[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 75 (Friday, April 18, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21975-21977]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08823]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71940; File No. SR-BYX-2014-005]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Related to
Fees for Use of BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.

April 14, 2014.
    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 1, 2014, BATS Y-Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BYX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one establishing or
changing a member due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange
under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed rule change effective upon
filing with the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable
to Members \5\ and non-members of the Exchange pursuant to BYX Rules
15.1(a) and (c). Changes to the fee schedule pursuant to this proposal
are effective upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A Member is any registered broker or dealer that has been
admitted to membership in the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site

at http://www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the Exchange,
and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the 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 parts 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 recently amended its fee schedule, effective April 1,
2014, to modify the rebates it provides for orders that remove
liquidity and the fees it charges to add liquidity.\6\ Specifically,
the Exchange adopted a standard rebate of $0.0015 per share for all
orders that remove liquidity in securities priced $1.00 and above, with
the exception of Mid-Point Peg Order \7\ liquidity (``Mid-Point Peg
liquidity''). For executions that add displayed liquidity in securities
priced $1.00 or above, the Exchange adopted a standard liquidity adding
fee of $0.0017 per share, subject to reduced fees for Members that
qualify for tiered pricing based on volume added to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See SR-BYX-2014-004, available at http://batstrading.com/regulation/rule_filings/byx/.
    \7\ As defined in Exchange Rule 11.9(c)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to increase both the standard rebate to
remove liquidity and the standard fee to add displayed liquidity by
$0.0001 per share. Thus, for executions that remove liquidity in
securities priced $1.00 and above, with the exception of Mid-Point Peg
liquidity, the Exchange proposes to increase the standard rebate of
$0.0015 per share to $0.0016 per share. For executions that add
displayed liquidity in securities priced $1.00 or above, the Exchange
proposes to increase the standard liquidity adding fee of $0.0017 per
share to $0.0018 per share, subject to reduced fees for Members that
qualify for tiered pricing based on volume added to the Exchange. The
Exchange does not propose any other changes to the recently adopted
changes.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and,
in particular, with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act.\8\
Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\9\ in that it provides for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and other persons using any facility or system which the
Exchange operates or controls. The Exchange 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The changes to Exchange execution fees and rebates proposed by this
filing are intended to attract order flow to the Exchange by continuing
to offer competitive pricing while also allowing the Exchange to
continue to offer incentives to provide aggressively priced displayed
liquidity.
    With respect to the proposed changes to the pricing structure for
removing liquidity from the Exchange, the Exchange believes that its
proposal is reasonable because the change provides only a slight
additional increase to the recently adopted changes. The Exchange also
believes that the rebate for removing liquidity in securities priced
$1.00 or above are reasonable and equitably allocated because the
proposed changes will increase the rebate for all orders that remove
liquidity (other than orders that remove Mid-Point Peg liquidity). The
proposed rebates are equitably allocated and not unfairly
discriminatory because the rebates will apply equally to all Members.
    With respect to the slight increase to the fees charged to add
displayed liquidity in securities priced $1.00 or above, the Exchange
believes that the proposed fees are reasonable, equitably allocated and
not unfairly discriminatory as they are designed to attract additional
removing liquidity to the Exchange. So, while the Exchange is proposing
to increase fees on a per share basis, it is simultaneously providing
higher rebates to all Members for removing liquidity. Thus, although
the change increases the fee for orders that provide liquidity, it
provides an offsetting increase in the rebate for orders removing
liquidity. The tiered pricing structure and reduced fees for Members
that qualify are equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory
for the reasons described when the pricing structure was adopted.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.
Because the market for order execution is extremely competitive,
Members may choose to preference other market centers ahead of the
Exchange if they believe that they can receive better fees or rebates
elsewhere. Further, such changes are necessarily competitive because
they are intended to provide incentives to Members that will result in
increased activity on the Exchange.
    The Exchange also believes that its pricing for removing liquidity
is appropriately competitive vis-[agrave]-vis the Exchange's
competitors, with at least one such competitor, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.
(``NASDAQ BX''), offering a similar pricing model.\11\ In a competitive
environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain
competitive with other exchanges and alternative liquidity sources.
Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and
because market participants may readily adjust their order routing
practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes
in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely
limited. The proposed changes are, in fact, a direct response to an
adjustment by NASDAQ BX in response to the Exchange's recent change to
its pricing structure.\12\ Thus, the modifications described herein are
a direct response to competition, which should be viewed as a positive
signal that a competitive market exists. If the changes are
unattractive to market participants, it is likely that the Exchange
will lose market share as a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not
believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of Members or
competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing
in the financial markets. Finally, the Exchange does not believe that
any of

the changes represent a significant departure from previous pricing
offered by the Exchange or pricing offered by the Exchange's
competitors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See NASDAQ BX Pricing List available at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=bx_pricing.
    \12\ See Nasdaq Equity Trader Alert 2014-28 available
at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/TraderNews.aspx?id=ETA2014-28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    No written comments were solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \13\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\14\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \14\ 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-BYX-2014-005 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-BYX-2014-005. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BYX-2014-005 and should be
submitted on or before May 9, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-08823 Filed 4-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 170 (Thursday, September 1, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54460-54461]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22375]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings; Filings Instituting Proceedings

* * * * *
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2411-000.
    Applicants: Northwest Pipeline GP.
    Description: Northwest Pipeline GP submits tariff filing per
154.403(d)(2): NWP Fuel Factor Filing, Effective October 1, 2011 to be
effective 10/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 08/23/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110823-5051.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 06, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2412-000.
    Applicants: National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation.
    Description: National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation submits tariff
filing per 154.204: EFT Changes--Line N Projects to be effective 9/22/
2011.
    Filed Date: 08/23/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110823-5071.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 06, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2413-000.
    Applicants: Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline LLC submits tariff
filing per 154.204: Remove Expired Agreements to be effective 9/23/
2011.
    Filed Date: 08/23/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110823-5074.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 06, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2414-000.
    Applicants: Pine Needle LNG Company, LLC.
    Description: Pine Needle LNG Company, LLC submits tariff filing per
154.402: Pine Needle LNG Company 2011 ACA Filing to be effective 10/1/
2011.
    Filed Date: 08/24/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110824-5033.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 06, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2415-000.
    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC submits tariff filing
per 154.204: Form of Service Agreement Modifications for Exhibit C to
be effective 9/24/2011.
    Filed Date: 08/24/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110824-5041.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 06, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2416-000.
    Applicants: Destin Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Destin Pipeline Company, L.L.C. submits tariff filing
per 154.402: ACA Filing--2011 to be effective 10/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 08/24/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110824-5042.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 06, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2417-000.
    Applicants: ANR Storage Company.
    Description: ANR Storage Company submits tariff filing per 154.203:
Volume 2 Baseline to be effective 8/24/2011.
    Filed Date: 08/24/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110824-5059.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 06, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2418-000.
    Applicants: Questar Pipeline Company.
    Description: Questar Pipeline Company submits tariff filing per
154.402: ACA for 2012 to be effective 10/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 08/25/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110825-5001.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 06, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2419-000.
    Applicants: Questar Southern Trails Pipeline Company.
    Description: Questar Southern Trails Pipeline Company submits
tariff filing per 154.402: ACA for 2012 to be effective 10/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 08/25/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110825-5002.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 06, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2420-000.
    Applicants: White River Hub, LLC.
    Description: White River Hub, LLC submits tariff filing per
154.402: ACA for 2012 to be effective 10/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 08/25/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110825-5003.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 06, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2421-000.
    Applicants: Vector Pipeline L.P.
    Description: Vector Pipeline L.P. submits tariff filing per
154.402: ACA Charge Filing Effective 10-1-2011 to be effective 10/1/
2011.
    Filed Date: 08/25/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110825-5018.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 06, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2422-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP submits tariff filing
per 154.204: Housekeeping filing for Volume ``Negotiated Rate and Non-
conforming Agreements'' to be effective 8/31/2011.
    Filed Date: 08/25/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110825-5019.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 06, 2011.

    Docket Number: RP06-614-000.
    Applicants: Transwestern Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Petition to Amend Settlement of Transwestern Pipeline
Company, LLC.
    Filed Date: 08/24/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110824-5116.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, August 30, 2011.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's

Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern
time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but
intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

* * * * *
    Docket Numbers: RP11-1723-001.
    Applicants: Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited Partnership.
    Description: Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited Partnership
submits tariff filing per 154.203: RP11-1723 Compliance to be effective
8/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 08/24/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110824-5089.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 06, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2135-001.
    Applicants: Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.
    Description: Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. submits
tariff filing per 154.205(b): Scheduling Priorities--Withdraw Tariff
Record (Sheet No. 241) to be effective 10/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 08/24/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110824-5024.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 06, 2011.

    Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, and service can be found at:
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other
information, call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-
8659.

    Dated: August 25, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-22375 Filed 8-31-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 5, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 215)]
[Notices]
[Page 65842-65843]
[DOCID:fr05no08-37]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

October 29, 2008.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER09-139-000.
    Applicants: Red Wolf Energy Trading, LLC.
    Description: Petition for Acceptance of Initial Rate Schedule re
FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 1 of Red Wolf Energy Trading,
LLC.
    Filed Date: 10/28/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081029-0066.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, November 18, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-140-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc., submits revisions to
update the Energy Imbalance Market Offer Cap under ER09-140.
    Filed Date: 10/27/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081029-0006.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 17, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-141-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison submits a revised rate
sheet to the Service Agreement for Wholesale Distribution Service.
    Filed Date: 10/28/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081029-0005.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, November 18, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-142-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison submits amended agreements
with the State of California Department of Water Resources.
    Filed Date: 10/28/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081029-0004.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, November 18, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-143-000.
    Applicants: Avista Corporation, North Western Corporation.
    Description: Avista Corp et al., submits non-conforming Long-Term
Service Agreements.
    Filed Date: 10/28/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081029-0003.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, November 18, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-144-000.
    Applicants: Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc.
    Description: Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc., submits
Amendments to its Formulary Rate Tariff for Service to Members.
    Filed Date: 10/28/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081029-0002.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, November 18, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-145-000.
    Applicants: Mountain Wind Power, LLC.
    Description: Mountain Wind Power, LLC submits a Shared Facilities
Agreement.
    Filed Date: 10/28/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081029-0001.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, November 18, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-146-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England, Inc.
    Description: ISO New England, Inc., submits its capital budget for
calendar year 2009, etc.
    Filed Date: 10/28/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081029-0007.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, November 18, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-148-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc., proposes to revise
portions of its Open Access Transmission Tariff to Incorporate
Generation Station Power Supply Schedule, effective 12/27/08.
    Filed Date: 10/28/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081029-0273.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, November 18, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-149-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc., proposes to revise
portions of its Open Access Transmission Tariff to modify Energy
Imbalance Service Market, effective 12/27/08.
    Filed Date: 10/28/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081029-0272.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, November 18, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-150-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.'s executed Meter Agent
Services Agreement with Red Hills Wind Project, LLC as Market
Participant and Constellation Energy Control and Dispatch, LLC.
    Filed Date: 10/28/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081029-0271.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, November 18, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-151-000.
    Applicants: Keystone Energy Group, Inc.
    Description: Keystone Energy Group, Inc., requests cancellation of
First Revised Sheet 1 to FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 1,
effective 11/30/08.
    Filed Date: 10/29/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081029-0270.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 19, 2008.

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

    Docket Numbers: ES09-6-000.
    Applicants: Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc.
    Description: Application for Authorization of the Assumption of
Liabilities and the Issuances of Securities Under Section 204 of the
Federal Power Act.
    Filed Date: 10/27/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081027-5121.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 17, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ES09-7-000.
    Applicants: Kansas City Power & Light Company.
    Description: Kansas City Power & Light Company Application Under
Federal Power Act Section 204 to Issue Short-Term Debt.
    Filed Date: 10/28/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081028-5081.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, November 18, 2008.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following open access
transmission tariff filings:

    Docket Numbers: OA08-118-001; OA08-54-004; OA08-55-004; OA08-56-
004; OA08-57-004; OA08-99-002.
    Applicants: Idaho Power Company, PacifiCorp, Deseret Generation &
Transmission Co-op., Portland General Electric Company, Black Hills
Power, Inc., Northwestern Corporation
    Description: Order No. 890 Compliance Filing of the Jurisdictional
Members of the Northern Tier Transmission Group Planning Agreement (in
response to July 13 Order).
    Filed Date: 10/29/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081029-5040.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 19, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: OA08-23-001; OA08-28-002; OA08-31-002; OA08-40-001;
OA08-45-002.
    Applicants: Idaho Power Company, Deseret Generation & Transmission
Co-op., Portland General Electric Company, NorthWestern Corporation,
PacifiCorp.
    Description: Order No. 890 Attachment K Joint Compliance Filing of
the Funding Members of the Northern Tier Transmission Group in OA08-23,
et al.
    Filed Date: 10/29/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081029-5084.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 19, 2008.

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

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-26311 Filed 11-4-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 129 (Tuesday, July 7, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38782-38783]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16545]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75335; File No. SR-MIAX-2015-43]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fee Schedule

June 30, 2015.
    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice
is hereby given that on June 24, 2015, Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC (``MIAX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a 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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Options Fee
Schedule (the ``Fee Schedule'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.miaxoptions.com/filter/wotitle/rule_filing, at
MIAX's principal office, 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 the MIAX Options Fee Schedule (the
``Fee Schedule'') to modify the fees for FIX Ports. Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to adopt the following fees for FIX Ports: (i) $500
per month for the first FIX Port; (ii) $300 per month for each FIX Port
2 through 5; and (iii) $100 per month for each additional FIX Port over
5.
    Currently, MIAX assesses monthly FIX Port fees on Members based
upon the number of FIX Ports used by the Member submitting orders to
the Exchange. The Exchange currently assesses a fee of $250 per month
for the first FIX Port, $150 per month for each FIX Port 2 through 5;
and $50 per month for each additional FIX Port over 5. The FIX Ports
include access to MIAX's primary and secondary data centers and its
disaster recovery center.
    The Exchange notes that another competing exchange charges
substantially more for the use of similar ports.\3\ The Exchange
established the current lower rates in order to encourage additional
market participants to become Members of the Exchange and use the
service. Now that the Exchange has grown its market share and
membership base, the Exchange proposes to modify its fees charged to
Members for use of FIX Ports in an effort to increase the Exchange's
revenues from non-transaction fee sources and also more closely align
the fees with the rates charged by another competing options exchange.
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to increase the fees charged to
Members for use of FIX Ports. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to:
(i) increase the fee for the first FIX Port, from $250 to $500 per
month; (ii) increase the fee for each FIX Port 2 through 5, from $150
to $300 per month; and (iii) increase the fee for each FIX Port over 5,
from $50 to $100 per month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``PHLX'') Pricing Schedule, Section
VII. PHLX assesses members an Order Entry Port Fee of $650 per month
per mnemonic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to implement the fee changes beginning July
1, 2015.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its fee schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \4\ in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \5\ in particular, in that
it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees and other charges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposed fees are reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because Members are free to
add and remove FIX Ports and will only be charged for the amount of FIX
Ports that they desire to use. The proposed fee is fair and

equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory because it applies
equally to all Members regardless of type. All similarly situated
Members, with the same number of FIX Ports, will be subject to the same
fee, and access to the Exchange is offered on terms that are not
unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange believes that the proposed fees
are reasonable in that the rates are within the range of that charged
by another competing options exchange.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. The
Exchange believes that the proposal increases both intermarket and
intramarket competition by increasing FIX Port fees for Members on the
Exchange in the range of comparable fees on another exchange. The
Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which
market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee
levels at a particular venue to be excessive. In such an environment,
the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive
with other exchanges and in order to attract market participants to use
its services. The Exchange believes that the proposal reflects this
competitive environment because it increases the Exchange's fees in a
manner that continues to encourage market participants to register as
Members on the Exchange, to provide liquidity, and to attract order
flow. To the extent that this purpose is achieved, all the Exchange's
market participants should benefit from the improved market liquidity.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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)(ii) of the Act.\6\ 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 shall
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be
approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-MIAX-2015-43 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2015-43. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
    Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington,
DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2015-43, and should be
submitted on or before July 28, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-16545 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


September 11, 2000

Michael Trutna

Information Transfer and Program Integration Division

MD-12

US Environmental Protection Agency

Research Triangle Park, NC

RE:  COMMENTS ON WHITE PAPER 3

Dear Mr. Trutna,

The Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) and
the Northeast Waste Management Officials’ Association (NEWMOA) offer
the following comments and suggestions for improving EPA’s draft White
Paper 3, dated August 14, 2000.  NESCAUM is a regional association of
the state air quality management agencies in Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and
Vermont.  NEWMOA is a nonprofit, nonpartisan interstate association with
membership composed of the hazardous waste, solid waste, waste site
cleanup and pollution prevention program directors for the environmental
agencies in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York,
Rhode Island, and Vermont.  Both NEWMOA and NESCAUM have been actively
involved in assisting member states on a variety of permitting and
compliance issues at the state, regional and federal level.  We are also
coordinating P4 evaluation and training efforts for the northeast
states.

The northeast states believe that flexible permits can benefit the
environment, regulated industry and the permitting agencies.  We
enthusiastically support the general concepts outlined in the White
Paper 3 to the extent that they promote the dual goals of enhancing
regulatory flexibility and environmental protection.  If properly
utilized, the concepts and mechanisms outlined in the White Paper could
help to maximize economic competitiveness in a manner that is
environmentally beneficial.  It is our hope and expectation that permit
writers and the regulated industry in the Northeast will look for
opportunities to incorporate the innovative strategies and tools
detailed in the White Paper into the permitting process.

The northeast states are, however, concerned that pollution prevention,
a basic tenet of the P4 initiative, is largely disregarded in White
Paper 3.  Flexible permits need to incorporate strategies to maximize
the environmental benefits and the effective use of P2 is a key to
achieving this outcome.  The White Paper should include both guidance
and specific tools to increase the use of P2 in flexible permits.  We
offer the following comments and recommendations for improving White
Paper 3.

Comment 1:  Increased Environmental Benefit/Use of Pollution Prevention

The introduction of White Paper 3 lists pollution prevention as a high
priority for EPA and a goal of flexible permits programs.
Unfortunately, while the White Paper generally encourages pollution
prevention, it passes up numerous opportunities to provide permit
writers with specific guidance on how to craft flexible permits that
promote P2.  We offer the following recommendations for strengthening
and institutionalizing pollution prevention in flexible permitting.  We
believe that such changes will increase the likelihood that flexible
permits will provide environmental benefit for the community.

Compelling firms to evaluate alternative process chemicals or materials,
processes, or operating parameters, would encourage them to explore
pollution prevention alternatives when analyzing their flexibility needs
and developing alternative operating scenarios.  This type of options
analysis can be required under existing regulations and has been in some
of the P4 pilot projects.  Language should be added to the
Introduction/Overview section to introduce this concept.

In Section III, Replacement Conditions, there is discussion of the terms
used in some minor NSR permits and how they might be modified to provide
increased flexibility.  The guidance suggests eliminating specific
restrictions on materials usage and VOC content.  Although such limits
might be an impediment to flexibility and in some cases might even
impede pollution prevention, categorically eliminating such restrictions
would reduce overall opportunities for pollution prevention.  The
northeast states believe that such limits should be determined on a
case-by-case basis.  In some cases, a better option might be a formula
based upon emissions and use that would compel companies to use higher
emitting products sparingly and encourage the use of lower emitting
products.

Section IV should include a discussion of the merits of an upfront
analysis of alternative operating scenarios by an applicant seeking
advanced approval.  This analysis would include an evaluation of
alternative process chemicals or materials, processes, or operating
parameters that are less polluting.  A primary rationale for the states
in investing the additional upfront resources into crafting flexible
permits is the prospect of environmental benefits.  By requiring this
analysis of advanced approvals, states would be assured that pollution
prevention options relative to an operation have been adequately
evaluated and will be appropriately utilized by the applicant.

In Section IV, between subsection C and D, a new section should be added
on Options Analysis.  This section should define the components of an
alternative operating scenarios analysis for applicants seeking advanced
approval.  The applicant should be required to describe the steps taken
to evaluate alternative process chemicals or materials, processes, or
operating parameters.

In Section IV, Described Change Categories and Replicable Operating
Procedures (Subsection D), Menu Choices, options analysis should be
included in this menu.

Comment 2: Creating Resources to Support Implementation of White Paper 3
Concepts

While we support the concepts outlined in White Paper 3, proper
implementation of these concepts is critical.  In order to assure proper
implementation, both the states and EPA regional offices will need to
develop expertise regarding the issues and boundaries surrounding
flexible permits.  It is incumbent upon EPA to provide adequate
resources for both the states and the EPA regional offices to develop
the expertise needed to develop and enforce effective flexible permits.

EPA Regional Offices

Title V, NSR and enforcement personnel from the EPA regional offices
need to be trained on the goals and uses of White Paper 3 so that they
may appropriately promote the flexibility concepts while ensuring
continued compliance with all applicable requirements.  Furthermore,
training of regional staff will create a baseline of understanding at
the regional office level that will enhance the likelihood of consistent
interpretation across EPA regions.

In addition to general training of its regional staff, NESCAUM and
NEWMOA recommend that EPA designate at least two staff per regional
office to assist states in the development and review of flexible
permits.  The Northeast experience has shown that the development of
flexible permits that are enforceable and acceptable to EPA requires
substantial coordination with the regional office in the areas of Title
V, NSR and enforcement.  EPA involvement during the initial stages of
permit development is likely to decrease the number of issues that arise
and the time it takes to issue the permit.  Providing adequate resources
at the EPA regional offices should significantly decrease the amount of
time it takes to write these permits, while increasing the quality of
the permit.

States

State staff will also require training to develop the skills needed to
write enforceable and all encompassing, flexible permits.  We strongly
recommend that EPA develop the tools and resources needed to assist
states in developing effective permits.  While the case studies
highlighted in the White Paper are helpful in understanding the
concepts, more detailed information and examples will be required to
assure that the flexible permits meet the same standards as traditional
Title V permits.  The NESCAUM states strongly support the development of
training opportunities and resources such as workbooks to educate state
staff on how to write and enforce flexible permits.

Comment 3: Criteria to Reject Facilities

The White Paper goes into considerable detail regarding the types of
facilities that are appropriate for flexible permitting.  The northeast
states believe it is equally important the EPA make it clear that these
flexibility mechanisms are not suitable for all Title V permits.
Furthermore, the states would support the addition of criteria that
states could use at their discretion to determine which facilities are
not appropriate for flexible permits.  Suggested criteria include:

Compliance history:  The northeast states feel that the compliance
history is an important indicator as to whether or not a facility is an
appropriate candidate for flexible permits.  While blemishes on a
facility compliance history may not be a reason to rule out the option
of a flexible permit, significant violations could represent the
inability for a facility to properly control emissions.

Status of Title 5 permit:  The northeast states suggest that, generally,
facilities with an existing Title 5 permit would only be eligible for a
flexible permit at renewal or if re-opened for a major modification.
This would assure that approaches outlined in this White Paper would not
interfere with the Title 5 issuance rates.  States should, however,
retain the right to reopen issued Title 5 permits at their discretion.

Resources to maintain monitoring and reporting requirements:  One of the
major requirements in crafting flexible permits is ensuring that the
facilities are complying with their emission limits.  In most cases,
this requires additional monitoring and record keeping.  If a facility
lacks the resources to adequately address these requirements, they could
be deemed an unsuitable candidate.

Clear need for flexibility:  Additional resources are needed to develop
flexible permits.  States should utilize their limited resources on
those facilities most in need of flexibility and most willing to
incorporate P2 and other environmentally advantageous approaches.

Comment 4: Collection of Additional Fees

The northeast states agree with EPA that flexible permits require
additional resources to develop and support the suggestion that states
should seek additional fees for the development of such permits.
However, the draft fails to recognize the difficulty permitting
authorities have in obtaining additional resources through Title V fee
increases.  The ability to collect additional fees often requires
approval from the state legislature.  EPA could assist the states in
their permit restructuring efforts by establishing an average additional
cost per ton of pollutant or cost per permit that could be collected to
cover the costs associated with writing a flexible permit.  This
information would provide states with an independent basis for asking
their legislatures to support additional fees for flexible permits.

Comment 5: Clean Building/MOM Concept/Cap & Track

White Paper 3 outlines several concepts that have not yet been piloted.
These concepts include the Clean Building/Unit Provision, Minor Ongoing
Modification Concept and the Cap and Track program.  While intrigued by
these possible approaches and interested in exploring them further, the
northeast states believe that it is premature to incorporate them into
official EPA policy.  The states need to develop a better understanding
of the implementation issues associated with these concepts before fully
endorsing them.  The northeast states, however, support testing these
concepts in pilot applications.  If successful, detailed guidance for
these approaches, such as that provided in White Paper 3 for
pre-approvals, could be created.

Comment 6: PALs and NSR Reform

The White Paper states, "We anticipate that any PALs issued under
current regulations would need to be reevaluated and updated consistent
with final NSR rule (p.39)”.  While the states understand that
revision to the NSR program may change the formula that PALs are based
upon, the states feel that the PALs should not be revised immediately
due to any rule change.  Instead, the northeast states suggest that a
transition period be established in accordance with Title V requirements
for revising permits based upon rule changes.  This would mean that any
permit with at least 24 months remaining would have its PAL reviewed at
renewal.  We also suggest that all remaining permits be reviewed within
a 24-month period, or at reopening, for a major modification.

Comment 7: Interim Use of AP-42 Emission Factors

In the draft paper, EPA states that AP-42 emission factors should only
be used until actual emissions can be determined.  According to the
draft White Paper, AP-42 emission factors can be used on an interim
basis to determine PALs.  The draft paper further states that when
facilities determine their actual emissions for purposes of reporting to
the permitting authority, those units still relying on AP-42 factors
must be doubled to determine actual emissions under the PAL.

While the northeast states agree that actual emissions are preferable to
emission estimates, the states feel that there are some small emission
units that should be allowed to continue using AP-42 throughout the
permit term.  Stack testing for small emission units can be expensive.
To provide this flexibility while ensuring a high degree of certainty
about the overall emissions from a facility, NESCAUM and NEWMOA
recommend that EPA set a de minimus level for emission units under which
AP-42 emission factors could be used on a one-for-one basis.  In
calculating actual emissions for reporting purposes, those units under
the de minimus level would count emissions on a one-to-one basis.  This
would eliminate the need for facilities to perform stack tests for very
small emission units.  Additionally, the states want to retain their
ability to use source-specific emission factors at their discretion.  To
ensure a high level of certainty in emission estimates, the northeast
states recommend that no more than 20 percent of total emissions under a
PAL be allowed to fall under the de minimus level.

Comment 8: PALs to drive environmental performance

The northeast states applaud EPA for embracing the PAL concept.  The
PALs, as currently outlined, provide mechanisms to ensure that they meet
existing environmental protection standards.  The northeast states
encourage EPA to go beyond the status quo and support approaches that
utilize PALs to improve environmental performance.  Such approaches
might include declining PALs and performance goals to eliminate the use
of HAPs.

Comment 9: Air Toxics

From a public health perspective, it is incumbent upon the states and
EPA to ensure that the use of PALs and pre-approvals does not result in
increased risk to local populations associated with exposure to HAP
emissions.  Of concern to the northeast states is the potential for
facilities to stay below their permitted emissions level while
increasing the relative toxicity of the emissions.  In this situation,
adverse local impacts could occur, even though a facility was in
compliance with the regulatory requirements outlined in White Paper 3.

As EPA points out in White Paper 3, state air toxic control programs
have risk screening requirements as part of the pre-construction review
process to ensure that potential emissions do not exceed health-based
risk guideline values for HAPs.  NESCAUM and NEWMOA recommend that EPA
expand the discussion of “state-only control programs” (p. 26 of
White Paper 3) to include implications for flexible permits under the
federal risk-based toxics programs.  We also believe that the paper
should include a discussion of:  (1) the possible use of risk screening
for PALs and (2) pre-screening to evaluate potential increases in the
relative toxicity of emissions from changes in operations to ensure that
ambient impacts do not pose additional risks to public health near the
facility.

Comment 10: Clarification requests

NESCAUM and NEWMOA also seek clarification regarding the following
issues discussed in White Paper 3:

Baseline/Pollutant (page 31) The language regarding the use of baseline
emissions to develop a PAL is unclear.  As currently interpreted, the
baseline must be set using actual emissions.  In some cases, actual
emissions may be higher than permitted actual.  Therefore, we suggested
that the language be changed such that the PAL should be set based upon
permitted actual emissions so that baseline credit is not given for
emissions above allowed threshold.

Making Changes (page 33) The second bullet seems to make one facility
two separate sources.  Is such an action allowed under Title V?

We would like to thank EPA for enabling representatives from the
northeast states to meet with key members of your staff in advance of
the formal release of the White Paper.  These discussions provided us
with a better understanding of the issues and underlying concepts
detailed in White Paper 3.  We look forward to working with you on
finalizing this strategy.  NESCAUM and NEWMOA remain committed to
working with EPA to develop methods for permit flexibility and are
encouraged by your efforts to date.

If you have any questions or desire additional information, please
contact either of us or

Lisa Rector of NESCAUM

Sincerely,

Jason Grumet							William Cass

Executive Director							Executive Director

NESCAUM								NEWMOA

Cc:	Dave Dellarco, US EPA

	Anna Woods, US EPA

	Brendan McCahill, US EPA, Region 1

	Tim Williamson, US EPA, Region 1

	Steve Riva, US EPA, Region 2

              Geri O’Sullivan, STAPPA/ALAPCO

 PAGE   1

 PAGE   7


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 145 (Thursday, July 28, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 45241]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19080]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2629-010]

Morrisville Village of, Vermont; Notice of Application for
Amendment of License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Amendment of License.
    b. Project No: 2629-010.
    c. Date Filed: May 23, 2011.
    d. Applicant: Morrisville Village of, Vermont.
    e. Name of Project: Morrisville Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the Lamoille and Green
Rivers in Lamoille County, Vermont.
    g. Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Craig Myotte, General Manager, Morrisville
Village Water & Light Department, 857 Elmore Street, Morrisville,
Vermont. Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed
to Vedula Sarma at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments and or motions: August 21, 2011.
    Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp). Commenters can submit brief comments up to
6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system
(http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp) and must include name
and contact information at the end of comments. The Commission strongly
encourages electronic filings.
    All documents (original and seven copies) filed by paper should be
sent to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please include the project number
(P-2629-010) on any comments or motions filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
interveners filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervener files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy
of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative
of the Applicant specified in the particular application.
    k. Description of Application: The licensee proposes to replace an
existing 4-foot high by 216-foot long wooden flashboard on one of the
Morrisville dam spillways with two sections of 4-foot high by 108-foot
long automatic crest control system. There would be no change in the
authorized normal maximum water surface elevation of 631.79 feet NGVD
datum.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site using the ``eLibrary'' link at http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp. Enter the docket
number excluding the last three digits (P-2629) in the docket number
field to access the document. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of
new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects.
For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions To Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title
``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable,
and the Project Number of the particular application to which the
filing refers.
    p. Agency Comments: Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

    Dated: July 21, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-19080 Filed 7-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 158 (Wednesday, August 17, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50596-50598]
[FR Doc No: 2022-17479]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-0319, EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-0527, EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-0579;
FRL-10019-01-OLEM]

Proposed Deletion From the National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is issuing a Notice
of Intent to delete one site and partially delete two sites from the
National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this
proposed action. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of
1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the state,
through its designated state agency, have determined that all
appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other than operations and
maintenance of the remedy, monitoring and five-year reviews, where
applicable, have been completed. However, this deletion does not
preclude future actions under Superfund.

DATES: Comments regarding this proposed action must be submitted on or
before September 16, 2022.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under the
Docket Identification numbers included in Table 1 in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document. Submit your comments, identified
by the appropriate Docket ID number, by one of the following methods:
     https://www.regulations.gov. Follow on-line instructions
for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
removed from Regulations.gov. 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, 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.
     Email: Table 2 in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document provides an email address to submit public comments for
the proposed deletion action.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to the Docket Identification
number included in Table 1 in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov or email. The https://www.regulations.gov website
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without
going through https://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: EPA has established a docket for this action under the
Docket Identification included in Table 1 in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. The Final Close-Out
Report (FCOR, for a full site deletion) or the Partial Deletion
Justification (PDJ, for a partial site deletion) is the primary
document which summarizes site information to support the deletion. It
is typically written for a broad, non-technical audience and this
document is included in the deletion docket for each of the 3 sites in
this rulemaking. Although listed in the index, some information is not
publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Docket materials
are available through https://www.regulations.gov or at the
corresponding Regional Records Center. Location, address, and phone
number of the Regional Records Centers follows.
    Regional Records Center:
     Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN), U.S. EPA, 61
Forsyth Street, SW, Mail code 9T25, Atlanta, GA 30303; 404/562-8637.
     Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI), U.S. EPA Superfund
Division Records Manager, Mail code SRC-7J, Metcalfe Federal Building,
7th Floor South, 77

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604; 312/886-4465.
     Region 6 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX), US EPA Region 6 Records
Center 1201 Elm St, Suite 500, Dallas, TX 75270; 214/665-7544
     EPA Headquarters Docket Center Reading Room (deletion
dockets for all states), William Jefferson Clinton (WJC) West Building,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004, 202/566-
1744.
    EPA staff listed below in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section may assist the public in answering inquiries about deleted
sites and accessing deletion support documentation, determining whether
there are additional physical deletion dockets available, or if COVID
restrictions affect deletion docket access.
    The EPA continues to carefully and continuously monitor information
from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), local area
health departments, and our federal partners so that we can respond
rapidly as conditions change regarding COVID.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
     Leigh Lattimore, U.S. EPA Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS,
NC, SC, TN), [email protected], 404/562-8768.
     Karen Cibulskis, U.S. EPA Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH,
WI), [email protected], 312/886-1843.
     Brian Mueller, U.S. EPA Region 6 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX),
[email protected], 214/665-7167.
     Charles Sands, U.S. EPA Headquarters,
[email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Intended Full Site or Partial Site Deletion

I. Introduction

    EPA is issuing a proposed rule to delete one site and partially
delete two sites from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests
public comments on this proposed action. The NPL constitutes Appendix B
of 40 CFR part 300 which is the NCP, which EPA created under section
105 of the CERCLA statute of 1980, as amended. EPA maintains the NPL as
those sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health,
welfare, or the environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of
remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund).
These partial deletions are proposed in accordance with 40 CFR
300.425(e) and is consistent with the Notice of Policy Change: Partial
Deletion of Sites Listed on the National Priorities List. 60 FR 55466,
(November 1, 1995). As described in 40 CFR 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, a
site or portion of a site deleted from the NPL remains eligible for
Fund-financed remedial action if future conditions warrant such
actions.
    EPA will accept comments on the proposal to delete or partially
delete these sites for thirty (30) days after publication of this
document in the Federal Register.
    Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting
sites from the NPL. Section III of this document discusses procedures
that EPA is using for this action. Section IV of this document
discusses the site or portion of the site proposed for deletion and
demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria, including reference
documents with the rationale and data principally relied upon by the
EPA to determine that the Superfund response is complete.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from
the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted
from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a
determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in
consultation with the State, whether any of the following criteria have
been met:
    i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all
appropriate response actions required;
    ii. All appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been
implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is
appropriate; or
    iii. The remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no
significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore,
the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.
    Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and the NCP, EPA conducts five-
year reviews to ensure the continued protectiveness of remedial actions
where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at a
site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure. EPA conducts such five-year reviews even if a site is deleted
from the NPL. EPA may initiate further action to ensure continued
protectiveness at a deleted site if new information becomes available
that indicates it is appropriate. Whenever there is a significant
release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be
restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system.

III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to the deletion or partial deletion
of the sites in this proposed rule:
    (1) EPA consulted with the respective state before developing this
Notice of Intent for deletion.
    (2) EPA has provided the state 30 working days for review of this
proposed action prior to publication of it today.
    (3) In accordance with the criteria discussed above, EPA has
determined that no further response is appropriate.
    (4) The state, through their designated state agency, has concurred
with the proposed deletion action.
    (5) Concurrently, with the publication of this Notice of Intent for
deletion in the Federal Register, a notice is being published in a
major local newspaper of general circulation near the site. The
newspaper announces the 30-day public comment period concerning the
proposed action for deletion.
    (6) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed
deletion in the deletion docket, made these items available for public
inspection, and copying at the Regional Records Center identified
above.
    If comments are received within the 30-day comment period on this
document, EPA will evaluate and respond accordingly to the comments
before making a final decision to delete or partially delete the site.
If necessary, EPA will prepare a Responsiveness Summary to address any
significant public comments received. After the public comment period,
if EPA determines it is still appropriate to delete or partially delete
the site, the EPA will publish a final Notice of Deletion or Partial
Deletion in the Federal Register. Public notices, public submissions
and copies of the Responsiveness Summary, if prepared, will be made
available to interested parties and included in the site information
repositories listed above.
    Deletion of a site or a portion of a site from the NPL does not
itself create, alter, or revoke any individual's rights or obligations.
Deletion of a site or a portion of a site from the NPL does not in any
way alter EPA's right to take enforcement actions, as appropriate. The
NPL is designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist EPA
management. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion
of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for future
response actions,

should future conditions warrant such actions.

IV. Basis for Full Site or Partial Site Deletion

    The site to be deleted or partially deleted from the NPL, the
location of the site, and docket number with information including
reference documents with the rationale and data principally relied upon
by the EPA to determine that the Superfund response is complete are
specified in Table 1. The NCP permits activities to occur at a deleted
site or that media or parcel of a partially deleted site, including
operation and maintenance of the remedy, monitoring, and five-year
reviews. These activities for the site are entered in Table 1, if
applicable, under Footnote such that; 1= site has continued operation
and maintenance of the remedy, 2= site receives continued monitoring,
and 3= site five-year reviews are conducted.

                                                     Table 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Site name              City/county, state           Type              Docket No.         Footnote
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Finishing/Cone Mills.......  Greenville, SC.....  Partial..............  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-0  ..............
                                                                               579.
Wauconda Sand & Gravel..........  Wauconda, IL.......  Partial..............  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-0           1,2,3
                                                                               319.
River City Metal Finishing......  San Antonio, TX....  Full.................  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-0  ..............
                                                                               527.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 2 includes information concerning whether the full site is
proposed for deletion from the NPL or a description of the area, media
or Operable Units (OUs) of the NPL site proposed for partial deletion
from the NPL, and an email address to which public comments may be
submitted if the commenter does not comment using https://www.regulations.gov.

                                 Table 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Full site deletion
                                   (full) or media/
            Site name                  parcels/        Email address for
                                    description for     public comments
                                   partial deletion
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Finishing/Cone Mills.......  70-acres of         [email protected]
                                   Operable Unit 1     ov.
                                   Main Facility
                                   which includes
                                   soil, surface
                                   water, and
                                   sediment.
Wauconda Sand & Gravel..........  Approximately 76-   [email protected]
                                   acres of soil.      a.gov.
River City Metal Finishing......  Full..............  [email protected].
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a
significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment.
Deletion from the NPL does not preclude further remedial action.
Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the
NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of
the hazard ranking system. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not
affect responsible party liability in the unlikely event that future
conditions warrant further actions.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations,
Natural resources, Oil pollution, Penalties, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water
supply.

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR
54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR,
1987 Comp., p. 193.

Larry Douchand,
Office Director, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology
Innovation.
[FR Doc. 2022-17479 Filed 8-16-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 71 (Monday, April 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20968-20969]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08228]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Transportation Safety Administration

[Docket No. DOT-NHTSA-2013-0142]

Request for Comments on a New Information Collection

AGENCY: National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the Information
Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below is being forwarded to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comments. A
Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting
comments on the following information collection was published on
January 22, 2014 (79 FR 3662).

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before May 14, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joshua Fikentscher, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance (NVS-120), National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, West Building--4th Floor--Room W43-467, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Mr. Fikentscher's phone number is
(202) 366-1688.
    Please identify the relevant collection of information by referring
to its OMB Control Number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2127-0052.
    Title: Brake Hose Manufacturers Identification.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved information
collection.

    Background: 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq., as amended (``the Safety
Act''), authorizes NHTSA to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards (FMVSS). The Safety Act mandates that in issuing any Federal
motor vehicle safety standards, the agency is to consider whether the
standard is reasonable and appropriate for the particular type of motor
vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for which it is prescribed.
Using this authority, FMVSS No. 106, Brake Hoses, was issued. This
standard specifies labeling and performance requirements which apply to
all manufacturers of brake hoses and brake hose end fittings, and to
those who assemble brake hoses. Prior to assembling or selling brake
hoses, these entities must register their identification marks with
NHTSA to comply with the labeling requirements of this standard. In
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, the agency must obtain OMB
approval to continue collecting labeling information. Currently, there
are 1,944 manufacturers of brake hoses and end fittings, and brake hose
assemblers, registered with NHTSA. However, only approximately 20
respondents annually request to have their symbol added to or removed
from the NHTSA database. To comply with this standard, each brake hose
manufacturer or assembler must contact NHTSA and state that they want
to be added to or removed from the NHTSA database of registered brake
hose manufacturers. This action is usually initiated by the
manufacturer with a brief written request via U.S. mail, facsimile, an
email message, or a telephone call. Currently, a majority of the
requests are received via U.S. mail and the follow-up paperwork is
conducted via facsimile, U.S. mail, or electronic mail. The estimated
cost for complying with this regulation is $100 per hour. Therefore,
the total annual cost is estimated to be $3,000 (time burden of 30
hours x $100 (cost per hour).
    Respondents: Business or other for profit.
    Number of Respondents: 20.
    Number of Responses: 20.
    Total Annual Burden: 30 hours.

ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding the burden estimate, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Office of Management and
Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of the Secretary of
Transportation, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the Department's
performance; (b) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for the
Department to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the
information collection; and (d) ways that the burden could be minimized
without reducing the quality of the collected information. The agency
will summarize and/or include your comments in the request for OMB's
clearance of this information collection.

    Authority:  The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1:48.

David Hines,
Director, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards.
[FR Doc. 2014-08228 Filed 4-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 16, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80701-80703]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27472]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79277; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2016-150]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend the NBBO Program

November 9, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 31, 2016, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's NBBO Program at Rule
7014(g) to change the qualification criteria required to receive the
$0.0004 per share executed NBBO Program rebate in NYSE-listed
securities and in Securities Listed on Exchanges other than Nasdaq and
NYSE.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal office of
the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's
NBBO Program at Rule 7014(g) to change the qualification criteria
required to receive the $0.0004 per share executed NBBO Program rebate
in NYSE-listed securities and in Securities Listed on Exchanges other
than Nasdaq and NYSE. The NBBO Program provides two rebates per share
executed with respect to all other displayed orders (other than
Designated Retail Orders, as defined in Rule 7018) in securities priced
at $1 or more per share that provide liquidity, establish the NBBO,

and displayed a quantity of at least one round lot at the time of
execution. The rebates provided are in addition to any rebate or credit
payable under Rule 7018(a) and other programs under Rule 7014. The
rebates are provided to executions from orders originating on ports
that meet certain requirements. To qualify for the $0.0004 per share
executed NBBO Program rebate in NYSE-listed securities and in
Securities Listed on Exchanges other than Nasdaq and NYSE a member must
execute shares of liquidity provided in all securities through one or
more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs that represents 1.0% or more of
Consolidated Volume during the month and the order must have been
entered on a port that has a ratio of at least 25% NBBO liquidity
provided\3\ to liquidity provided during the month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ NBBO liquidity provided means liquidity provided from orders
(other than Designated Retail Orders, as defined in Nasdaq Rule
7018), that establish the NBBO, and displayed a quantity of at least
one round lot at the time of execution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to amend one of the data points used in
the calculation of the ratio required for a port to qualify for the
$0.0004 per share executed NBBO Program rebate to now compare liquidity
provided by displayed quotes/orders (other than Supplemental Orders or
Designated Retail Orders) to NBBO liquidity provided. Thus, the
Exchange is using a more limited category of liquidity (i.e., displayed
quotes/orders) against which NBBO liquidity provided is compared to
determine a member's ratio. For example, under the current rule if a
member provides 100,000 shares of displayed quotes/orders (other than
Supplemental Orders or Designated Retail Orders) in a month (30,000 of
which is NBBO liquidity) and it provides 100,000 of midpoint liquidity
(non-displayed) during the same month, the member's ratio would be 15%
(30,000 shares of NBBO liquidity divided by 200,000 shares of liquidity
provided). Under the proposed change using this example, the ratio
would be 30% based on 30,000 shares of NBBO liquidity provided divided
by 100,000 shares of displayed quotes/orders (other than Supplemental
Orders or Designated Retail Orders) provided (the member's 100,000
shares of non-displayed liquidity is not included). As a consequence,
this member would not qualify for the $0.0004 per share executed NBBO
Program rebate in NYSE-listed securities and in Securities Listed on
Exchanges other than Nasdaq and NYSE under the current criteria, but
would under the amended criteria.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\4\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\5\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and issuers and other persons using any facility, and is
not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposed change is an equitable
allocation and is not unfairly discriminatory because it makes it
easier to qualify for the rebate. As a consequence, the Exchange is
making the rebate more achievable for members, which may in turn,
attract new members to the program. The Exchange notes that the program
rewards members that provide liquidity that sets the NBBO, thus
improving the market for all participants. To the extent the proposed
change is successful in attracting more members to participate in the
program, all participants will benefit from the increased competition
in setting the NBBO. The Exchange further notes that a member that
currently qualifies for the rebate would qualify for the rebate under
the amended criteria. Last, the proposed change does not alter the
amount of the rebate provided. Thus, the Exchange believes that the
amount of the rebate continues to be reasonable for the reasons stated
by the Exchange when the rebate was adopted.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In terms of inter-market
competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more
favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust
its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with
alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance
with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because
competitors are free to modify their own fees and rebates in response,
and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing
practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes
in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely
limited.
    In this instance, the proposed changes to the criteria required of
members to receive a rebate under the NBBO Program make it easier for
members to qualify for a rebate under the program, with the intent of
making the program more attractive to members. Thus, the proposed
change promotes competition for order flow among trading venues, and
does not impose a burden on competition because the Exchange's
execution services are completely voluntary and subject to extensive
competition both from other exchanges and from off-exchange venues,
which may provide similar incentives to their members. In sum, if the
changes proposed herein are unattractive to market participants, it is
likely that the Exchange will lose market share as a result.
Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes
will impair the ability of members or competing order execution venues
to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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)(ii) of the Act.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

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-NASDAQ-2016-150 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-NASDAQ-2016-150. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of 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; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2016-150 and should
be submitted on or before December 7, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2016-27472 Filed 11-15-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 144 (Monday, July 28, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 43799]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17810]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Wednesday, July
30, 2014 at 2:00 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has
certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the
scheduled matter at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Aguilar, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session, and determined that no
earlier notice thereof was possible.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting will be:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    institution and settlement of administrative proceedings; and
    other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the
Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

     Dated: July 24, 2014.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-17810 Filed 7-24-14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P