed, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market.
Members have numerous alternative venues that they may participate on
and direct their order flow, including 15 other options exchanges and
off-exchange venues and alternative trading systems. Additionally, the
Exchange represents a small percentage of the overall market. Based on
publicly available information, no single options exchange has more
than 15% of the market share.\20\ Therefore, no exchange possesses
significant pricing power in the execution of order flow. Indeed,
participants can readily choose to send

their orders to other exchange and off-exchange venues if they deem fee
levels at those other venues to be more favorable. Moreover, the
Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over
regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services
in the securities markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the
Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining
prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation
of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in promoting
market competition in its broader forms that are most important to
investors and listed companies.'' \21\ The fact that this market is
competitive has also long been recognized by the courts. In
NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit
stated as follows: ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow
is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market
system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that
act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of
where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to
take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange
possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of
order flow from broker dealers'. . . .''.\22\ Accordingly, the Exchange
does not believe its proposed fee change imposes any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See supra note 3.
    \21\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
    \22\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \23\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \24\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \24\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2021-020 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2021-020. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change.
    Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or
edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2021-
020 and should be submitted on or before May 11, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-08033 Filed 4-19-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 46 (Friday, March 10, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13280-13282]
[FR Doc No: 2017-04689]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0415; FRL-9959-44-Region 9]

Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, Antelope Valley Air
Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a revision to the Antelope Valley Air Quality Management
District (AVAQMD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan
(SIP). This revision concerns emissions of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) from passenger vehicles.
We are proposing to approve a local rule to regulate these emission
sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). We are taking
comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by April 10, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2016-0415 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting/-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Buss, EPA Region IX, (415)
947-4152<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rule did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of this rule?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule?
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule?
    B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. Public Comment and Proposed Action
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rule did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the date
that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the
California Air Resources Board.

                                             Table 1--Submitted Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Local agency                Rule No.              Rule title              Adopted        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AVAQMD.............................            2200  Transportation Outreach            07/20/99        10/29/99
                                                      Program.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 29, 2000, the submittal for AVAQMD Rule 2200 was deemed by
operation of law to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51,
appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of this rule?

    There are no previous versions of Rule 2200 in the SIP, however,
when the District succeeded the South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD) on July 1, 1997 as the air agency in the Antelope
Valley, the SCAQMD rules in effect within the Antelope Valley on that
date became AVAPCD Rules, including Rule 2202: ``On Road Motor Vehicle
Mitigation Options.'' On January 20, 1998 the District rescinded Rule
2202 and subsequently replaced it with Rule 2200. While we can act on
only the most recently submitted version, we have reviewed materials
provided with previous submittals.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule?

    Rule 2200 provides a mechanism for obtaining documentation of
emission reductions resulting from trip reduction programs. According
to the District, the rule is expected to help reduce volatile organic
compound (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emissions by
encouraging individuals to select rideshare alternatives to driving
alone and by educating employees and the public others about the health
impacts of motor vehicle pollution. VOCs and NOX help
produce ground-level ozone, and PM, which harm human health and the
environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States to submit
regulations that control VOC and NOX emissions. The EPA's
technical support document (TSD) has more information about this rule.

II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule?

    SIP rules must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not
interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA section
110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements in
nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions
reductions (see CAA section 193). Further, CAA section 182(d)(1)(B)
permits states with severe or extreme nonattainment areas to ``submit a
revision at any time requiring employers in such area[s] to implement
programs to reduce work-related vehicle trips and miles travelled by
employees. Such revision shall be developed in accordance with guidance
issued by the Administrator pursuant to [the CAA] and may require that
employers in such area[s] increase average passenger occupancy per
vehicle in commuting trips between home and the workplace during peak
travel periods.'' 42 U.S.C. 7511a.
    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate
enforceability, revision/relaxation and rule stringency requirements
for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:
    ``Guidance on Incorporating Voluntary Mobile Source Emission
Reduction Programs in State Implementation Plans (SIPs),'' Memorandum
from Richard D. Wilson, October 24, 1997.

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe this rule is consistent with CAA requirements and
relevant guidance regarding enforceability, and SIP revisions. The
rule, however, establishes a framework for documenting emissions
reductions from trip reduction programs without requiring any specific
trip reduction programs. In addition, the submittal does not contain a
good faith estimate of emission reductions. For these two reasons, it
is not appropriate to credit this rule with emission reductions in a
SIP at this time. The TSD has more information on our evaluation.

C. Public Comment and Proposed Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to
fully approve the submitted rule because we believe it fulfills all
relevant requirements. We will accept comments from the public on this
proposal until April 10, 2017. Unless we receive convincing new
information during the comment period, we intend to publish a final
approval action that will incorporate this rule into the federally
enforceable SIP.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the AVAQMD the rule described in Table 1 of this notice. The
EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents available
electronically through www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Region IX (Air-4), 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, CA, 94105-3901.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation
land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: August 24, 2016.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2017-04689 Filed 3-9-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 1 (Friday, January 2, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45-46]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30783]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2014-0763; OMB Control Number 1625-0109]

Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management
and Budget

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Thirty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the
U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding Information Collection Requests (ICRs),
abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval of an
extension to the following collection of information: 1625-0109,
Drawbridge Operation Regulations. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we
only impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of
duties.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before
February 2, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2014-0763] to the Docket Management Facility (DMF) at the
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and/or to OIRA. To avoid
duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following means:
    (1) Online: (a) To Coast Guard docket at http://www.regulations.gov. (b) To OIRA by email via<EMAIL_ADDRESS>.
    (2) Mail: (a) DMF (M-30), DOT, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. (b) To
OIRA, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, attention Desk Officer
for the Coast Guard.
    (3) Hand Delivery: To DMF address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is
202-366-9329.
    (4) Fax: (a) To DMF,<PHONE_NUMBER>. (b) To OIRA at<PHONE_NUMBER>. To
ensure your comments are received in a timely manner, mark the fax,
attention Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.
    The DMF maintains the public docket for this Notice. Comments and
material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in
this Notice as being available in the docket, will become part of the
docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room W12-140
on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. You may also find the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Copies of the ICRs are available through the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from:
COMMANDANT (CG-612), ATTN: PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT MANAGER, U.S. COAST
GUARD, 2703 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. AVE. SE., STOP 7710, WASHINGTON DC
20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for
questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program
Manager, Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions on the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collection. There is one
ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether these ICRs should be
granted based on the Collections being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information
subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments
will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICRs referred to in
this Notice.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the
OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number
of this request, [USCG 2014-0763], and must be received by February 2,
2015. We will post all comments received, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov. They will include any personal information you
provide. We have an agreement with DOT to use their DMF. Please see the
``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number [USCG-
2014-0763]; indicate the specific section of the document to which each
comment applies, providing a reason for each comment. You may submit
your comments and material online (via http://www.regulations.gov), by
fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If
you submit a comment online via www.regulations.gov, it will be
considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit
the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or

mail your comment, it will be considered as having been received by the
Coast Guard when it is received at the DMF. We recommend you include
your name, mailing address, an email address, or other contact
information in the body of your document so that we can contact you if
we have questions regarding your submission.
    You may submit comments and material by electronic means, mail,
fax, or delivery to the DMF at the address under ADDRESSES, but please
submit them by only one means. To submit your comment online, go to
http://www.regulations.gov, and type ``USCG-2014-0763'' in the
``Search'' box. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery,
submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches,
suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by
mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will
consider all comments and material received during the comment period
and will address them accordingly.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this Notice as
being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, click
on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted in
blue. In the ``Search'' box insert ``USCG-2014-0763'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
You may also visit the DMF in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
    OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each ICR. An OMB Notice
of Action on each ICR will become available via a hyperlink in the OMB
Control Numbers: 1625-0109.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received in
dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act statement
regarding Coast Guard public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of
the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Previous Request for Comments

    This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The
Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (79 FR 60481, October 7, 2014)
required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no comments.

Information Collection Request

    1. Title: Drawbridge Operation Regulations.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0109.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Respondents: The public and private owners of bridges over
navigable waters of the United States.
    Abstract: The U.S. Coast Guard, Office of Bridge Programs requires
information from the bridge owners detailing any requested change to
the operating requirements of drawbridges so that they can evaluate the
impact to navigation and provide notice to the public.
    Forms: None.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden remains at 150 hours a year.

    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: December 23, 2014.
Thomas P. Michelli,
U.S. Coast Guard, Chief Information Officer, Acting.
[FR Doc. 2014-30783 Filed 12-31-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 205 (Tuesday, October 23, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64767-64768]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26080]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0495; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-236-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Gulfstream Aerospace LP (Type
Certificate Previously Held by Israel Aircraft Industries, Ltd.)
Airplanes

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA withdraws a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that
proposed a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Gulfstream
Aerospace LP (Type Certificate previously held by Israel Aircraft
Industries, Ltd.) Model Galaxy and Gulfstream 200 airplanes. The
proposed AD would have required determining the lengths of the wear
indicating pins of all brake assemblies, shortening the pin if the wear
indicating pin is too long, inspecting for normal brake wear, and
replacing brakes with new brakes if necessary. Since the issuance of
the NPRM, the FAA has received new data that indicates the actions
addressing this unsafe condition have been accomplished on the
worldwide fleet. Accordingly, the proposed AD is withdrawn.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the Document Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Groves, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We proposed to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations
(14 CFR part 39) with a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for a new
AD for certain Gulfstream Aerospace LP (Type Certificate previously
held by Israel Aircraft Industries, Ltd.) Model Galaxy and Gulfstream
200 airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on May
31, 2012 (77 FR 32069). The NPRM would have required determining the
lengths of the wear indicating pins of all brake assemblies, shortening
the pin if the wear indicating pin is too long, inspecting for normal
brake wear, and replacing brakes with new brakes if necessary. The NPRM
resulted from reports of degraded brake performance during landing due
to improperly-sized wear indicating pins. The proposed actions were
intended to detect and correct improperly-sized wear indicating pins,
which, if not corrected, could result in worn-out brake pads and
subsequent loss of braking power, which could result in runway
overruns.

Actions Since NPRM (77 FR 32069, May 31, 2012) Was Issued

    Since we issued the NPRM (77 FR 32069, May 31, 2012), FAA has
received new data that indicates the unsafe condition no longer exists.
Review of the Gulfstream Aerospace LP Model Galaxy and Gulfstream 200
airplane service history shows that the worldwide fleet is in
compliance with the actions specified in Gulfstream Service Bulletin
200-32-389, Revision 1, dated October 27, 2011. Therefore, the unsafe
condition no longer exists.

FAA's Conclusions

    Upon further consideration, we have determined that the actions
specified in Gulfstream Service Bulletin 200-32-389, Revision 1, dated
October 27, 2011, and the Gulfstream Aerospace LP Model Galaxy and
Gulfstream 200 airplane service history adequately addressed the
identified unsafe condition. Therefore, it is not necessary to issue a
final rule. Accordingly, the NPRM (77 FR 32069, May 31, 2012) is
withdrawn.
    Withdrawal of the NPRM (77 FR 32069, May 31, 2012) does not
preclude

the FAA from issuing another related action or commit the FAA to any
course of action in the future.

Regulatory Impact

    Since this action only withdraws an NPRM (77 FR 32069, May 31,
2012), it is neither a proposed nor a final rule and therefore is not
covered under Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26,
1979).

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Withdrawal

    Accordingly, we withdraw the NPRM, Docket No. FAA-2012-0495,
Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-236-AD, which was published in the
Federal Register on May 31, 2012 (77 FR 32069).

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 14, 2012.
John P. Piccola,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-26080 Filed 10-22-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 232 (Tuesday, December 3, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66199-66201]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26143]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2019-N-5120]

Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting;
Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Comments

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; establishment of a public docket; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming
public advisory committee meeting of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory
Committee. The general function of the committee is to provide advice
and recommendations to FDA on regulatory issues. The meeting will be
open to the public. FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on
this document.

DATES: The meeting will be held on December 18, 2019, from 8 a.m. to 5
p.m.

ADDRESSES: FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31
Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993-
0002. Answers to commonly asked questions including information
regarding special accommodations due to a disability, visitor parking,
and transportation may be accessed at: https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm408555.htm.
    FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this meeting.
The docket number is FDA-2019-N-5120. The docket will close on December
17, 2019. Submit either electronic or written comments on this public
meeting by December 17, 2019. Please note that late, untimely filed
comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted
on or before December 17, 2019. The https://www.regulations.gov
electronic filing system will accept comments until 11:59 p.m. Eastern
Time at the end of December 17, 2019. Comments received by mail/hand
delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be considered
timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service acceptance
receipt is on or before that date.
    Comments received on or before December 10, 2019, will be provided
to the committee. Comments received after that date will be taken into
consideration by FDA. In the event that the meeting is cancelled, FDA
will

continue to evaluate any relevant applications or information, and
consider any comments submitted to the docket, as appropriate.
    You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2019-N-5120 for ``Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of
Meeting; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Comments.''
Received comments, those filed in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will
be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as
``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' FDA will review
this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its
consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed
confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for
public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both
copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name
and contact information be made publicly available, you can provide
this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your
comments and you must identify the information as ``confidential.'' Any
information marked as ``confidential'' will not be disclosed except in
accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For
more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see
80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lauren Tesh Hotaki, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-9001, Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FDA Advisory
Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the
Washington, DC area). A notice in the Federal Register about last
minute modifications that impact a previously announced advisory
committee meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to provide
timely notice. Therefore, you should always check the FDA's website at
https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to
the appropriate advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory
committee information line to learn about possible modifications before
coming to the meeting.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Agenda: During the morning session, the committee will discuss
biologics license application (BLA) 761136/Original 2, for luspatercept
for injection, application submitted by Celgene Corporation. The
proposed indication (use) for this product is for the treatment of
adult patients with very low- to intermediate-risk myelodysplastic
syndromes -associated anemia who have ring sideroblasts and require red
blood cell transfusions.
    During the afternoon session, the committee will discuss new drug
application (NDA) 211723 for tazemetostat tablets, submitted by
Epizyme, Inc. The proposed indication (use) for this product is for the
treatment of patients with metastatic or locally advanced epithelioid
sarcoma not eligible for curative surgery.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its website prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's website after the meeting. Background material is
available at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting
link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
All electronic and written submissions submitted to the Docket (see
ADDRESSES) on or before December 10, 2019, will be provided to the
committee. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between
approximately 10:30 a.m. to 11 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. to 4 p.m. Those
individuals interested in making formal oral presentations should
notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general
nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and
addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the
approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before
December 5, 2019. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited.
If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be
reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing
session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the

speakers for the scheduled open public hearing session. The contact
person will notify interested persons regarding their request to speak
by December 6, 2019.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that FDA is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
    For press inquiries, please contact the Office of Media Affairs at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please
contact Lauren Tesh Hotaki (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) at
least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our website at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: November 26, 2019.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-26143 Filed 12-2-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 205 (Wednesday, October 23, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63263-63264]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24768]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70704; File No. SR-OCC-2013-10]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Amend Policy Statement Adopted
Under Rule 205 Entitled ``Back-Up Communication Channel to Internet
Access''

October 17, 2013.

I. Introduction

    On August 23, 2013, The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change SR-OCC-2013-10 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 September 5, 2013.\3\ The Commission received
no comment letters regarding the proposed rule change. For the reasons
discussed below, the Commission is granting approval of the proposed
rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Exchange Act Release No. 34-70289 (August 29, 2013), 78 FR
54707 (September 5, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description

    OCC is making certain changes to its Policy Statement adopted under
OCC Rule 205 \4\ entitled ``Back-up Communication Channel to Internet
Access'' requiring clearing members that use the internet as their
primary means to access OCC's information and data systems to maintain
a secure back-up means of communication in order to provide for
business continuance in the event of an internet outage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ OCC Rule 205, in relevant part, prescribes that clearing
members shall submit instructions, notices, reports, data, and other
items to the Corporation by electronic data entry in accordance with
procedures prescribed or approved by the OCC. OCC supports the
submission of these instructions, notices, reports, data and other
items through use of an Internet connection to OCC's secured Web
site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2006, OCC adopted a Policy Statement under Rule 205 requiring
clearing members that primarily use the internet to access OCC's
systems to maintain: (i) An OCC-approved method for accessing OCC's
information and data systems in order to perform, on a timely basis,
critical business activities in the event of an internet outage
(``Back-Up Communication Channel''), and (ii) separate service
arrangements with two independent internet service providers.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53980 (June 14, 2006),
71 FR 36155 (June 23, 2006)(SR-OCC-2006-04).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Guidelines were established so that the Back-Up Communication
Channel authorized for a particular clearing member was determined in
accordance with the firm's business profile using certain criteria. OCC
believes that the existing Policy Statement gives OCC the ability to
designate a clearing member within a particular Back-Up Communication
Channel category, if the clearing member meets any of the criteria that
are enumerated under the particular category.\6\ For example, a
clearing member that: (i) Ranked among the top twenty-five clearing
members by cleared volume during a calendar year; (ii) cleared more
than one account type as defined in OCC's By-Laws and Rules; (iii)
cleared two or more product types; (iv) conducted Clearing Member Trade
Assignment (``CMTA'') business; (v) input a high volume of daily post-
trade activity; (vi) generally utilized multiple forms of collateral;
(vii) utilized most ancillary services offered by OCC; or (viii) used a
lease line for data transmissions, would generally be designated as a
``Category A'' firm. ``Category A'' firms were required to

maintain a T1 line as an acceptable form of Back-Up Communication
Channel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Email from Bruce Kelber, Vice President and Associate
General Counsel, OCC, to Wyatt Robinson, Attorney Adviser, Division
of Trading and Markets, Securities and Exchange Commission (October
15, 2013) (stating that the criteria used to determine whether a
particular firm should be designated as a Category A firm, Category
B firm, or Category C firm under OCC's existing policy statement is
intended to be interpreted as ``or'' statements.) OCC believes that
the same interpretation will apply to the Policy Statement after
changes pursuant to the proposed rule change are implemented. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A clearing member that: (i) Transacted mid-level cleared volume
during a calendar year; (ii) cleared one or more account types as
defined in OCC's By-Laws and Rules; (iii) cleared one or more product
types; (iv) input a moderate to small volume of post-trade activity;
(v) generally utilized one or two forms of collateral; or (vi) may have
utilized a lease line for data transmissions, were generally designated
as a ``Category B'' firm. Under the Policy Statement, ``Category B''
firms had the option to either maintain a T1 line or ISDN connection as
acceptable forms of a Back-Up Communication Channel.
    A clearing member that: (i) Transacted low-level cleared volume
during a calendar year; (ii) cleared no more than one account type as
defined in OCC's By-Laws and Rules; (iii) cleared no more than one
product type; (iv) generally utilized one or two forms of collateral;
or (v) input minimal amounts of post-trade activity, would generally be
designated as a ``Category C'' firm. ``Category C'' firms were given
the option to maintain an ISDN connection, utilize OCC equipment if the
clearing member was located in or near a city where OCC maintains
operational center(s), or rely upon fax transmission in the event an
internet connection was not available.
    According to OCC, recent denial of service attacks on financial
institutions, along with changes in technology since the Policy
Statement was first adopted, have prompted OCC to reassess the
potential risks to operations should internet connections supporting
clearing member access to OCC's information and data systems be
interrupted. Through this assessment, OCC has determined that its
existing policy should be modified to ensure that it is easily
understood and properly implemented by the clearing membership.
    OCC is now updating the Policy Statement to simplify the criteria
applied to a given firm in determining the appropriate Back-Up
Communication Channel. Instead of having three categories of business
profiles that include several criteria to be applied, and offering
multiple communication options available to a particular firm, the
updated Policy Statement will contain two profiles. Clearing members
that rank in the top-25 of cleared volume during a calendar year, or
act as a facilities manager to one or more clearing firms, will be
designated as a ``Category A'' firm, and will be required to maintain a
T1 line as its Back-Up Communication Channel. All other firms will be
designated as ``Category B'' firms, and will be required to maintain a
T1 line or utilize a fax line, telephone or have ready access to an OCC
office location.
    OCC believes the proposed changes will present minimal to no impact
to clearing members. According to OCC, all firms that were previously
designated as ``Category A'' firms under the former policy will
continue to be designated as ``Category A'' firms under the revised
policy, and they will still be required to maintain a T1 line. Those
firms that will be designated as Category B firms under the revised
policy will now have increased flexibility under the back-up options
being made available to them, in that they can select between a T1
Line, fax, telephone, or use an OCC office if they are located in a
city where OCC maintains an operational center.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In preparation for the revisions to the Policy Statement,
OCC has acquired new fax servers that have increased bandwidth to
support multiple users that may select facsimile transmission as
their available back-up communication method. Meanwhile, the
telephone features used by OCC's Member Service staff are equipped
so that calls are automatically routed to an available
representative in the event a firm's designated contact is
unavailable. Finally, OCC has confirmed that: the number of Category
B firms located in a city where OCC maintains an office that do not
currently maintain a T1 line is sufficiently small enough so that
OCC will be able to accommodate those firms who may need to utilize
OCC's equipment in the event of an Internet outage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC is also clarifying the Policy Statement by expressly adding a
requirement for each clearing member to provide OCC with an annual
statement that the clearing member: (i) Has been and continues to be in
compliance with the Policy Statement since the last reporting period;
(ii) has successfully tested its ability to access OCC's information
and data systems using its Back-Up Communication Channel since the last
reporting period; and (iii) will notify OCC within a reasonable period
of any changes to their internet service providers since the date of
the last notice provided to OCC. OCC believes that this modification
will help eliminate any ambiguity that may exist with respect to
responsibility of clearing members to comply with the Policy Statement
and help ensure that OCC has sufficient information to troubleshoot in
case of an internet outage, thereby helping to ensure that critical
business activities can still be performed in a timely manner.

III. Discussion

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act \8\ 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 \9\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that the rule change is consistent with
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \10\ because revising the Policy
Statement to simplify the criteria used to determine the authorized
Back-Up Communication Channel(s) that may be used by a given clearing
member should reduce the administrative oversight by OCC and clearing
members associated with making such determinations, freeing up
resources otherwise directed to this purpose. Furthermore, OCC's
requirement that a clearing member confirm its ability to access OCC's
systems through testing should help to ensure that critical business
activities can still be performed in a timely manner even in the event
of an internet outage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in
particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \11\ and the
rules and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\12\ that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-OCC-2013-10) be and
hereby is approved.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \13\ 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).
    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-24768 Filed 10-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 63 (Tuesday, April 4, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16331-16332]
[FR Doc No: 2017-06658]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[FRL-9961-09-OAR]

Review of the 2016 Oil and Gas New Source Performance Standards
for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Announcement of review.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announces it is
reviewing the 2016 Oil and Gas New Source Performance Standards and, if
appropriate, will initiate reconsideration proceedings to suspend,
revise or rescind this rule.

DATES: April 4, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Peter Tsirigotis, Sector Policies
and Programs Division (D205-01), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The EPA announces it is reviewing the 2016
Oil and Gas New Source Performance Standards (Rule) 81 FR 35,824 (June
3, 2016), and, if appropriate, will initiate proceedings to suspend,
revise, or rescind it.

I. Background

    Section 111 of the Clean Air Act authorizes the EPA to issue
nationally applicable New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) limiting
air pollution from ``new sources'' in source categories that cause or
contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare. 42 U.S.C. 7411(b)(1). Under this
authority,

the EPA had regulated sulfur dioxide emissions from natural gas
processing and volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) from a number of
equipment and operations at oil and gas facilities. 40 CFR part 60
subpart OOOO. In 2016, the EPA promulgated this Rule, which expanded
the existing NSPS by requiring methane reductions from previously
regulated sources and limiting methane and VOCs from other types of new
oil and gas facilities never before regulated under Section 111.
    Several state and industry petitioners challenged this Rule in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia alleging, inter
alia, that EPA acted arbitrarily and capriciously, and in excess of
statutory authority. See, e.g., West Virginia v. EPA, 16-1264, State
Petitioners' Nonbinding Statement of the Issues to be Raised. These
cases have been consolidated and are pending before the court. Many of
these parties also submitted petitions for reconsideration of this Rule
to EPA. The Agency has not yet acted on these petitions.

II. Initiation of Review of This Rule

    On March 28, 2017, President Trump issued an Executive Order
establishing a national policy in favor of energy independence,
economic growth, and the rule of law. The purpose of that Executive
Order is to facilitate the development of U.S. energy resources--
including oil and gas--and to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens
associated with the development of those resources. The President has
directed agencies to review existing regulations that potentially
burden the development of domestic energy resources, and appropriately
suspend, revise, or rescind regulations that unduly burden the
development of U.S. energy resources beyond what is necessary to
protect the public interest or otherwise comply with the law. The
Executive Order also directs agencies to take appropriate actions, to
the extent permitted by law, to promote clean air and clean water while
also respecting the proper roles of Congress and the States. This
Executive Order specifically directs EPA to review and, if appropriate,
initiate proceedings to suspend, revise or rescind this Rule.
    Pursuant to the Executive Order, EPA is initiating its review of
this Rule and providing advanced notice of forthcoming rulemaking
proceedings consistent with the President's policies. If EPA's review
concludes that suspension, revision or rescission of this Rule may be
appropriate, EPA's review will be followed by a rulemaking process that
will be transparent, follow proper administrative procedures, include
appropriate engagement with the public, employ sound science, and be
firmly grounded in the law.
    EPA's ability to revisit existing regulations is well-grounded in
the law. Specifically, the agency has inherent authority to reconsider
past decisions and to rescind or revise a decision to the extent
permitted by law when supported by a reasoned explanation. FCC v. Fox
Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 515 (2009) (``Fox''); Motor
Vehicle Manufacturers Ass'n of the United States, Inc., et al., v.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., et al., 463 U.S. 29, 42
(1983) (``State Farm''). Moreover, the Clean Air Act itself authorizes
EPA to reconsider its rulemakings. 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(1), (d)(7)(B). The
Clean Air Act complements the EPA's inherent authority to reconsider
prior rulemakings by providing the agency with broad authority to
prescribe regulations as necessary. 42 U.S.C. 7601(a). The authority to
reconsider prior decisions exists in part because EPA's interpretations
of statutes it administers ``are not carved in stone'' but must be
evaluated ``on a continuing basis,'' Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NRDC, Inc.,
467 U.S. 837, 857-58 (1984). This is true when--as is the case here--
review is undertaken ``in response to . . . a change in
administrations.'' National Cable & Telecommunications Ass'n v. Brand X
Internet Services, 545 U.S. 967, 981 (2005). Importantly, such a
revised decision need not be based upon a change of facts or
circumstances. Rather, a revised rulemaking based ``on a reevaluation
of which policy would be better in light of the facts'' is ``well
within an agency's discretion,'' and ``[a] change in administration
brought about by the people casting their votes is a perfectly
reasonable basis for an executive agency's reappraisal of the costs and
benefits of its programs and regulations.'' National Ass'n of Home
Builders v. EPA, 682 F.3d 1032, 1038 & 1043 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (citing
Fox, 556 U.S. at 514-15; quoting State Farm, 463 U.S. at 59 (Rehnquist,
J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)).
    In conducting this review, EPA will follow each of the principles
and policies set forth in the Executive Order, consistent with the
EPA's statutory authority. The Agency will reevaluate whether this Rule
or alternative approaches are appropriately grounded in EPA's statutory
authority and consistent with the rule of law. The EPA will assess
whether this Rule or alternative approaches would appropriately promote
cooperative federalism and respect the authority and powers that are
reserved to the States. EPA will also examine whether this Rule or
alternative approaches effect the Administration's dual goals of
protecting public health and welfare while also supporting economic
growth and job creation. EPA will review whether this Rule or
alternative approaches appropriately maintain the diversity of reliable
energy resources and encourage the production of domestic energy
sources to achieve energy independence and security.
    Additionally, EPA will assess this Rule and alternative approaches
to determine whether they will provide benefits that substantially
exceed their costs. In taking any actions subsequent to this review,
EPA will use its appropriated funds and agency resources wisely by
firmly grounding in the statute its actions to protect public health
and welfare.

    Dated: March 28, 2017.
E. Scott Pruitt,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2017-06658 Filed 4-3-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P