[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 171 (Thursday, September 4, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52563-52564]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21091]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9 and 721

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0277 and EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0166; FRL-9915-69]
RIN 2070-AB27

Significant New Use Rule on Certain Chemical Substances;
Withdrawal of Significant New Use Rules

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is withdrawing significant new use rules (SNURs)
promulgated under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for chemical
substances which were the subject of premanufacture notices (PMNs). EPA
published these SNURs using direct final rulemaking procedures. EPA
received notices of intent to submit adverse comments on these rules.
Therefore, the Agency is withdrawing these SNURs, as required under the
expedited SNUR rulemaking process. EPA intends to publish in the near
future proposed SNURs for these six chemical substances under separate
notice and comment procedures.

DATES: This final rule is effective September 8, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The dockets for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) numbers EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0277 and EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-
0166, are available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental
Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson
Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC.
The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday

through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the
OPPT Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions
and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact:
Kenneth Moss, Chemical Control Division (7405M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 564-9232; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Does this action apply to me?

    A list of potentially affected entities is provided in the Federal
Register of July 8, 2014 (79 FR 38464) (FRL-9911-05) and July 9, 2014
(79 FR 39268) (FRL-9910-01). If you have questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

II. What rules are being withdrawn?

    In the Federal Register of July 8, 2014 (79 FR 38464) and July 9,
2014 (79 FR 39268), EPA issued several direct final SNURs, including
SNURs for the chemical substances that are the subject of this
withdrawal. These direct final rules were issued pursuant to the
procedures in 40 CFR part 721, subpart D. In accordance with Sec.
721.160(c)(3)(ii), EPA is withdrawing the rules issued for chemical
substances generically identified as 1,1'-
methylenebis[isocyanatobenzene], polymer with polycarboxylic acids in
alkane polyols; aromatic dibenzoate; propylene glycol, alpha
isocyanate, omega silane; aromatic dicarboxylic acid polymer with
alkanediol, alkyl alkyl-2-alkenoate,1,4- dialkyl aromatic
dicarboxylate, alkanedioic acid, alkanediol, .alpha.- hydro-.omega.-
hydroxypoly[oxy(alkyl- alkanediyl)], hydroxyalkyl 2-alkyl-2- alkenoate,
aromatic diisocyanate, alkyl 2-alkyl-2-alkenoate and 2-alkyl-2-
alkenoic acid; alkanedioic acid, polymer with alkyl 2- alkyl-2-
alkenoate, alkanedioic acid, alkanediol, .alpha.-hydro-.omega.-
hydroxypoly[oxy(alkyl-1 2-alkanediyl)], hydroxyalkyl 2-alkyl-2-
alkenoate, aromatic diisocyanate, alkyl 2-alkyl-2- alkenoate and 2-
alkyl-2-alkenoic acid; and alkanedioic acid, polymer with alkyl alkyl-
alkenoate, alkanedioic acid, alkanediol, .alpha.-hydro-.omega.-
hydroxypoly[oxy(alkyl-1,2-alkanediyl)], aromatic diisocyanate, alkyl
alkyl- alkeneoate and alkyl-alkenoic acid, which were the subject of
PMNs P-14-60, P-13-270, P-13-563, P-13-617, P-13-618, and P-13-619
respectively, because the Agency received notices of intent to submit
adverse comments. EPA intends to publish proposed SNURs for these
chemical substances under separate notice and comment procedures.
    For further information regarding EPA's expedited process for
issuing SNURs, interested parties are directed to 40 CFR part 721,
subpart D, and the Federal Register of July 27, 1989 (54 FR 31314). The
record for the direct final SNURs for the chemical substances that are
being removed were established at EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0277 and EPA-HQ-
OPPT-2014-0166. These records include information considered by the
Agency in developing these rules and the notices of intent to submit
adverse comments.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule revokes or eliminates an existing regulatory
requirement and does not contain any new or amended requirements. As
such, the Agency has determined that this withdrawal will not have any
adverse impacts, economic or otherwise. The statutory and executive
order review requirements applicable to the direct final rule were
discussed in the Federal Register of July 8, 2014 and July 9, 2014.
Those review requirements do not apply to this action because it is a
withdrawal and does not contain any new or amended requirements.

IV. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 9

    Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 721

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: August 28, 2014.
Maria J. Doa,
Director, Chemical Control Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics.
    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 9--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136-136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001,
2003, 2005, 2006, 2601-2671; 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C.
9701; 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318, 1321, 1326,
1330, 1342, 1344, 1345 (d) and (e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3
CFR, 1971-1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 300f,
300g, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-1, 300j-
2, 300j-3, 300j-4, 300j-9, 1857 et seq., 6901-6992k, 7401-7671q,
7542, 9601-9657, 11023, 11048.

Sec.  9.1  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  9.1, under the undesignated center heading ``Significant
New Uses of Chemical Substances,'' remove Sec. Sec.  721.10735,
721.10741, 721.10742, 721.10743, 721.10744 and 721.10762.

PART 721--[AMENDED]

0
3. The authority citation for part 721 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  -15. U.S.C. 2604, 2607, and 2625(c).

Sec.  721.10735  [Removed]

0
4. Remove Sec.  721.10735.

Sec. Sec.  721.10741 through 721.10744  [Removed]

0
5. Remove Sec. Sec.  721.10741 through 721.10744.

Sec.  721.10762  [Removed]

0
6. Remove Sec.  721.10762.

[FR Doc. 2014-21091 Filed 9-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 33 (Wednesday, February 19, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9505-9510]
[FR Doc No: 2020-03183]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88181; File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2020-10]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the NYSE
Arca Equities Fees and Charges

February 12, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on February 3, 2020, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Arca Equities Fees and
Charges (``Fee Schedule'') to amend the Retail Order Step-Up Tier 2
pricing tier. 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 Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to amend the Retail
Order Step-Up Tier 2 pricing tier. The proposed changes respond to the
current competitive environment where order flow providers have a
choice of where to direct liquidity-providing orders by offering
further incentives for ETP Holders \4\ to send additional displayed
liquidity to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ All references to ETP Holders in connection with this
proposed fee change include Market Makers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to implement the fee changes effective
February 3, 2020.
Background
    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.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the Commission itself recognized, the market for trading
services in NMS stocks has become ``more fragmented and competitive.''
\6\ Indeed, equity trading is currently dispersed across 13
exchanges,\7\ 31 alternative trading systems,\8\ and numerous broker-
dealer internalizers and wholesalers, all competing for order flow.
Based on publicly-available information, no single exchange currently
has more than 20% market share (whether including or excluding auction
volume).\9\ Therefore, no exchange possesses significant pricing power
in the execution of equity order flow. More specifically, the Exchange
currently has less than 10% market share of executed volume of equity
trades (excluding auction volume).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808, 84 FR 5202,
5253 (February 20, 2019) (File No. S7-05-18) (Final Rule).
    \7\ See Cboe U.S Equities Market Volume Summary, available at
https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share. See generally
https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/divisionsmarketregmrexchangesshtml.html.
    \8\ See FINRA ATS Transparency Data, available at https://otctransparency.finra.org/otctransparency/AtsIssueData. A list of
alternative trading systems registered with the Commission is
available at https://www.sec.gov/foia/docs/atslist.htm.
    \9\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Equities Market Volume Summary,
available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/.
    \10\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
move order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of
products. While it is not possible to know a firm's reason for shifting
order flow, the Exchange believes that one such reason is because of
fee changes at any of the registered exchanges or non-exchange venues
to which a firm routes order flow. The competition for Retail Orders
\11\ is even more stark, particularly as it relates to exchange versus
off-exchange venues. For example, the Exchange examined Rule 606
disclosures from three prominent retail brokerages: E-Trade, TD
Ameritrade and Charles Schwab. For securities listed on the New York
Stock Exchange LLC in the third quarter of 2019, TD Ameritrade routed
92% of its limit orders to off-exchange venues.\12\ Similarly, E-Trade
Financial and Charles Schwab routed more than 73% and more than
97%,\13\ respectively, of its limit orders to off-exchange venues. With
respect to non-marketable order

flow that would provide displayed liquidity on an Exchange against
which market makers can quote, ETP Holders can choose from any one of
the 13 currently operating registered exchanges to route such order
flow. Accordingly, competitive forces constrain exchange transaction
fees and credits that relate to orders that would provide displayed
liquidity on an exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ A Retail Order is an agency order that originates from a
natural person and is submitted to the Exchange by an ETP Holder,
provided that no change is made to the terms of the order to price
or side of market and the order does not originate from a trading
algorithm or any other computerized methodology. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 67540 (July 30, 2012), 77 FR 46539 (August
3, 2012) (SR-NYSEArca-2012-77).
    \12\ See https://www.tdameritrade.com/retail-en_us/resources/pdf/AMTD2054.pdf.
    \13\ See https://content.etrade.com/etrade/powerpage/pdf/OrderRouting11AC6.pdf. See also https://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/nn/legal_compliance/important_notices/order_routing.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule Change
    The proposed rule change is designed to be available to all ETP
Holders on the Exchange and is intended to provide ETP Holders an
opportunity to receive enhanced rebates by quoting and trading more on
the Exchange.
    The Exchange currently provides credits to ETP Holders who submit
orders that provide displayed liquidity on the Exchange. The Exchange
currently has multiple levels of credits for orders that provide
displayed liquidity that are based on the amount of volume of such
orders that ETP Holders send to the Exchange.
    As described in greater detail below, the Exchange proposes to
amend the volume requirements and the associated per share credit
payable for Retail Orders that provide liquidity in Tape A, Tape B and
Tape C securities.
    In this competitive environment, the Exchange has already
established Retail Order Step-Up Tiers 1, 2, 3 and 4, which are
designed to encourage ETP Holders that provide displayed liquidity in
Retail Orders on the Exchange to increase that order flow, which would
benefit all ETP Holders by providing greater execution opportunities on
the Exchange. In order to provide an incentive for ETP Holders to
direct providing displayed Retail Order flow to the Exchange, the
credits increase in the various tiers based on increased levels of
volume directed to the Exchange.
    Currently, the following credits are available to ETP Holders that
provide increased levels of displayed liquidity in Retail Orders on the
Exchange:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Tier                          Credit for providing displayed liquidity  in retail orders
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retail Order Step-Up Tier 1.................  $0.0033 (Tape A, Tape B and Tape C).
Retail Order Step-Up Tier 2.................  $0.0035 (Tape A, Tape B and Tape C).
Retail Order Step-Up Tier 3.................  $0.0035 (Tape A, Tape B and Tape C).
Retail Order Step-Up Tier 4.................  $0.0036 (Tape A, Tape B and Tape C).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Generally, under the Retail Order step-up pricing tiers, if an ETP
Holder increases its retail liquidity, it is eligible to earn higher
credits and lower fees.
    Under Retail Order Step-Up Tier 1, to qualify for the Retail Order
Step-Up Tier 1 credit, an ETP Holder must execute an average daily
volume (ADV) per month of Retail Orders with a time-in-force of Day
that add or remove liquidity that is an increase of 0.12% or more of
the US CADV above its April 2018 ADV taken as a percentage of US CADV.
Currently, if an ETP Holder meets the Retail Order Step-Up Tier 1
requirement, such ETP Holder is eligible to earn a credit of $0.0033
per share for Retail Orders that provide displayed liquidity to the
Book in Tape A, Tape B and Tape C securities, and is not charged a fee
for Retail Orders with a time-in-force of Day that remove
liquidity.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83268 (May 17,
2018), 83 FR 23983 (May 23, 2018) (SR-NYSEArca-2018-34).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under Retail Order Step-Up Tier 2, ETP Holders that provide
liquidity an ADV per month of 1.10% or more of the US CADV, and execute
an ADV of Retail Orders with a time-in-force of Day that add or remove
liquidity during the month that is an increase of 0.35% or more of the
US CADV above their April 2018 ADV taken as a percentage of US CADV are
eligible for the per share credit under the Retail Order Step-Up Tier 2
pricing tier. Currently, if an ETP Holder meets the Retail Order Step-
Up Tier 2 requirement, such ETP Holder is eligible to earn a credit of
$0.0035 per share for Retail Orders that provide displayed liquidity to
the Book in Tape A, Tape B and Tape C securities, and is not charged a
fee for Retail Orders with a time-in-force of Day that remove
liquidity.\15\ Additionally, under Retail Order Step-Up Tier 2, ETP
Holders can earn an incremental credit of $0.0002 per share for orders
in Tape C securities that provide non-displayed liquidity in addition
to a credit of $0.0035 per share for orders in Tape C securities that
provide displayed liquidity to the Book, and [sic] a fee of $0.0027 per
share for orders in Tape C securities that take liquidity from the
Book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83828 (August 10,
2018), 83 FR 40816 (August 16, 2018) (SR-NYSEArca-2018-58).
Additionally, under Retail Order Step-Up Tier 2, ETP Holders are
eligible to earn a credit of $0.0035 per share for orders in Tape C
securities that provide displayed liquidity, can receive an
incremental credit of $0.0002 per share for orders in Tape C
securities that provide non-displayed liquidity, and are charged a
fee of $0.0027 per share for orders in Tape C securities that take
liquidity. The Exchange is not proposing any change to this aspect
of Retail Order Step-Up Tier 2 with this proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under Retail Order Step-Up Tier 3,\16\ ETP Holders that execute an
ADV of Retail Orders with a time-in-force of Day that add or remove
liquidity during the month that is an increase of 0.10% or more of the
US CADV above their April 2018 ADV taken as a percentage of US CADV,
are eligible to receive a credit of $0.0035 per share for Retail Orders
that provide displayed liquidity in Tape A, Tape B and Tape C
securities. Retail Orders with a time-in-force designation of Day that
remove liquidity from the Book are not charged a fee. The Retail Order
Step-Up Tier 3 provides the same level of credit for Retail Orders that
provide displayed liquidity to the Book in Tapes A, B and C securities
payable under the current Retail Order Step-Up Tier 2 but has a lower
requirement to qualify for the credit. Retail Order Step-Up Tier 3 also
does not provide the incremental $0.0002 per share credit in Tape C
securities for orders that provide non-displayed liquidity to the Book,
the $0.0035 per share credits for non-Retail Orders that provide
displayed liquidity to the Book in Tape C Securities, or the $0.0027
per share fee applicable for orders in Tape C securities that take
liquidity, all of which are currently payable under Retail Order Step-
Up Tier 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87994 (January 16,
2020), 85 FR 3955 (January 23, 2020) (SR-NYSEArca-2020-05).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under Retail Order Step-Up Tier 4,\17\ ETP Holders that execute an
ADV of Retail Orders with a time-in-force of Day that add or remove
liquidity during the month that is an increase of 0.20% or more of the
US CADV above their April 2018 ADV taken as a percentage of US CADV,
are eligible to receive a credit of $0.0036 per share for Retail Orders
that provide displayed liquidity in Tape A, Tape B and Tape C
securities. Retail Orders with a time-in-force designation of Day that
remove liquidity from the Book are not charged a fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    With this proposed rule change, the Exchange proposes to amend the
volume requirements and the associated per share credit payable under
Retail

Order Step-Up Tier 2. More specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend
the average share volume requirement that ETP Holders are required to
meet, from 1.10% or more of US CADV to 1.00% or more of US CADV.
Additionally, the Exchange proposes to amend the amount of Retail
Orders that ETP Holders are required to execute from an increase over
their April 2018 ADV of 0.35% or more to an increase over their April
2018 ADV of 0.40% or more. Finally, the Exchange proposes to increase
the credit payable under Retail Order Step-Up Tier 2 from $0.0035 per
share to $0.0038 per share.
    With this proposed rule change, the following credits would be
available to ETP Holders that provide increased levels of displayed
liquidity in Retail Orders on the Exchange:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Tier                          Credit for providing displayed liquidity  in retail orders
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retail Order Step-Up Tier 1..................  $0.0033 (Tape A, Tape B and Tape C).
Retail Order Step-Up Tier 2..................  $0.0038 (Tape A, Tape B and Tape C).
Retail Order Step-Up Tier 3..................  $0.0035 (Tape A, Tape B and Tape C).
Retail Order Step-Up Tier 4..................  $0.0036 (Tape A, Tape B and Tape C).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For all other fees and credits, tiered or basic rates apply based
on a firm's qualifying levels.
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to encourage even
greater participation from ETP Holders and promote additional liquidity
in Retail Orders. As described above, ETP Holders with liquidity-
providing orders have a choice of where to send those orders. The
Exchange believes that the proposed amendment to the volume requirement
and credit payable under Retail Order Step-Up Tier 2 could lead to more
ETP Holders choosing to route their liquidity-providing Retail Orders
to the Exchange rather than to a competing exchange.
    The Exchange does not know how much Retail Order flow ETP Holders
choose to route to other exchanges or to off-exchange venues. Without
having a view of ETP Holders' activity on other markets and off-
exchange venues, the Exchange has no way of knowing whether this
proposed rule change would result in any ETP Holders sending more of
their Retail Orders to the Exchange to qualify for the proposed Retail
Order Step-Up Tier 2 credit. Currently, no ETP Holders qualify for
Retail Order Step-Up Tier 2.\18\ The Exchange cannot predict with
certainty how many ETP Holders would avail themselves of this
opportunity but additional liquidity-providing Retail Orders would
benefit all market participants because it would provide greater
execution opportunities on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ As of January 31, 2020, there are 13 ETP Holders on the
Exchange that provide liquidity that could qualify for the
Exchange's Retail Step-Up pricing tiers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address any
other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any significant problems
that market participants would have in complying with the proposed
changes.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\19\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\20\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposed Fee Change is Reasonable
    As discussed above, the Exchange operates in a highly fragmented
and competitive market. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically,
in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market
forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized
that current regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably
successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that
are most important to investors and listed companies.'' \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the Commission itself recognized, the market for trading
services in NMS stocks has become ``more fragmented and competitive.''
\22\ Indeed, equity trading is currently dispersed across 13
exchanges,\23\ 31 alternative trading systems,\24\ and numerous broker-
dealer internalizers and wholesalers, all competing for order flow. As
noted above, no exchange possesses significant pricing power in the
execution of equity order flow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808, 84 FR 5202,
5253 (February 20, 2019) (File No. S7-05-18) (Final Rule).
    \23\ See Cboe Global Markets, U.S Equities Market Volume
Summary, available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/.
    \24\ See FINRA ATS Transparency Data, available at https://otctransparency.finra.org/otctransparency/AtsIssueData. A list of
alternative trading systems registered with the Commission is
available at https://www.sec.gov/foia/docs/atslist.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
shift order flow, or discontinue to reduce use of certain categories of
products, in response to fee changes. With respect to non-marketable
orders which provide liquidity on an Exchange, ETP Holders can choose
from any one of the 13 currently operating registered exchanges to
route such order flow. Accordingly, competitive forces reasonably
constrain exchange transaction fees that relate to orders that would
provide displayed liquidity on an exchange. Stated otherwise, changes
to exchange transaction fees can have a direct effect on the ability of
an exchange to compete for order flow.
    Given this competitive environment, the proposal represents a
reasonable attempt to attract additional order flow to the Exchange.
    As noted above, the competition for Retail Order flow is stark
given the amount of retail limit orders that are routed to non-exchange
venues. The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among
the exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants
can shift order flow, or discontinue to reduce use of certain
categories of products, in response to fee changes. This competition is
particularly acute for non-marketable, or limit, retail orders, i.e.,
retail orders that can provide liquidity on an exchange. That
competition is even more fierce for retail limit orders that provide
displayed liquidity on an exchange. Accordingly, competitive forces
constrain exchange transaction fees,

particularly as they relate to competing for retail orders.
    The Exchange believes the proposed change to the Retail Order Step-
Up Tier 2 pricing tier is reasonable because it would provide ETP
Holders with additional incentives to send a greater number of Retail
Orders to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed
amendment to qualify for the tier utilizing a higher Retail Order
requirement and a lower liquidity providing ADV is reasonable because
the proposal would provide firms with greater incentive to reach retail
order volume tiers, thereby creating an added incentive for ETP Holders
to bring additional retail order flow to a public market. The Exchange
believes the proposed change is reasonable because the increased credit
proposed herein would continue to encourage ETP Holders to send Retail
Orders to the Exchange to qualify for the pricing tier. As noted above,
the Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment, particularly
for attracting Retail Order flow that provides displayed liquidity on
an exchange. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to continue to
provide credits in general, and higher credits, for Retail Orders that
provide displayed liquidity if an ETP Holder meets the amended
qualifications for the pricing tier.
    Further, given the competitive market for attracting Retail Orders,
the Exchange notes that with this proposed rule change, the Exchange's
pricing for Retail Orders would be comparable to credits currently in
place on other exchanges that the Exchange competes with for order
flow. For example, the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'') provides
its members with a credit of $0.0033 per share if such member has an
85% add to total volume (adding liquidity and removing liquidity) ratio
during a billing month.\25\ Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'') provides
its members with a credit of $0.0032 per share for retail orders that
add liquidity to that market.\26\ In addition, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.
(`EDGX'') provides its members with a credit of $0.0037 per share for
retail orders that add liquidity to that market if an EDGX member adds
liquidity in Retail Orders of 0.50% of CADV or more.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Nasdaq Price List, Rebate to Add Displayed Designated
Retail Liquidity, at http://nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=PriceListTrading2.
    \26\ See BZX Fee Schedule, Fee Codes and Associated Fees, at
https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/bzx/.
    \27\ See EDGX Fee Schedule, Fee Codes and Associated Fees, at
https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/edgx/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed change is also reasonable
because it is designed to attract higher volumes of Retail Orders
transacted on the Exchange by ETP Holders which would benefit all
market participants by offering greater price discovery, increased
transparency, and an increased opportunity to trade on the Exchange.
    On the backdrop of the competitive environment in which the
Exchange currently operates, the proposed rule change is a reasonable
attempt to increase liquidity on the Exchange and improve the
Exchange's market share relative to its competitors.
The Proposed Fee Change Is an Equitable Allocation of Fees and Credits
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change to amend the
requirement and credit payable under Retail Order Step-Up Tier 2
equitably allocates fees and credits among its market participants
because it is reasonably related to the value of the Exchange's market
quality associated with higher volume in Retail Orders. The Exchange
believes that pricing is just one of the factors that ETP Holders
consider when determining where to direct their order flow. Among other
things, factors such as execution quality, fill rates, and volatility,
are important and deterministic to ETP Holders in deciding where to
send their order flow.
    Further, the Exchange notes that, with this proposed rule change,
the difference between the highest credit provided for Retail Orders,
$0.0038 per share, as proposed, and the credit for Retail Orders that
do not qualify for any Retail Order pricing tiers, $0.0030 per share,
is $0.0008, or 21%, which the Exchange believes is relatively small
given the heightened requirements that ETP Holders must meet to qualify
for the higher credit. Similarly, with this proposed rule change, the
difference in the highest credit for Retail Orders, $0.0038 per share,
as proposed, and the credit provided for Retail Orders to those ETP
Holders qualifying for the Retail Order Tier or Retail Order Step-Up
Tier 1, $0.0033 per share, would only be $0.0005 per share, or 13%.
Therefore, the Exchange believes the proposed amendment to the Retail
Order Step-Up Tier 2 pricing tier is equitably allocated and provides
credits that are reasonably related to the value to the Exchange's
market quality associated with higher volumes. In today's competitive
marketplace, order flow providers have a choice of where to direct
liquidity-providing order flow, and while only three ETP Holders have
qualified to date for the current Retail Order pricing tiers, the
Exchange believes there are additional ETP Holders that could qualify
if they chose to direct their order flow to the Exchange.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed amendment to the
Retail Order Step-Up Tier 2 pricing tier is equitable because the
magnitude of the proposed credit is not unreasonably high relative to
credits paid by other exchanges for orders that provide additional step
up liquidity in Retail Orders.\28\ The Exchange believes the proposed
rule change would improve market quality for all market participants on
the Exchange and, as a consequence, attract more Retail Orders to the
Exchange, thereby improving market-wide quality and price discovery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See notes 25-27, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal neither targets nor will it have a disparate impact on
any particular category of market participant. ETP Holders that
currently qualify for credits associated with Retail Order Step-Up
pricing tiers on the Exchange will continue to receive credits when
they provide liquidity to the Exchange.
The Proposed Fee Change Is Not Unfairly Discriminatory
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is not unfairly
discriminatory. In the prevailing competitive environment, ETP Holders
are free to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe that
alternatives offer them better value.
    The Exchange believes it is not unfairly discriminatory to provide
a higher per share step-up credit for Retail Orders, as the proposed
credit would be provided on an equal basis to all ETP Holders that add
liquidity by meeting the amended requirements of the Retail Order Step-
Up Tier 2. Further, the Exchange believes the proposed increased per
share credits would incentivize ETP Holders that meet the current
tiered requirements to send more of their Retail Orders to the Exchange
to qualify for increased credits. The Exchange also believes that the
proposed change is not unfairly discriminatory because it is reasonably
related to the value to the Exchange's market quality associated with
higher volume.
    Finally, the submission of orders to the Exchange is optional for
ETP Holders in that they could choose whether to submit orders to the
Exchange and, if they do, the extent of its activity in this regard.
The Exchange believes that it is subject to significant

competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement
regarding the burden on competition.
    For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal
is consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\29\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would not 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 ETP Holders. 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.'' \30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \30\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808, 70 FR 37495,
37498-99 (June 29, 2005) (S7-10-04) (Final Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Intramarket Competition. The Exchange believes the proposed rule
change does not impose any burden on intramarket competition that is
not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Particularly, the proposed change applies to all ETP Holders equally in
that all ETP Holders are eligible for the pricing tier, have a
reasonable opportunity to meet the tier's criteria and will all receive
the proposed rebate if such criteria is met. Additionally, the proposed
change is designed to attract additional order flow to the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that the proposed amendment to Retail Order Step-
Up Tier 2 pricing tier would continue to incentivize market
participants to submit orders that qualify as Retail Orders to the
Exchange. Greater liquidity benefits all market participants on the
Exchange by providing more trading opportunities and encourages ETP
Holders to send orders, thereby contributing to robust levels of
liquidity, which benefits all market participants. The amended pricing
tier would be available to all similarly-situated market participants,
and, as such, the proposed change would not impose a disparate burden
on competition among market participants on the Exchange.
    Intermarket Competition. The Exchange believes the proposed rule
change does not impose any burden on intermarket competition that is
not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market
participants can readily choose to send their orders to other exchanges
and off-exchange venues if they deem fee levels at those other venues
to be more favorable. As noted above, the Exchange's market share of
intraday trading (i.e., excluding auctions) is currently less than 10%.
In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees
and rebates to remain competitive with other exchanges and with off-
exchange venues. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees
and credits in response, and because market participants may readily
adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange does not believe
this proposed fee change would impose any burden on intermarket
competition.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change could promote
competition between the Exchange and other execution venues, including
those that currently offer similar order types and comparable
transaction pricing, by encouraging additional orders to be sent to the
Exchange for execution.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2020-10 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-2020-10. 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-2020-10 and should be submitted on or before March
11, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\34\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-03183 Filed 2-18-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 204 (Wednesday, October 22, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63128-63129]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25106]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-N-1104]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; State Petitions for
Exemption From Preemption

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by
November 21, 2014.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0277.
Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd.; COLE-14526, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

State Petitions for Exemption From Preemption--21 CFR 100.1(d) (OMB
Control Number 0910-0277)--(Extension)

    Under section 403A(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 343-1(b)), states may petition FDA for
exemption from Federal preemption of state food labeling and standard
of identity requirements. Section 100.1(d) (21 CFR 100.1(d)) sets forth
the information a

state is required to submit in such a petition. The information
required under Sec.  100.1(d) enables FDA to determine whether the
state food labeling or standard of identity requirement satisfies the
criteria of section 403A(b) of the FD&C Act for granting exemption from
Federal preemption.
    In the Federal Register of August 7, 2014 (79 FR 46269), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. No comments were received.
    We estimate the annual burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                     Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of
                     21 CFR 100.1(d)                           Number of        responses per       Total annual     Avg. burden per      Total hours
                                                              respondents         respondent         responses           response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Form of petition.........................................                 1                  1                  1                 40                 40
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    The reporting burden for Sec.  100.1(d) is minimal because
petitions for exemption from preemption are seldom submitted by states.
In the last 3 years, we have received one new petition for exemption
from preemption; therefore, we estimate that one or fewer petitions
will be submitted annually.

    Dated: October 16, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-25106 Filed 10-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 127 (Wednesday, July 2, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 37762]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15485]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4175-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2014-0003]

Mississippi; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Mississippi (FEMA-4175-DR), dated April 30, 2014, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: May 6, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Mississippi is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of April 30, 2014.

    Jones, Leake, Montgomery, Simpson, and Warren Counties for
Individual Assistance.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2014-15485 Filed 7-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P