[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 233 (Tuesday, December 4, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62648-62651]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26267]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84668; File No. SR-BX-2018-057]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Exchange's Transaction Fees at Equity 7, Section 118

November 28, 2018.
    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 November 16, 2018, Nasdaq BX, Inc. (``BX'' 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 transaction fees at
Equity 7, Section 118 to: (i) Eliminate a fee assessed for displayed
orders; (ii) adopt a new fee for displayed orders; (iii) adopt a new
fee for non-displayed orders; and (iv) adopt a Qualified Market Maker
Program and a related fee.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://nasdaqbx.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
transaction fees at Equity 7, Section 118 to: (i) Eliminate a fee
assessed for displayed orders; (ii) adopt a new fee for displayed
orders; (iii) adopt a new fee for non-displayed orders; and (iv) adopt
a Qualified Market Maker Program and a related fee.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange initially filed the proposed pricing changes on
November 1, 2018 (SR-BX-2018-053). On November 6, 2018, the Exchange
withdrew that filing and replaced it with SR-BX-2018-054, which
corrected a description of the quoting obligation under the QMM
Program rule and made a technical correction to the purpose
discussion. On November 16, 2018, the Exchange withdrew SR-BX-2018-
054 and submitted this filing, which makes technical changes and
provides further description of the QMM Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

First Change
    The purpose of the first change is to eliminate a $0.0018 per share
executed fee assessed for displayed orders. To qualify for the current
fee, a member must add liquidity equal to or exceeding the member's
Growth Target. The Growth Target is the liquidity the member added in
January 2017 as a percent of total Consolidated Volume \4\ plus 0.04%
of total Consolidated Volume. The fee tier has not provided adequate
incentive to attract liquidity to the Exchange. Accordingly, the
Exchange is proposing to eliminate the fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The term ``Consolidated Volume'' shall mean the total
consolidated volume reported to all consolidated transaction
reporting plans by all exchanges and trade reporting facilities
during a month in equity securities, excluding executed orders with
a size of less than one round lot. For purposes of calculating
Consolidated Volume and the extent of a member's trading activity
the date of the annual reconstitution of the Russell Investments
Indexes shall be excluded from both total Consolidated Volume and
the member's trading activity. See Equity 7, Section 118.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Second Change
    The purpose of the second change is to adopt a new $0.0016 per
share executed fee assessed for displayed orders. To qualify for the
proposed fee, a member must add liquidity equal to or exceeding 0.06%
of total Consolidated Volume during a month, and remove liquidity equal
to or exceeding 0.40% of total Consolidated Volume during a month. The
proposed new fee is similar to existing fees assessed for displayed
orders, which require a certain level of total Consolidated Volume
added during a month to qualify; however, the proposed new fee will
also include a qualification requirement that a member remove a certain
level of total Consolidated Volume during the month.
Third Change
    The purpose of the third change is to adopt a new $0.0020 per share
executed fee for non-displayed orders (other than orders with Midpoint
pegging). To qualify for the proposed fee, a member must meet the
Qualified Market Maker Program qualification criteria and add 0.10% of
total Consolidated Volume of non-displayed liquidity. The proposed new
fee is similar to the certain existing fees assessed for non-displayed
orders, which requires a certain level of total Consolidated Volume
added during a month to qualify; however, the proposed new fee will
also include a qualification requirement that a member also qualify for
the Qualified Market Maker Program. The Qualified Market Maker Program,
which is being proposed herein and is discussed immediately below, will
require a member to provide market-improving behavior in the form of
quoting and provision of total Consolidated Volume.
Fourth Change
    The purpose of the fourth change is to adopt a Qualified Market
Maker (``QMM'') Program and a related fee. A QMM is a member that makes
a significant contribution to market quality by providing liquidity at
the national best bid and offer (``NBBO'') in a large number of
securities for a significant portion of the day. A QMM may be, but is
not required to be, a registered market maker in any security; thus,
the QMM designation does not by itself impose a two-sided quotation
obligation or convey any of the benefits associated with being a
registered market maker. The designation will, however, reflect the
QMM's commitment to provide meaningful and consistent support to market
quality and price discovery by extensive quoting at the NBBO in a large
number of securities. Thus, the program is designed to attract
liquidity both from traditional market makers and from other firms that
are willing to commit capital to support liquidity at the NBBO. In
return for providing the required contribution of market-improving
liquidity, a QMM will be assessed a lower rate for executions of
displayed

orders in securities priced at $1 or more per share that provide
liquidity on the Exchange System. Through the use of this incentive,
the Exchange hopes to provide improved trading conditions for all
market participants through narrower bid-ask spreads and increased
depth of liquidity available at the inside market. In addition, the
program reflects an effort to use financial incentives to encourage a
wider variety of members to make positive commitments to promote market
quality.
    To be designated as a QMM, a member must quote at the NBBO at least
25% of the time during regular market hours in an average of at least
400 securities per day during a month, and provide add volume of at
least 0.125% of total Consolidated Volume during the month. In return
for its contributions, the Exchange will assess a lower rate for
executions of displayed orders in securities priced at $1 or more per
share that provide liquidity on the Exchange System. Specifically, the
Exchange is proposing to charge a fee of $0.0016 per share executed
with respect to all displayed orders in securities priced at $1 or more
per share that provide liquidity.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\5\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market
model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and revenues of self-regulatory organizations and,
also, recognized that current regulation of the market system ``has
been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its
broader forms that are most important to investors and listed
companies.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70
FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Likewise, in NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission \8\
(``NetCoalition'') the D.C. Circuit upheld the Commission's use of a
market-based approach in evaluating the fairness of market data fees
against a challenge claiming that Congress mandated a cost-based
approach.\9\ As the court emphasized, the Commission ``intended in
Regulation NMS that `market forces, rather than regulatory
requirements' play a role in determining the market data . . . to be
made available to investors and at what cost.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
    \9\ See NetCoalition, at 534-535.
    \10\ Id. at 537.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is
`fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market
system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that
act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of
where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to
take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange
possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of
order flow from broker dealers'. . . .'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id. at 539 (quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No.
59039 (December 2, 2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008)
(SR-NYSEArca-2006-21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

First Change
    The Exchange believes that elimination of the $0.0018 per share
executed fee assessed for displayed orders that provide liquidity is
reasonable because the Exchange continues to provide similar fees to
members that meet the qualification criteria required to receive the
fee. In this regard, the Exchange will provide four fee tiers ranging
from $0.0017 per share executed to $0.0013 per share executed. For
example, the Exchange assesses a fee of $0.0017 per share executed for
displayed orders entered by a member that adds liquidity equal to or
exceeding 0.15% of total Consolidated Volume during a month. Thus,
members will continue to have opportunities to receive fees lower than
the $0.0018 per share executed fee that is being eliminated.
    The Exchange believes that elimination of the $0.0018 per share
executed fee assessed for displayed orders is an equitable allocation
and is not unfairly discriminatory because the fee has not
significantly provided incentive to market participants to provide the
required level of total Consolidated Volume to receive the fee, and
consequently the Exchange believes that it should eliminate the fee.
The Exchange notes that it continues to provide opportunities to its
members to qualify for fees lower than the $0.0018 per share executed
fee assessed for displayed orders that provide liquidity.
Second Change
    The Exchange believes that the proposed $0.0016 per share executed
fee is reasonable because it is similar to the fees currently assessed
by the Exchange for displayed orders that provide liquidity. As noted
above, the Exchange provides other fee tiers for displayed orders
ranging from $0.0017 per share executed to $0.0013 per share executed.
For example, the Exchange assesses a fee of $0.0017 per share executed
for displayed orders entered by a member that adds liquidity equal to
or exceeding 0.15% of total Consolidated Volume during a month. The
proposed fee will provide another opportunity to members to receive a
similar fee in return for certain levels of participation on the
Exchange as measured by total Consolidated Volume.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed $0.0016 per share executed
fee is an equitable allocation and is not unfairly discriminatory
because the Exchange will apply the same fee to all similarly situated
members. To qualify for the new fee, a member must provide certain
minimum levels of total Consolidated Volume in both transactions that
add and remove liquidity. The qualification criteria ensure that
members qualifying for this fee are meaningfully participating on the
Exchange in a given month. The Exchange notes that any member may
qualify for the proposed fee if it meets the levels of total
Consolidated Volume required by the fee's qualification criteria. Thus,
the Exchange believes that this additional new fee provides all of its
members with choice and flexibility, and is therefore an equitable
allocation and not unfairly discriminatory.
Third Change
    The Exchange believes that the proposed $0.0020 per share executed
fee for non-displayed orders that provide liquidity (other than orders
with Midpoint pegging) is reasonable because it is similar to other
fees that the Exchange assesses for non-displayed liquidity. For
example, the Exchange currently assesses a fee of $0.0024 per share
executed for non-displayed orders (other than orders with Midpoint
pegging) entered by a member that adds 0.06% of total Consolidated
Volume of non-displayed liquidity. The Exchange assesses a fee of
$0.0030 per share

executed for all other non-displayed orders.\12\ The proposed fee will
provide members with an opportunity to receive a lower fee for
execution of their non-displayed orders. As a consequence, the Exchange
believes that the proposed fee is reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The Exchange also assesses fees less than $0.0030 per share
executed for orders with Midpoint pegging, which are non-displayed
orders, if the member meets certain qualification criteria. See
Equity 7, Section 118(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed $0.0020 per share executed
fee for non-displayed orders (other than orders with Midpoint pegging)
is an equitable allocation and is not unfairly discriminatory because
the Exchange will apply the same fee to all similarly situated members.
Similar to the existing $0.0024 per share executed fee for non-
displayed orders (other than orders with Midpoint pegging), the
proposed new fee requires that a member provide a certain level of
total Consolidated Volume of non-displayed liquidity added. In addition
to total Consolidated Volume, the proposed new fee also requires that a
member qualify as a QMM under the proposed QMM Program, which requires
that a member both quotes at the NBBO at least 25% of the time during
regular market hours in an average of at least 400 securities per day
during the month, and provides add volume of at least 0.125% total
Consolidated Volume. Thus, not only must a member provide a certain
level of total Consolidated Volume in non-displayed liquidity added,
but it also must provide a certain level of total Consolidated Volume
in both displayed and non-displayed liquidity added and quoting
activity at the NBBO. The Exchange notes that any member may qualify as
a QMM, and in turn also qualify for the proposed non-displayed fee, if
the member chooses to provide the levels of liquidity and quoting at
the NBBO required by the QMM Program and new fee qualification
criteria. As a consequence, the Exchange believes that the proposed fee
is an equitable allocation and not unfairly discriminatory.
Fourth Change
    The Exchange believes that the proposed $0.0016 per share executed
fee of the QMM Program for displayed orders that provide liquidity is
reasonable because it is similar to other fees assessed by the Exchange
for displayed orders that provide liquidity. In addition to the
proposed $0.0016 per share executed fee described above, the Exchange
also has other fee tiers for displayed orders ranging from $0.0017 per
share executed to $0.0013 per share executed. For example, the Exchange
assesses a fee of $0.0017 per share executed for displayed orders
entered by a member that adds liquidity equal to or exceeding 0.15% of
total Consolidated Volume during a month. The proposed fee will provide
another opportunity to members to be assessed a similar fee in return
for certain levels of participation on the Exchange as measured by
total Consolidated Volume. Unlike other fees currently assessed for
displayed orders, the proposed QMM Program fee also requires a
significant level of quoting at the NBBO. Thus, the proposed fee is set
at a level that is reflective of the beneficial contributions of market
participants that quote significantly at the NBBO and provide
significant liquidity.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed $0.0016 per share executed
fee and qualification criteria of the QMM Program are an equitable
allocation and are not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange
will apply the same fee to all similarly situated members. Moreover,
the proposed qualification criteria requires a member to provide a
certain level of total Consolidated Volume in both displayed and non-
displayed liquidity added and to quote significantly at the NBBO. Any
member may provide the level of total Consolidated Volume and quote at
the NBBO at the levels required by the qualification criteria of the
QMM Program. Similar to the other current fee qualification criteria,
the QMM Program requires a member to provide a certain level of total
Consolidated Volume to qualify. Unlike other current fee qualification
criteria, the proposed QMM Program requires a member to quote at the
NBBO at least 25% of the time during regular market hours in an average
of at least 400 securities per day during the month. The Exchange notes
that Nasdaq also has a QMM Program, in which Nasdaq members are
required to quote at the NBBO at least 25% of the time during regular
market hours.\13\ In contrast to the Exchange's proposal, Nasdaq
requires a member to quote at the NBBO in an average of at least 1,000
securities per day during the month. The Exchange believes that a lower
requirement of 400 securities per day during the month is appropriate
given the smaller size and volumes of the Exchange in comparison to
Nasdaq. For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed QMM
Program fee and qualification criteria are an equitable allocation and
are not unfairly discriminatory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Nasdaq Rule 7014(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 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 fees assessed members
for execution of all securities priced at $1 or more per share that it
trades do 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. The
proposed new fees provide opportunities to members to receive lower
fees for transactions in both displayed and non-displayed orders. The
fees are designed to provide incentive to members to improve the market
by requiring certain levels of total Consolidated Volume to qualify for
the fees. Similarly, the QMM Program fee provides members the
opportunity to be assessed lower fees for transactions if they improve
the market by providing both significant total Consolidated Volume and
quoting at the NBBO meaningfully in a large number of securities. In
sum, the proposed changes are designed to make the Exchange a more
desirable venue on which to transact; however, 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.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-BX-2018-057 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-BX-2018-057. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-BX-2018-057 and should be submitted on
or before December 26, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-26267 Filed 12-3-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 31, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 212)]
[Notices]
[Page 65002]
[DOCID:fr31oc08-122]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activity Seeking OMB Approval

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA invites public comments about our intention to request
the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) revision of a current
information collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day
comment period soliciting comments on the following collection of
information was published on June 19, 2008, vol. 73, no. 119, page
34976. The information is required to carry out FAA missions related to
the aviation industry, flight planning, and airport engineering.

DATES: Please submit comments by December 1, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Mauney at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

    Title: FAA Airport Master Record.
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0015.
    Form(s): 5010-1, 5010-2, 5010-3, 5010-5.
    Affected Public: An estimated 19,800 Respondents.
    Frequency: This information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: Approximately 27 minutes per
response.
    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: An estimated 8,870 hours annually.
    Abstract: 49 U.S.C. 329(b) directs the Secretary of Transportation
to collect information about civil aeronautics. The information is
required to carry out FAA missions related to the aviation industry,
flight planning, and airport engineering. The database is the basic
source of data for private, state, and Federal government aeronautical
charts and publications.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be
addressed to Nathan Lesser, Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/
FAA, and sent via electronic mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimates of the burden of
the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 24, 2008.
Carla Mauney,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business
Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. E8-25942 Filed 10-30-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 221 (Thursday, November 17, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69019-69020]
[FR Doc No: 2022-25042]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP22-141-000]

Great Basin Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Availability of
the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed 2023 Mainline Replacement
Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the 2023
Mainline Replacement Project (Project) proposed by Great Basin Gas
Transmission Company (Great Basin) in the above-referenced docket.
Great Basin proposes to abandon in-place or abandon by removal
approximately 20.4 miles of its existing 16-inch-diameter steel
pipeline and construct as replacement approximately 20.4 miles of new
16-inch-diameter steel pipeline in Humboldt County, Nevada. According
to Great Basin, the replacement is needed to address indications that
the subject segment is approaching the end of its useful life, as
demonstrated by preventative integrity assessments, including inline
inspections and direct assessments. The Project would provide no new
transportation capacity.
    The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the Project in accordance with the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC
staff concludes that approval of the proposed project, with appropriate
mitigating measures, would not constitute a major federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
    The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Environmental Protection
Agency participated as cooperating agencies in the preparation of the
EA. Cooperating agencies have jurisdiction by law or special expertise
with respect to resources potentially affected by the proposal and
participate in the NEPA analysis.
    The proposed Project includes the following activities and
facilities:
     abandonment in-place or by removal of 20.4 miles of
existing 16-inch-diameter steel pipeline;
     construction of 20.4 miles of new 16-inch-diameter steel
pipeline to replace the abandoned pipeline; and
     removal of existing valves and replace with new valves and
associated appurtenances within Great Basin's existing Elko Lateral Tap
yard.
    The Commission mailed a copy of the Notice of Availability of the
EA to federal, state, and local government representatives and
agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups;
Native American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other
interested individuals and groups; and newspapers and libraries in the
project area. The EA is only available in electronic format. It may be
viewed and downloaded from the FERC's website (www.ferc.gov), on the
natural gas environmental documents page (https://www.ferc.gov/industries-data/natural-gas/environment/environmental-documents). In
addition, the EA may be accessed by using the eLibrary link on the
FERC's website. Click on the eLibrary link (https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/search), select ``General Search'' and enter the docket number
in

the ``Docket Number'' field, excluding the last three digits (i.e.,
CP22-141). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected] or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The EA is not a decision document. It presents Commission staff's
independent analysis of the environmental issues for the Commission to
consider when addressing the merits of all issues in this proceeding.
Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments should
focus on the EA's disclosure and discussion of potential environmental
effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen
environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful
they will be. To ensure that the Commission has the opportunity to
consider your comments prior to making its decision on this project, it
is important that we receive your comments in Washington, DC on or
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on December 12, 2022.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to file
your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic
filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-
3676 or [email protected]. Please carefully follow these
instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
FERC Online. This is an easy method for submitting brief, text-only
comments on a project;
    (2) You can also file your comments electronically using the
eFiling feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the
link to FERC Online. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a
variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission.
New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' You must select the type of filing you are making. If
you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select
``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the Commission. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP22-
141-000) on your letter. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service
must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC
20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    Filing environmental comments will not give you intervenor status,
but you do not need intervenor status to have your comments considered.
Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing or judicial review of
the Commission's decision. At this point in this proceeding, the
timeframe for filing timely intervention requests has expired. Any
person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion
to intervene out-of-time pursuant to Rule 214(b)(3) and (d) of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214(b)(3) and
(d)) and show good cause why the time limitation should be waived.
Motions to intervene are more fully described at https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/ferc-online/how-guides.
    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC website (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. The eLibrary link
also provides access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/overview to
register for eSubscription.

    Dated: November 10, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-25042 Filed 11-16-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 11, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61376-61379]
[FR Doc No: 2022-21985]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95976; No. SR-NYSEARCA-2022-66]

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

October 4, 2022.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that, on September 30, 2022, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to modify the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule
(``Fee Schedule'') regarding the discount in take liquidity fees. The
Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective October 3,
2022. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website
at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below.

The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C
below, of the most significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to amend the Fee Schedule to modify
the amount of one of the alternatives offered as a Discount in Take
Liquidity Fees for Professional Customer and Non-Customer Liquidity
Removing Interest (``Take Fee Discount'').
    If an OTP Holder or OTP Firm (collectively, ``OTP Holders'')
executes a transaction that removes or ``takes'' liquidity on the
Exchange, the OTP Holder is charged a ``Take Liquidity'' fee (referred
to herein as a ``Take Fee'') and such liquidity may be referred to as
``Liquidity Removing'' or liquidity taking.\4\ To offset such costs and
to encourage market participants to direct order flow to the Exchange,
the Exchange offers, among other incentives, the Take Fee Discounts for
executions in Penny Issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Fee Schedule, NYSE Arca OPTIONS: TRADE-RELATED CHARGES
FOR STANDARD OPTIONS, TRANSACTION FEE FOR ELECTRONIC EXECUTIONS--PER
CONTRACT (setting forth a per contract Take Fee of $0.50 for such
Penny executions in Professional Customer, Firm, Broker Dealer, and
Market Maker range as compared to a per contract take fee of $0.49
for such Penny executions in the Customer range).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange currently offers OTP Holders three alternative Take
Fee Discounts, with varying qualifying bases and amounts, and an OTP
Holder may only earn one such discount. One of the Take Fee Discount
alternatives is available to an OTP Holder that executes at least 0.80%
of TCADV from Customer posted interest in all issues, plus executed ADV
of 0.30% ADV of U.S. equity market share posted and executed on the
NYSE Arca Equity market. The amount of the Take Fee Discount would be
$0.04 when the executing buyer and seller are the same OTP Holder or an
Affiliate or Appointed OFP or Appointed MM of such firm; otherwise, the
Take Fee Discount is $0.03.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For example, when an OTP Holder or its Affiliate trades
against itself (e.g., Firm 1 MM trades against Firm 1 Customer or
Firm 1 MM trades against Customer of an Affiliate of Firm 1), the
$0.04 Take Fee discount applies. If, however, the OTP Holder trades
against another OTP Holder (e.g., Firm 1 MM trades against Firm 2
Customer), the $0.03 Take Fee discount applies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to modify the Take Fee Discount amounts for
this alternative to be $0.03 when the executing buyer and seller are
the same OTP Holder or an Affiliate or Appointed OFP or Appointed MM of
such firm, or $0.02 otherwise.
    The Exchange cannot predict with certainty whether any OTP Holders
will seek to qualify for this Take Fee Discount alternative, as
modified. Although the Exchange proposes to decrease the amount of the
discount OTP Holders could earn through this alternative, the Exchange
believes that OTP Holders would continue to be encouraged to direct
liquidity-taking interest to the Exchange to take advantage of the
available credits and discounts on Take Fees.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\6\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\7\ in particular,
because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and other persons
using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposed Rule Change Is Reasonable
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. The
Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over
regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services
in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, the Commission
highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and
SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the
market system ``has been remarkably successful in promoting market
competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors
and listed companies.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (S7-10-04) (``Reg NMS
Adopting Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are currently 16 registered options exchanges competing for
order flow. Based on publicly-available information, and excluding
index-based options, no single exchange has more than 16% of the market
share of executed volume of multiply-listed equity and ETF options
trades.\9\ Therefore, currently no exchange possesses significant
pricing power in the execution of multiply-listed equity and ETF
options order flow. More specifically, in August of 2022, the Exchange
had less than 12% market share of executed volume of multiply-listed
equity and ETF options trades.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The OCC publishes options and futures volume in a variety of
formats, including daily and monthly volume by exchange, available
here: https://www.theocc.com/Market-Data/Market-Data-Reports/Volume-and-Open-Interest/Monthly-Weekly-Volume-Statistics.
    \10\ Based on OCC data for monthly volume of equity-based
options and monthly volume of ETF-based options, see id., the
Exchange's market share in equity-based options decreased from
12.32% for the month of August 2021 to 11.36% for the month of
August 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
shift order flow or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of
products, in response to fee changes. Accordingly, competitive forces
constrain options exchange transaction fees. In response to this
competitive environment, the Exchange has established incentives, such
as the Take Fee Discount.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed modification to the Take
Fee Discount is reasonably designed to continue to offer OTP Holders
discounts on Take Fees and to incent OTP Holders to increase the amount
and type of Professional Customer and Non-Customer interest sent to the
Exchange, especially posted and liquidity-taking interest, which
benefits all market participants by providing more trading
opportunities, thereby making the Exchange a more attractive execution
venue.
    To the extent the proposed rule change continues to attract greater
volume and liquidity by encouraging OTP Holders (and their affiliates)
to increase their options volume on the Exchange, the Exchange believes
the proposed change would improve the Exchange's overall
competitiveness and strengthen its market quality for all market
participants. In the backdrop of the competitive environment in which
the Exchange operates, the proposed rule change is a reasonable attempt
by the Exchange to increase the depth of its market and improve its
market share relative to its competitors, including another exchange
that offers similar incentives on liquidity-taking interest.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See, e.g., Nasdaq Options 7 Pricing Schedule, Section 2
Nasdaq Options Market--Fees and Rebates, available at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/nasdaq/rules/nasdaq-options-7
(providing that Nasdaq participants that add 1.30% of Customer,
Professional, Firm, Broker-Dealer or Non-NOM Market Maker liquidity
in Penny Symbols and/or Non-Penny Symbols of TCADV per day in a
month will pay ``a $0.48 per contract Penny Symbols Fee for Removing
Liquidity when the Participant is (i) both the buyer and the seller
or (ii) the Participant removes liquidity from another Participant
under Common Ownership,'' otherwise such participants pay $0.50 per
contract on such interest).

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

The Proposed Rule Change Is an Equitable Allocation of Credits and Fees
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is an equitable
allocation of its fees and credits. The proposal is based on the amount
and type of business transacted on the Exchange, and OTP Holders can
seek to qualify for this discount or not. Moreover, although the
Exchange proposes to decrease the amount of the discount OTP Holders
could qualify for via one of the alternative Take Fee Discounts, the
Exchange believes that the proposal is designed to continue to incent
OTP Holders to aggregate all liquidity-taking interest at the Exchange
as a primary execution venue. To the extent that the proposed change
attracts more liquidity to the Exchange, this increased order flow
would continue to make the Exchange a more competitive venue for order
execution. Thus, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change would
improve market quality for all market participants on the Exchange and,
as a consequence, attract more order flow to the Exchange thereby
improving market-wide quality and price discovery.
The Proposed Rule Change Is not Unfairly Discriminatory
    The Exchange believes the proposed change is not unfairly
discriminatory because it would apply to all similarly-situated market
participants on an equal and non-discriminatory basis. The proposal is
based on the amount and type of business transacted on the Exchange,
and OTP Holders are not obligated to try to earn the discount, nor are
they obligated to execute liquidity-taking interest. To the extent that
the proposed change attracts more Professional Customer and Non-
Customer interest to the Exchange, especially posted and liquidity-
taking interest, this increased order flow would continue to make the
Exchange a more competitive venue for order execution. Thus, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change would improve market quality
for all market participants on the Exchange and, as a consequence,
attract more order flow to the Exchange thereby improving market-wide
quality and price discovery. The resulting increased volume and
liquidity would provide more trading opportunities and tighter spreads
to all market participants and thus would promote just and equitable
principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of
a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant
competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement
regarding the burden on competition.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, the Exchange does
not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above, the Exchange believes
that the proposed changes would encourage the submission of additional
liquidity to a public exchange, thereby promoting market depth, price
discovery and transparency and enhancing order execution opportunities
for all market participants. As a result, the Exchange believes that
the proposed change furthers the Commission's goal in adopting
Regulation NMS of fostering integrated competition among orders, which
promotes ``more efficient pricing of individual stocks for all types of
orders, large and small.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Reg NMS Adopting Release, supra note 8, at 37499.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Intramarket Competition. The proposed change is designed to attract
additional order flow to the Exchange, particularly take-liquidity
interest. The Exchange believes that the proposed modifications,
although they would reduce the amount of the discount offered by one of
the Take Fee Discount alternatives, would continue to incent OTP
Holders to direct their liquidity-taking order flow to the Exchange.
Greater liquidity benefits all market participants on the Exchange and
increased liquidity-taking order flow and posted Market Maker interest
would increase opportunities for execution of other trading interest.
The proposed change would apply to all similarly-situated market
participants and thus would not impose a disparate burden on
competition among market participants on the Exchange.
    Intermarket Competition. The Exchange operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor one
of the 16 competing option exchanges 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 to attract order flow to the Exchange. Based on publicly-
available information, and excluding index-based options, no single
exchange has more than 16% of the market share of executed volume of
multiply-listed equity and ETF options trades.\13\ Therefore, currently
no exchange possesses significant pricing power in the execution of
multiply-listed equity & ETF options order flow. More specifically, in
August 2022, the Exchange had less than 12% market share of executed
volume of multiply-listed equity & ETF options trades.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See supra note 9.
    \14\ Based on OCC data for monthly volume of equity-based
options and monthly volume of ETF-based options, see id., the
Exchange's market share in equity-based options decreased from
12.32% for the month of August 2021 to 11.36% for the month of
August 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this
competitive environment because it modifies the Exchange's fees in a
manner designed to incent OTP Holders to direct trading interest
(particularly Customer posted interest and Professional Customer and
Non-Customer liquidity-taking interest) to the Exchange. To the extent
that this purpose is achieved, all the Exchange's market participants
should benefit from the improved market quality and increased
opportunities for price improvement.
    The Exchange also believes that the proposed change could promote
competition between the Exchange and other execution venues, including
one that currently offers similar incentives relating to Take Fees,\15\
by encouraging additional orders to be sent to the Exchange for
execution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See supra note 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \16\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \17\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such

action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the
protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall
institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) \18\ of the Act to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2022-66 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2022-66. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2022-66, and should be
submitted on or before November 1, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-21985 Filed 10-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 2, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9373-9376]
[FR Doc No: 2010-4306]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R02-OAR-2010-0131, FRL-9120-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New York State
Implementation Plan Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a proposed revision to the New York State Implementation Plan
(SIP) for ozone concerning the control of volatile organic compounds.
The proposed SIP revision consists of amendments to Title 6 of the New
York Codes, Rules and Regulations Part 235, ``Consumer Products'' and
Part 239, ``Portable Fuel Container Spillage Control.'' The intended
effect of this action is to approve control strategies, required by the
Clean Air Act, which will result in emission reductions that will help
achieve attainment of the national ambient air quality standards for
ozone.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 1, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket Number EPA-R02-
OAR-2010-0131, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
     Mail: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866.
     Hand Delivery: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional
Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket No. EPA-R02-OAR-2010-
0131. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://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 http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
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 e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail 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 or any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental
Protection Agency, Region II Office, Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway,
25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. EPA requests, if at all
possible, that you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You
may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4
p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kirk J. Wieber (wieber.kirk@epa.gov),
Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway,
25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What is Required by the Clean Air Act (Act) and How Does it Apply
to New York?
    A. What is the History and Time Frame for State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Submissions?
    B. What are the Moderate Area Requirements?
II. What was Included in New York's Submittals?
    A. What do the Revisions to Part 235, ``Consumer Products''
Consist Of?
    B. What do the Requirements of Part 239, ``Portable Fuel
Container Spillage Control'' Consist Of?
III. What is EPA's Conclusion?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is Required by the Clean Air Act (Act) and How Does it Apply to
New York?

A. What Is the History and Time Frame for State Implementation Plan
(SIP) Submissions?

    In 1997, EPA revised the health-based national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS or standard) for ozone, setting it at 0.08 parts per
million averaged over an 8-hour period. EPA set the 8-hour ozone
standard based on scientific evidence demonstrating that ozone causes
adverse health effects at lower ozone concentrations and over longer
periods of time than was understood when the pre-existing 1-hour ozone
standard was set. EPA determined that the 8-hour standard would be more
protective of human health, especially with regard to children and
adults who are active outdoors, and individuals with a pre-existing
respiratory disease, such as asthma. On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23951),
EPA finalized its attainment/nonattainment designations for areas
across the country with respect to the 8-hour ozone standard. These
actions became effective on June 15, 2004. The three 8-hour ozone
moderate nonattainment areas located in New York State are: the New
York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area; the
Poughkeepsie nonattainment area; and the Jefferson County nonattainment
area. The New York portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long
Island, NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area is composed of the five boroughs of
New York City and the surrounding counties of Nassau, Suffolk,
Westchester and Rockland. This is collectively referred to as the New
York City Metropolitan Area or NYMA. The Poughkeepsie nonattainment
area is composed of Dutchess, Orange and Putnam counties. On March 25,
2008 (73 FR 15672) EPA determined that Jefferson County attained the 8-
hour ozone standard.
    These designations triggered the Act's requirements under section
182(b) for moderate nonattainment areas, including a requirement to
submit a demonstration of attainment. To assist States in meeting the
Act's requirements for ozone, EPA released an 8-hour ozone
implementation rule in two Phases. EPA's Phase 1 8-hour ozone
implementation rule, published on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23951) and
referred to as the Phase 1 Rule, specifies that States must submit
these attainment demonstrations to EPA by no later than three years
from the effective date of designation, that is, submit them by June
15, 2007.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On December 22, 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit (the Court) vacated the Phase 1
Rule. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882
(DC Cir. 2006). Subsequently, in South Coast Air Quality Management
Dist. v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1295 (DC Cir. 2007), in response to several
petitions for rehearing, the Court clarified that the Phase 1 Rule
was vacated only with regard to those parts of the rule that had
been successfully challenged. The court upheld the portions of the
Phase 1 Rule relating to EPA's classification system under subpart
2. The portions of the rule that were vacated do not affect this
proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What Are the Moderate Area Requirements?

    On November 9, 2005, EPA published Phase 2 of the 8-hour ozone
implementation rule (70 FR 71612) and referred to as the Phase 2 Rule,
which addressed the control obligations that apply to areas designated
nonattainment for the 8-hour NAAQS. Among other things, the Phase 1 and
Phase 2 Rules outline the SIP requirements and deadlines for various
requirements in areas designated as moderate nonattainment. For such
areas, reasonably available control technology (RACT) plans were due by
September 2006 (40 CFR 51.912(a)(2)). The rules further require that
modeling and attainment demonstrations, reasonable further progress
plans, reasonably available control measure (RACM) analysis, projection
year emission inventories, motor vehicle emissions budgets and
contingency measures were all due by June 15, 2007 (40 CFR 51.908(a),
and (c)).
    In a related matter, the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) developed
control measures into model rules for a number of source categories and
estimated emission reduction benefits from implementing these model
rules. These model rules were designed for use by States in developing
their own regulations to achieve additional emission reductions to
close emission shortfalls.

II. What Was Included in New York's Submittals?

    On October 21, 2009 and November 23, 2009, the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), submitted to EPA
proposed revisions to the SIP which included State adopted revisions to
two regulations which consist of, respectively, Title 6 of the New York
Code of Rules and Regulations (6 NYCRR) Part 235, ``Consumer Products''
with an effective date of October 15, 2009 and 6 NYCRR Part 239,
``Portable Fuel Container Spillage Control'' with an effective date of
July 30, 2009. These revisions will provide volatile organic compound
(VOC) emission reductions to address, in part, attainment of the 1997
8-hour ozone standard in the NYMA and towards meeting the RACT and RACM
requirement. New York used the OTC model rules as guidelines to develop
its rules.

A. What Do the Revisions to Part 235, ``Consumer Products'' Consist Of?

    On January 23, 2004 (69 FR 3237), EPA approved the previous version
of Part 235 that included VOC content limits for 43 separate consumer
product categories. New York's recent revisions to Part 235 includes
VOC content limits for eleven new categories of products and includes
revised VOC content limits for contact adhesives. The new categories of
products, some of which include subcategories, are: adhesive remover,
anti-static (non-aerosol), electrical cleaner, electronic cleaner,
fabric refresher, footwear or leather care,

graffiti remover, hair styling, shaving gel, toilet/urinal care, and
wood cleaner.
    New York also revised subpart 235-2.1, ``Definitions'' to
accommodate the new and revised categories as well as to provide
clarification on some existing definitions.
    Revised subpart 235-3.1, ``Standards'' establishes that no person
shall sell, supply, offer for sale, or manufacture for sale in the
State of New York consumer products manufactured on or after January 1,
2010 which contain VOC's in excess of the VOC content limits specified
by New York State for the eleven new and revised categories. The VOC
standards for products registered under FIFRA (Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act) will have an effective date of January
1, 2011.
    The revisions to subpart 235-3.1 include an unlimited sell through
for products that are manufactured before January 1, 2010, except for
products that do not display on the container or package the date, or a
code indicating the date, on which the product was manufactured (see
subpart 235-3.1(d)); solid air fresheners and toilet/urinal care
products that contain para-dichlorobenzene (see subpart 235-3.1(d) and
(n)); adhesive removers, contact adhesives, electrical cleaners,
electronic cleaners, footwear or leather care products, graffiti
removers and general purpose degreasers (a category already included in
the SIP) that contain methylene chloride, perchloroethylene; or
trichloroethylene (see subpart 235-3.1(l) and (m)). Products containing
these compounds will have a one year limited sell through until January
1, 2011. Other revisions to Part 235 include some administrative
changes to the labeling/date coding provisions (subpart 235-6.1), an
innovative products exemption (subpart 235-5.1), a variance provision
(subpart 235-8.1), alternative test methods (subpart 235-9.1) and
alternate control plan provisions (subpart 235-11). Subparts 235-5.1,
235-8.1, 235-9.1 and 235-11.1 require that after NYSDEC approves an
application for an innovative product exemption, a variance, an
alternative test method or alternative control plan, it must be
submitted to the EPA for approval as a SIP revision. In the event that
the State adopts a less stringent requirement and it is not approved
into the SIP by EPA through a source-specific SIP mechanism, the rule
in the SIP is operative under Federal law and is Federally enforceable.

B. What do the Requirements of Part 239, ``Portable Fuel Container
Spillage Control'' Consist Of?

    On January 23, 2004 (69 FR 3237), EPA approved the previous version
of Part 239 that is intended to reduce refueling emissions from
equipment and engines in the off-road categories that are predominantly
refueled with portable fuel containers. New York's recent revisions to
Part 239 make certain provisions (i.e., applicability, performance
standards, exemptions, test procedures and administrative procedures)
consistent with Federal Rule, 40 CFR Part 59 Subpart F--Control of
Evaporative Emissions From New and In-Use Portable Fuel Containers.
Pursuant to Sections 110(l) and 193 of the Act, EPA is not authorized
to approve a revision to the SIP unless the modification insures
equivalent or greater emission reductions and the revision would not
interfere with an applicable requirement concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress as defined in title I of the Act or any
other applicable requirement of the Act.
    In the event that the State adopts a less stringent rule and it is
not approved into the SIP by EPA through a source-specific SIP
mechanism, the rule in the SIP is operative under Federal law and is
Federally enforceable. Part 239 also differs from 40 CFR Part 59
Subpart F in that it establishes innovative product exemption
provisions that allow for alternatives to complying with the
performance standards specified in Part 239. If a manufacturer
demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that, due to the
product's design, delivery system, or other factors, the use of the
product will result in cumulative VOC emissions below the highest
emitting representative spill-proof system or representative spill-
proof spout in its product category, the manufacturer may apply to the
NYSDEC for an innovative product exemption in accordance with the
criteria specified in Part 239-5.
    In addition, subpart 239-7 provides procedures for obtaining a
variance. Any person who cannot comply with the performance standards
set forth in Part 239, due to extraordinary reasons that are beyond
that person's reasonable control, may apply in writing to the NYSDEC
for a variance. An application for a variance must specify the grounds
upon which the variance is sought, the proposed date(s) by which
compliance with the Part 239 VOC limits will be achieved and a
compliance report reasonably detailing the method(s) by which
compliance will be achieved.

III. What is EPA's Conclusion?

    EPA has evaluated New York's submittal for consistency with the
Act, EPA regulations, and EPA policy. EPA has determined that the
revisions made to Part 235 and Part 239 of Title 6 of the New York
Codes, Rules and Regulations, entitled, ``Consumer Products'' and
``Portable Fuel Container Spillage Control'', respectively, meet the
SIP revision requirements of the Act with the following exceptions.
    The provisions related to innovative products exemptions in subpart
239-5, variances in subpart 239-7 and alternate test methods in subpart
239-8 do not explicitly require submission of an innovative product
exemption, variance or alternative test method to EPA for approval into
the SIP. Since the rule does not explicitly state that innovative
product exemptions, variances or alternative test methods have to be
submitted to EPA for approval in the SIP, there is the possibility that
such exemptions, variances and alternatives will not be submitted for
review and approval into the SIP and therefore will not, if approved,
become Federally enforceable. Failure to submit such exemptions,
variances or alternatives to EPA for review and approval can lead to
sources not understanding that the original rule still applies and can
be enforced by the United States. In order to be Federally enforceable,
any exemption, variance or alternative test method approved by NYSDEC
must be approved by EPA into the SIP.
    While Part 239 may create some uncertainty regarding which
provisions in subpart 239-5, 239-7 or 239-8 are enforceable, EPA has
determined that there is no certainty that sources will use these
provisions in the future. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the
proposed revisions to Part 239 as part of the New York SIP with the
understanding that the specific application of provisions associated
with innovative product exemptions, variances, and alternate test
methods, pursuant to Part 239, must be submitted to EPA as SIP
revisions.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

In addition, this rule does not have Tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: February 18, 2010.
Judith A. Enck,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2010-4306 Filed 3-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 136 (Friday, July 15, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46125-46126]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16717]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78276; File No. SR-CBOE-2016-041]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees Schedule

July 11, 2016.
    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 June 28, 2016, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's
Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule, effective July 1,
2016. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to adopt a program that
offers a monthly subsidy to Trading Permit Holders (``TPHs'') with
executing agent operations \3\ during the Extended Trading Hours
(``ETH'') trading session.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ An executing agent operation is one that accepts orders from
customers (who may be public or broker-dealer customers, and
including customers for which the agent does not hold accounts) and
submits the orders for execution (either directly to the Exchange or
through another TPH).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To participate in the ETH Executing Agent Subsidy Program, a TPH
must be a designated ETH executing agent. To become a designated ETH
executing agent, a TPH must submit a form to the Exchange.\4\ The TPH
must include on or with the form information demonstrating it maintains
an ETH executing agent operation: (1) Physically staffed throughout
each entire ETH trading session \5\ and (2) willing to accept and
execute orders on behalf of customers, including customers for which
the agent does not hold accounts. The designation will be effective the
first business day of the following calendar month, subject to the
Exchange's confirmation the TPH's ETH executing agent operations
satisfies [sic] these two conditions, and will remain in effect until
the Exchange receives an email from the TPH terminating its designation
or the Exchange determines the TPH's ETH executing agent operation no
longer satisfies these two conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The ETH Executing Agent Subsidy Registration Form may be
submitted to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>A TPH must submit the form to
the Exchange no later than 3:00 p.m. on the second to last business
day of a calendar month to be designated an ETH executing agent
under the program, and thus eligible for the subsidy, beginning the
following calendar month.
    \5\ This generally means the TPH has persons available during
all hours of the ETH trading session to take orders (such as by
telephone) from customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A designated ETH executing agent will be eligible to receive a
$5,000 monthly subsidy if it executes at least 1,000 contracts on
behalf of customers (including public and broker-dealer customers)
during ETH in a calendar month (which is an average of 50 contracts per
ETH trading session, assuming a 20-trading day month). Within two
business days following the end of a calendar month, in order to
receive the subsidy for that month, the designated ETH executing agent
must submit to the Exchange (in a form and manner determined by the
Exchange) documentation and other evidence it executed at least 1,000
contracts on behalf of customers during ETH that month.
    The Exchange believes this program will incentivize TPHs to conduct
executing agent operations during ETH to increase customer
accessibility to the ETH trading session. The purpose of the subsidy is
to help TPHs offset the costs that accompany this type of operation
during ETH, including costs related to staffing and clearing.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\6\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \7\ requirements that the rules of
an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \8\ requirement that the rules of
an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. The Exchange also believes the
proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\9\
which requires that Exchange rules provide for the equitable allocation
of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its Trading Permit
Holders and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \8\ Id.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the ETH Executing Agent Subsidy Program is
reasonable because it incentivizes TPHs to conduct executing agent
operations willing to accept orders from all customers during ETH to
increase customer accessibility to the ETH trading session, which
removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system. By encouraging TPHs to conduct
this type

of operation during ETH, this program may result in additional order
flow and liquidity during ETH, which creates greater trading
opportunities and benefits all market participants trading during ETH.
    The Exchange believes limiting the program to TPHs conducting
executing agent operations willing to accept orders from all customers
is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory due to the additional
risks and potential costs (including those related to staffing and
clearing) associated with this type of business, as well as the
benefits this type of operation may provide during ETH (including
increased customer accessibility to the ETH trading session). All TPHs
that conduct this type of operation during ETH have an opportunity to
become a designated ETH executing agent and thus eligible for the
monthly subsidy.
    The Exchange believes the amount of the subsidy is reasonable based
on its understanding of the additional costs and risks associated with
the executing agent operation during ETH. Additionally, the Exchange
believes the 1,000 contract volume threshold is reasonable based on
current ETH volumes.

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

    CBOE does not believe the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act. All TPHs that conduct executing agent
operations willing to accept orders from all customers have an
opportunity to be eligible for the program, and thus the monthly
subsidy. The Exchange believes limiting the program to TPHs conducting
this type of operation is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory due
to the additional risks and potential costs (including those related to
staffing and clearing) associated with this type of business, as well
as the benefits this type of operation may provide during ETH
(including increased customer accessibility to the ETH trading
session). All designated ETH executing agents must meet the same volume
threshold to qualify for the same monthly subsidy. The subsidy is
designed to provide opportunities for more customers to submit orders
during ETH, which generates more order flow and liquidity during that
trading session and benefits all market participants.
    As CBOE is the only Exchange currently offering an ETH session, the
Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on intermarket competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange notes, should this
program make CBOE more attractive for trading, market participants can
always elect to become TPHs and take part in this program, and take
advantage of potential increased trading volume and opportunities
during ETH that may result from the program.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \11\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 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-CBOE-2016-041 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-CBOE-2016-041. 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-CBOE-2016-041, and should be
submitted on or before August 5, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-16717 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 8, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12956-12957]
[FR Doc No: 2017-04534]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2527-003; ER10-3168-019; ER15-356-006; ER15-
357-006; ER10-2532-009; ER10-1595-005; ER10-2533-003; ER10-1598-007;
ER10-2535-004; ER10-1616-007; ER10-1618-007.
    Applicants: Allegheny Ridge Wind Farm, LLC, ArcLight Energy
Marketing, LLC, Chief Conemaugh Power, LLC, Chief Keystone Power, LLC,
Crescent Ridge LLC, Crete Energy Venture, LLC, GSG, LLC, Lincoln
Generating Facility, LLC, Mendota Hills, LLC, New Covert Generating
Company, LLC, Rolling Hills Generating, L.L.C.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Allegheny
Ridge Wind Farm, LLC, et. al.
    Filed Date: 3/1/17.
    Accession Number: 20170301-5340.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/22/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2563-005; ER10-1894-008; ER10-1882-005; R10-
3036-005; ER10-3042-006,
    Applicants: Wisconsin Electric Power Company, Wisconsin Public
Service Corporation, Wisconsin River Power Company, WPS Power
Development LLC, Combined Locks Energy Center, LLC.
    Description: Notification of Change of Status of the WEC MBR
Entities.
    Filed Date: 3/1/17.
    Accession Number: 20170301-5332.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/22/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-742-000.
    Applicants: CP Bloom Wind LLC.
    Description: Amendment to January 4, 2017 CP Bloom Wind LLC tariff
filing.
    Filed Date: 2/6/17.
    Accession Number: 20170206-5151.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/9/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1081-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-03-01_ELMP Phase II
Filing to be effective 5/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 3/1/17.
    Accession Number: 20170301-5285.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/22/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1082-000.
    Applicants: WPS Power Development, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Market Based Rate
Tariff to be effective 2/25/2016.
    Filed Date: 3/2/17.
    Accession Number: 20170302-5001.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/23/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1083-000.
    Applicants: RC Cape May Holdings, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Reliability Must-Run Rate
Schedule, Electric Rate Schedule FERC No. 3 to be effective 5/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 3/2/17.
    Accession Number: 20170302-5007.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/23/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings

must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern
time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but
intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 2, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-04534 Filed 3-7-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P