[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 104 (Tuesday, May 31, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34404-34407]
[FR Doc No: 2016-12672]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77898; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2016-11]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Approving
Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, Amending
Section 4.01(a) of the NYSE Arca's Bylaws and NYSE Arca Rule 3.3 to
Establish a Committee for Review as a Sub-Committee of the ROC and
Making Conforming Changes to NYSE Arca Rules

May 24, 2016.

I. Introduction

    On March 24, 2016, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``Exchange'' or ``NYSE Arca'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ a proposed rule change to
amend Section 4.01(a) of the Bylaws of the Exchange and to amend
various rules of the Exchange, as described below. On April 4, 2016,
the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to its proposal.\4\ The proposed
rule change, as modified by the amendment thereto, was published for
comment in the Federal Register on April 12, 2016.\5\ The Commission
received no comment letters on the proposed rule change. This order
approves the proposed rule change, as modified by the amendment
thereto.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \4\ Amendment No. 1 amended and replaced the original filing in
its entirety. In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange, among other things,
deleted language in the description of the proposed rule change that
was not relevant to the proposed rule change.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77535 (April 6,
2016), 81 FR 21615 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    As part of a regulatory restructuring, NYSE Arca proposes to: (i)
Amend Section 4.01(a) of the NYSE Arca's Bylaws and NYSE Arca Rule 3.3
to establish a Committee for Review as a subcommittee of the Regulatory
Oversight Committee (``ROC'') \6\ and

delete NYSE Arca Rule 3.2(b)(3) governing the OTP Advisory Committee
and NYSE Arca Equities, Inc.\7\ (``NYSE Arca Equities'') Rule 3.2(b)(3)
governing the Member Advisory Committee, both of whose functions would
be assumed by the Committee for Review, and make conforming changes to
NYSE Arca Rules 2.4, 10.3, 10.6, 10.8, 10.11, 10.12, 10.14 and NYSE
Arca Equities Rules 2.3, 3.3, 5.5, 10.3, 10.6, 10.8, 10.11, 10.12, and
10.13; (ii) delete references to ``NYSE Regulation, Inc.'' and ``NYSE
Regulation'' \8\ in NYSE Arca Rule 0 and NYSE Arca Equities Rule 0 and
NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.3(i)(1); (iii) replace a reference to the
``NYSE Regulation, Inc. Chief Executive Officer'' in NYSE Arca Equities
Rule 2.100; and (iv) make certain technical and non-substantive
changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Commission recently approved the Exchange's proposal to
establish the ROC as a committee of the Exchange's Board of
Directors (``NYSE Arca Board'') to be composed solely of public
directors who satisfy the Exchange's Public Director requirements,
as set forth in the Exchange's Bylaws. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 75155 (June 11, 2015), 80 FR 34744 (June 17, 2015).
    \7\ NYSE Arca, a registered securities exchange, operates a
marketplace for trading options and, through its wholly-owned
subsidiary NYSE Arca Equities, a marketplace for trading equities.
See Notice, supra note 5, at 21615.
    \8\ NYSE Regulation, Inc. (``NYSE Regulation''), a not-for-
profit subsidiary of the Exchange's affiliate New York Stock
Exchange LLC (``NYSE''), performed regulatory functions for the
Exchange pursuant to an intercompany Regulatory Services Agreement
(``RSA'') that gave the Exchange the contractual right to review
NYSE Regulation's performance. The RSA terminated on February 16,
2016. See id. at 21615 n.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes that these rule revisions would be operative
no later than June 30, 2016, on a date to be determined by the NYSE
Arca Board.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See id. at 21615 n.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Establishing a Committee for Review and Conforming Exchange Rules

    The Exchange proposes to establish a Committee for Review (``CFR'')
as a subcommittee of the ROC by amending Section 4.01(a) (Committees of
the Board) of the NYSE Arca's Bylaws and NYSE Arca Rule 3.3 (Board
Committees), deleting NYSE Arca Rule 3.2(b)(3) (Options Committees) and
NYSE Arca Equities Rule 3.2(b)(3) (Equity Committees), and making
conforming changes to NYSE Arca Rules 2.4, 10.3, 10.6, 10.8, 10.11,
10.12, 10.14 and NYSE Arca Equities Rules 2.3, 3.3, 5.5, 10.3, 10.6,
10.8, 10.11, 10.12, and 10.13.\10\ The proposed CFR would be the
successor to the current NYSE Arca Board Appeals Committee (``NYSE Arca
BAC'') and the NYSE Arca Equities Board Appeals Committee (``NYSE Arca
Equities BAC''), which are committees of the NYSE Arca Board and NYSE
Arca Equities Board of Directors, respectively, that review appeals of
Exchange disciplinary actions regarding options and equities matters,
respectively.\11\ The Exchange represents that by creating a single
CFR, the Exchange's appellate process would be consistent with the
processes of its affiliates, the NYSE and NYSE MKT LLC (``NYSE MKT''),
both of which recently established a CFR as a subcommittee of their
respective ROCs.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See id. at 21616.
    \11\ See id.
    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75991 (September
28, 2015), 80 FR 59837 (October 2, 2015) (NYSE-2015-27); Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 77008 (February 1, 2016), 81 FR 6311
(February 5, 2016) (NYSEMKT 2015-106).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYSE Arca Rule 3.3(a)(2)(A) would provide that the NYSE Arca Board
shall annually appoint a CFR as a subcommittee of the ROC. The Exchange
notes that proposed Rule 3.3(a)(2) incorporates member organization
association requirements of the current NYSE Arca BAC.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Notice, supra note 5, at 21616-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed CFR would be comprised of the OTP Director(s),\14\ the
ETP Director(s) \15\ and the Public Directors \16\ of both NYSE Arca
and NYSE Arca Equities.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The Exchange notes that an ``OTP Director'' is a director
nominated by the Options Trading Permit (``OTP'') Holders of the
Exchange. See id. at 21616 n.13; see also Article III, Section 3.02
of the Exchange Bylaws.
    \15\ The Exchange notes that an ``ETP Director'' is a director
nominated by the Equities Trading Permit (``ETP'') Holders of NYSE
Arca Equities, Inc. See id. at 21616 n.13; see also Article III,
Section 3.02 of the Exchange Bylaws.
    \16\ Under the Bylaws of the Exchange, ``Public Directors'' of
the Exchange are directors that are ``persons from the public and
will not be, or be affiliated with, a broker-dealer in securities or
employed by, or involved in any material business relationship with,
the Exchange or its affiliates.'' See Section 3.02 of the Exchange
Bylaws.
    \17\ See Notice, supra note 5, at 21616-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed CFR would be responsible for reviewing the
disciplinary decisions on behalf of the NYSE Arca Board and reviewing
determinations to limit or prohibit the continued listing of an
issuer's securities on NYSE Arca Equities.\18\ In addition, the
Exchange proposes to incorporate the roles of the OTP Advisory
Committee of NYSE Arca and the Member Advisory Committee of NYSE Arca
Equities into the proposed CFR.\19\ As a result, the proposed CFR also
would be charged with acting in an advisory capacity to the NYSE Arca
Board with respect to disciplinary matters, the listing and delisting
of securities, regulatory programs, rulemaking and regulatory rules,
including trading rules. The Exchange states that the proposed CFR
would therefore serve in the same advisory capacity as the current OTP
Advisory and Member Advisory Committees.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The Exchange notes that the NYSE Arca Equities BAC
currently has the same mandate to review determinations to limit or
prohibit the continued listing of an issuer's securities, but that
the NYSE Arca BAC's mandate does not include reviews of delisting
determinations. See id. at 21616 n.23.
    \19\ See id. at 21618. The Exchange notes that the same profile
of members who historically have served on these advisory committees
would be represented on the proposed CFR and that the Exchange's
affiliates NYSE and NYSE MKT have similar structures in place with
respect to their respective CFRs. See id.
    \20\ The Exchange also notes that this proposal is consistent
with the structure recently approved for its affiliate, NYSE, which
abolished its advisory committees and transferred the functions of
to its newly created NYSE CFR, whose mandate includes acting in an
advisory capacity to the NYSE board of directors with respect to
disciplinary matters, the listing and delisting of securities,
regulatory programs, rulemaking and regulatory rules, including
trading rules. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Exchange, member participation on the proposed CFR
would be sufficient to provide for the fair representation of members
in the administration of the affairs of the Exchange, including
rulemaking and the disciplinary process, consistent with Section
6(b)(3) of the Act.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See id. and 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further proposes to amend NYSE Arca Rule 3.3(a)(2)(B)
and NYSE Arca Equities Rule 3.3(a)(1)(A) to provide that the CFR may,
but would not be required to, appoint an appeals panel (``CFR Appeals
Panel'') to conduct a review thereunder and make a decision regarding
the disposition of the appeal.\22\ Similar to current appeals panels
that can be appointed by the NYSE Arca BAC, a CFR Appeals Panel would
consist of at least three and no more than five individuals.\23\ The
Exchange represents that any CFR Appeals Panel appointed by the CFR for
matters related to the equities market would be composed of at least
one Public Director and at least one director that is an ETP Holder or
Allied Person or Associated Person of an ETP Holder.\24\ The Exchange
further

represents that any CFR Appeals Panel appointed by the CFR for matters
related to the options market would be composed of at least one Public
Director and at least one Director that is an OTP Holder or Allied
Person or Associated Person of an OTP Firm.\25\ According to the
Exchange, participation on the proposed CFR Appeals Panels of permit
holders and persons allied or associated with permit holders would be
sufficient to provide for the fair representation of members in the
administration of the affairs of the Exchange, including rulemaking and
the disciplinary process, consistent with Section 6(b)(3) of the
Act.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The Exchange notes that under current NYSE Arca and NYSE
Arca Equities Rules, any decisions by an appeals panel appointed by
the NYSE Arca BAC or NYSE Arca Equities BAC are final unless
appealed to the NYSE Arca Board or called for review by the NYSE
Arca Board. See id. at 21617 n.25 and accompanying text. The
Exchange proposes that CFR Appeals Panels retain this ability to
resolve appeals and therefore does not propose that a CFR Appeals
Panel would make recommendations to the CFR, as is the case with
appellate panels for the Exchange's affiliate NYSE MKT, which it
notes did not previously have appellate panels. See id.
    \23\ See id. at 21617. The Exchange notes that NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 3.3(a)(1) currently provides that the NYSE Arca
Equities Board determines the size of any ``Appeals Committee'' it
creates. See id. at 21617 n.29.
    \24\ See id. at 21617.
    \25\ See id.
    \26\ See id. at 21619.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to make conforming amendments to Article IV,
Section 4.01(a) of its Bylaws governing board committees by replacing
references to the ``Board Appeals Committee'' with references to the
``Committee for Review as a subcommittee of the Regulatory Oversight
Committee'' and ``its subcommittee, the CFR.'' The Exchange also
proposes to make conforming amendments to NYSE Arca Rules 2.4, 10.3,
10.6, 10.8, 10.11, 10.12, 10.14 and NYSE Arca Equities Rules 2.3, 5.5,
10.3, 10.6, 10.8, 10.11, 10.12, and 10.13 by generally replacing
references to the current NYSE Arca BAC and NYSE Arca Equities BAC with
references to the ``Committee for Review'' or ``CFR'' and to replace
references to the ``Appeals Panel'' with the ``CFR Appeals Panel.''
\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ With respect to the replacement of references to ``Appeals
Panel,'' the Exchange notes that NYSE Arca Rule 10.11(e)(1)
currently provides that appellate review of Floor citations and
minor rule plan sanctions are referred directly to an appropriate
Board Appeals Committee Panel (defined as an ``Appeals Panel'')
appointed by the NYSE Arca Board, and current NYSE Arca Rule
10.11(e)(2) governs decisions by such Appeals Panels. The Exchange
proposes to replace ``an appropriate Board Appeals Committee Panel
(`Appeals Panel') appointed by the Board'' in NYSE Arca Rule
10.11(e)(1) with ``CFR'' because it believes that it would be more
appropriate for such matters to be directly referred to the CFR,
which can then determine whether to appoint a CFR Appeals Panel as
is currently proposed for disciplinary appeals under NYSE Arca Rule
10.8(b). See id. at 21617 n.28 and accompanying text. Accordingly,
the Exchange also proposes to add text to NYSE Arca Rule 10.11(e)(2)
to provide that the CFR may appoint a CFR Appeals Panel to conduct
reviews under this subsection or may decide to conduct review
proceedings on its own. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Modifying Exchange Rules To Delete References to NYSE Regulation

    The Exchange proposes in connection with the its termination of the
intercompany RSA pursuant to which NYSE Regulation provided regulatory
services to the Exchange, to amend NYSE Arca Rule 0 (Regulation of the
Exchange, OTP Holders and OTP Firms) and NYSE Arca Equities Rule 0
(Regulation of the Exchange and Exchange Trading Permit Holders) to
delete references to ``NYSE Regulation, Inc.'' and ``NYSE Regulation
staff or departments,'' and NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.3(i)(1)
(Financial Reports and Related Notices) to delete the reference to
``NYSE Regulation'' and to replace such reference with ``regulatory
staff.'' \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See id. at 21618.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Modifying Exchange Rules To Reference the Exchange's Chief
Regulatory Officer

    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 2.100
(Emergency Powers) to replace a reference to ``NYSE Regulation, Inc.
Chief Executive Officer'' with ``Chief Regulatory Officer.''

D. Certain Technical and Non-Substantive Changes

    The Exchange proposes to make certain technical and non-substantive
changes to amend NYSE Arca Rules 0 and 10.8, and NYSE Arca Equities
Rules 10.3, 10.12, and 10.13.
    The Exchange proposes to delete the semi-colon at the end of the
heading of NYSE Arca Rule 0; to make grammatical corrections to NYSE
Arca Rule 10.8; to replace outdated references to the NYSE Arca Board
of Governors in NYSE Arca Equities Rules 10.3, 10.12 and 10.13 with
references to the ``NYSE Arca Board of Directors''; and to amend the
heading of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 10.13 to delete the reference to
``the Corporation.'' \29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See id. at 21618. With respect to the deletion of the
reference to ``the Corporation,'' which the Exchange explains refers
to NYSE Arca Equities, the Exchange notes that the hearings and
review of decisions referred to in the rule would be conducted by
the CFR, a subcommittee of the NYSE Arca Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change, as amended, is consistent with the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\30\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(1) of the Act, which
requires an exchange to be so organized and have the capacity to carry
out the purposes of the Act and to comply, and to enforce compliance by
its members and persons associated with its members, with the Act, the
rules and regulations thereunder, and the rules of the exchange.\31\
The Commission finds that the proposal also is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b)(3) of the Act, which provides that the
rules of an exchange must assure a fair representation of its members
in the selection of its directors and administration of its affairs and
provide that one or more directors shall be representative of issuers
and investors and not be associated with a member of the exchange,
broker, or dealer.\32\ In addition, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires
that the rules of the exchange be designed, among other things, to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, 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.\33\
Finally, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with
Section 6(b)(7) of the Act, which requires that the rules of the
exchange provide a fair procedure for the disciplining of its members
and persons associated with members, the denial of membership to any
person seeking membership therein, the barring of any person from
becoming associated with a member thereof, and the prohibition or
limitation by the exchange with respect to access to services offered
by the exchange or a member thereof.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission
notes that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(3).
    \33\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \34\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange represents that the proposed single CFR would be a
successor to both the current NYSE Arca BAC and NYSE Arca Equities BAC,
which are committees of the NYSE Arca Board and NYSE Arca Equities
Board of Directors, respectively, that review appeals of Exchange
disciplinary actions in their respective markets.\35\ The Exchange also
proposes to incorporate the responsibilities of the OTP Advisory
Committee of NYSE Arca and the Member Advisory Committee of NYSE Arca
Equities into the proposed CFR.\36\ The CFR's responsibilities
therefore would be expanded to include acting in an advisory capacity
to the

NYSE Arca Board with respect to disciplinary matters, the listing and
delisting of securities, regulatory programs, rulemaking and regulatory
rules, including trading rules.\37\ The Commission notes that the
proposed CFR incorporates the salient features of the current NYSE Arca
BAC and NYSE Arca Equities BAC, including by incorporating the
requirement that the CFR be comprised of the Public Directors, the OTP
Directors and ETP Directors.\38\ As such, the Commission finds that the
Exchange's proposed revisions to its appellate procedure for
disciplinary matters and for determinations to limit or prohibit the
continued listing of an issuer's securities on NYSE Arca Equities
ensures sufficient independence of the appellate function of the
Exchange, and therefore helps to ensure that the Exchange is organized
and has the capacity to carry out the purposes of the Act, as required
by Section 6(b)(1) of the Act.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See Notice, supra note 5, at 21616.
    \36\ See id. at 21618. The Exchange notes that the same
categories of permit holders that were represented on the OTP
Advisory Committee and the Member Advisory Committee would be
represented on the proposed CFR. See id.
    \37\ See id.
    \38\ See id. at 21616.
    \39\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also finds that the composition of the proposed CFR
ensures the fair representation of members in the administration of the
Exchange's affairs.\40\ Proposed NYSE Arca Rule 3.3(a)(2)(A) provides
that the CFR would be composed of the OTP Director(s), the ETP
Director(s) and the Public Directors of both NYSE Arca and NYSE Arca
Equities.\41\ Because NYSE Arca and NYSE Arca Equities members would
serve on the proposed CFR, which would be charged with acting in an
advisory capacity to the NYSE Arca Board with respect to disciplinary
matters, the listing and delisting of securities, regulatory programs,
rulemaking and regulatory rules, including trading rules, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(3) of the Act.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(3).
    \41\ See Notice, supra note 5, at 21616.
    \42\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to amend NYSE Arca Rule 3.3(a)(2)(B) and
NYSE Arca Equities Rule 3.3(a)(1)(A) to permit the CFR to appoint a CFR
Appeals Panel, consisting of at least three and no more than five
individuals.\43\ The CFR would either appoint a CFR Appeals Panel to
conduct reviews of disciplinary proceedings or elect to conduct review
proceedings on its own.\44\ According to the Exchange, a CFR Appeals
Panel appointed to hear an equities matter would be composed of at
least one Public Director and one member or individual associated with
an equities member organization, and an appeals panel appointed to hear
an options matter would be composed of at least one Public Director and
one member or individual associated with an options member
organization.\45\ The Commission finds that the Exchange's proposal
with respect to the proposed composition and the role of a CFR Appeals
Panel is consistent with Sections 6(b)(3) and 6(b)(7) of the Act.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See Notice, supra note 5, at 21617.
    \44\ See id.
    \45\ See id.
    \46\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(3) and 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Commission finds that it is consistent with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act for the Exchange to make various technical and
conforming revisions to its Rules.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEArca-2016-11), as modified by the
amendment thereto, is approved.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-12672 Filed 5-27-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 105 (Thursday, June 3, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29760-29761]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11657]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP21-450-000]

Enable Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket
Authorization and Establishing Intervention and Protest Deadline

    Take notice that on May 18, 2021, Enable Gas Transmission, LLC
(EGT), 910 Louisiana Street, 48th Floor, Houston, Texas 77002, filed in
the above referenced docket, a prior notice request pursuant to
sections 157.205 and 157.216 of the Commission's regulations under the
Natural Gas Act (NGA) and EGT's blanket certificate issued in Docket
Nos. CP82-384-000 and CP82-384-001, for authorization to abandon in
place all existing compressor units and related major and minor
auxiliary facilities at its Taylor Compressor Station in Columbia
County, Arkansas, all as more fully set forth in the application which
is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Any questions regarding this prior notice request should be
directed to Lisa Yoho, Senior Director, Regulatory and FERC Compliance,
Enable Gas Transmission, LLC, 910 Louisiana Street, 48th Floor,
Houston, Texas 77002, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Public Participation

    There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review
of this project: you can file a protest to the project, you can file a
motion to intervene in the proceeding, and you can file comments on the
project. There is no fee or cost for filing protests, motions to
intervene, or comments. The deadline for filing protests, motions to
intervene, and comments is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 26, 2021. How
to file protests, motions to intervene, and comments is explained
below.

Protests

    Pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's regulations under
the NGA,\1\ any person \2\ or the Commission's staff may file a protest
to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed or if a
protest is filed and then withdrawn within 30 days after the

allowed time for filing a protest, the proposed activity shall be
deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for
protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after
the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request for
authorization will be considered by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 157.205.
    \2\ Persons include individuals, organizations, businesses,
municipalities, and other entities. 18 CFR 385.102(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Protests must comply with the requirements specified in section
157.205(e) of the Commission's regulations,\3\ and must be submitted by
the protest deadline, which is July 26, 2021. A protest may also serve
as a motion to intervene so long as the protestor states it also seeks
to be an intervenor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 18 CFR 157.205(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interventions

    Any person has the option to file a motion to intervene in this
proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to request rehearing of
Commission orders issued in this proceeding and to subsequently
challenge the Commission's orders in the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
    To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the
Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure \4\ and the regulations under the NGA \5\ by the
intervention deadline for the project, which is July 26, 2021. As
described further in Rule 214, your motion to intervene must state, to
the extent known, your position regarding the proceeding, as well as
your interest in the proceeding. For an individual, this could include
your status as a landowner, ratepayer, resident of an impacted
community, or recreationist. You do not need to have property directly
impacted by the project in order to intervene. For more information
about motions to intervene, refer to the FERC website at https://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 18 CFR 385.214.
    \5\ 18 CFR 157.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All timely, unopposed motions to intervene are automatically
granted by operation of Rule 214(c)(1). Motions to intervene that are
filed after the intervention deadline are untimely and may be denied.
Any late-filed motion to intervene must show good cause for being late
and must explain why the time limitation should be waived and provide
justification by reference to factors set forth in Rule 214(d) of the
Commission's Rules and Regulations. A person obtaining party status
will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the
Commission and will receive copies (paper or electronic) of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties.

Comments

    Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. The
Commission considers all comments received about the project in
determining the appropriate action to be taken. To ensure that your
comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments
on or before July 26, 2021. The filing of a comment alone will not
serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. To become a party,
you must intervene in the proceeding.

How To File Protests, Interventions, and Comments

    There are two ways to submit protests, motions to intervene, and
comments. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number
CP21-450-000 in your submission.
    (1) You may file your protest, motion to intervene, and comments by
using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the
Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and
Filings. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you are
making; first select General'' and then select ``Protest'',
``Intervention'', or ``Comment on a Filing''; or \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Additionally, you may file your comments electronically by
using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's
website at www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings.
Using eComment is an easy method for interested persons to submit
brief, text-only comments on a project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) You can file a paper copy of your submission by mailing it to
the address below.\7\ Your submission must reference the Project docket
number CP21-450-000..
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Hand-delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be
delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue,
Rockville, Maryland 20852.

Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426

    The Commission encourages electronic filing of submissions (option
1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-
8258 or [email protected]
    Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant
either by mail at: 910 Louisiana Street, 48th Floor, Houston, Texas
77002, or email (with a link to the document) at:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Any subsequent submissions by an
intervenor must be served on the applicant and all other parties to the
proceeding. Contact information for parties can be downloaded from the
service list at the eService link on FERC Online.

Tracking the Proceeding

    Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project
will be available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at
(866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link as described above. 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. For more information and to register, go to
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Dated: May 27, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-11657 Filed 6-2-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 83 (Thursday, April 30, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24198-24200]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09813]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-0074; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-138-AD;
Amendment 39-18147; AD 2015-09-02]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000)
airplanes. This AD was prompted by a determination that without an
effective maintenance task to maintain the airplane's inherent level of
safety, there is a potential that a dormant failure of the alternate
release system of the landing gear could occur. This AD requires
revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to
incorporate a maintenance task for an operational check of the electro-
mechanical actuator and release mechanism of the alternate extension
system for the nose landing gear and main landing gear. We are issuing
this AD to prevent failure of the alternate release system of the
landing gear, which could prevent the landing gear from extending
during a failure of the normal landing gear extension system.

DATES: This AD becomes effective June 4, 2015.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of June 4,
2015.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2015-0074 or in person at the
Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier,
Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9,
Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You
may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It
is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0074.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY
11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc.
Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. The NPRM
published in the Federal Register on January 23, 2015 (80 FR 3498).
    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2014-16, dated June 11, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory
Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an
unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2E25
(Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During a design review, an error was identified which led to the
development of a new certification maintenance requirement (CMR)
task. Without an effective maintenance task to maintain the
aeroplane's inherent level of safety, there is a potential that a
dormant failure of the alternate release system of the landing gear
could occur. Failure of the landing gear alternate release system
could prevent the landing gear from extending in the case of a
failure of the normal landing gear extension system.
    This [Canadian] AD mandates the incorporation of a new
maintenance task to ensure operation of the landing gear alternate
extension system.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-0074-0003.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (80 FR 3498, January 23,
2015) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for
minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (80 FR 3498, January 23, 2015) for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 3498, January 23, 2015).

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier, Inc. has issued Temporary Revision (TR) ALI-0472, dated
February 27, 2014, to Section 1-32 of Part 2, Bombardier Airworthiness
Limitations, of the CRJ Series Regional Jet Maintenance Requirements
Manual, CSP B-053. This service information describes a maintenance
task for an operational check of the electro-mechanical actuator and
release mechanism of the alternate extension system for the nose
landing gear and main landing gear. The actions described in this
service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition
identified in the MCAI. This service information is reasonably
available at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2015-

0074. Or see ADDRESSES for other ways to access this service
information.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 35 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of
this AD on U.S. operators to be $2,975, or $85 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2015-0074; or in person at the
Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information.
The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-
5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2015-09-02 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-18147. Docket No. FAA-
2015-0074; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-138-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective June 4, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional
Jet Series 1000) airplanes, certificated in any category, serial
numbers 19002 and subsequent.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing
Gear.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that without an
effective maintenance task to maintain the airplane's inherent level
of safety, there is a potential that a dormant failure of the
alternate release system of the landing gear can occur. We are
issuing this AD to prevent failure of the alternate release system
of the landing gear, which could prevent the landing gear from
extending during a failure of the normal landing gear extension
system.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision

    Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate
Task 32-01-00-101, ``Operational Check of the MLG [Main Landing
Gear] and NLG [Nose Landing Gear] AES [Alternate Extension System]
EMA [Electro-mechanical Actuator] and Release Mechanism (CRJ1000),''
for the operational check of the MLG and NLG AES EMA and release
mechanism, as specified in Bombardier Temporary Revision (TR) ALI-
0472, dated February 27, 2014, to Section 1-32 of Part 2,
Airworthiness Limitations, of the Bombardier CRJ Series Regional
Jet, Maintenance Requirements Manual, CSP B-053. The initial
compliance time for the operational check is at the applicable time
specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD.
    (1) For airplanes that have accumulated 540 total flight hours
or more as of the effective date of this AD: Within 660 flight hours
after the effective date of this AD.
    (2) For airplanes that have accumulated less than 540 total
flight hours as of the effective date of this AD: Before the
accumulation of 1,200 total flight hours.

(h) No Alternative Actions or Intervals

    After accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (g) of
this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may
be used unless the actions or intervals are approved as an
alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the ACO, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing
Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite
410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this
AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO,
ANE-170, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or
Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Organization Approval (DAO). If
approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized
signature.

(j) Related Information

    Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI)
Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-16, dated June 11, 2014,
for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on
the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-
2015-0074-0003.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Bombardier Temporary Revision ALI-0472, dated February 27,
2014, to Section 1-32 of Part 2, Airworthiness Limitations, of the
Bombardier CRJ Series Regional Jet Maintenance Requirements Manual,
CSP B-053.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval,
Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 514-855-
7401; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 14, 2015.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-09813 Filed 4-29-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 9 (Thursday, January 13, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2149-2150]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00617]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER22-721-000]

Kennebec Lumber Company; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Kennebec Lumber Company's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is January 27, 2022.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 7, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-00617 Filed 1-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 67 (Tuesday, April 7, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19541-19545]
[FR Doc No: 2020-07231]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88538; File No. SR-NYSENAT-2020-05]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE National, Inc.; Suspension of
and Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or
Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change To Establish Fees for the NYSE
National Integrated Feed

April 1, 2020.

I. Introduction

    On February 3, 2020, NYSE National, Inc. (``NYSE National'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to establish fees for the NYSE National Integrated
Feed. The proposed rule change was immediately effective upon filing
with the Commission pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act.\3\ The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on February 20, 2020.\4\ Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act,\5\
the Commission is hereby: (1) Temporarily suspending the proposed rule
change; and (2) instituting proceedings to determine whether to approve
or disapprove the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). A proposed rule change may take
effect upon filing with the Commission if it is designated by the
exchange as ``establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by the self-regulatory organization on any person, whether
or not the person is a member of the self-regulatory organization.''
15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88211 (February 14,
2020), 85 FR 9847 (``Notice''). Comments received on the Notice are
available on the Commission's website at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysenat-2020-05/srnysenat202005.htm. The Commission
notes that, on December 4, 2019, NYSE National filed a proposed rule
change to establish fees for the NYSE National Integrated Feed that
are identical to the fees proposed in this filing. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 87797 (December 18, 2019), 84 FR 71025
(December 26, 2019) (SR-NYSENAT-2019-31). Comments received on SR-
NYSENAT-2019-31 are available on the Commission's website at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysenat-2019-31/srnysenat201931.htm. On
January 31, 2020, the Commission temporarily suspended SR-NYSENAT-
2019-31 and instituted proceedings to determine whether to approve
or disapprove that proposed rule change. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 88109, 85 FR 6982 (February 6, 2020) (``SR-NYSENAT-2019-
31 OIP''). On February 3, 2020, NYSE National withdrew SR-NYSENAT-
2019-31. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88118 (February 4,
2020), 85 FR 7611 (February 10, 2020).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    NYSE National proposes to establish fees for the NYSE National
Integrated Feed, which became effective on February 3, 2020.\6\
According to NYSE National, the NYSE National Integrated Feed is a NYSE
National-only market data feed that provides vendors and subscribers on
a real-time basis with a unified view of events, in sequence, as they
appear on the NYSE National matching engine.\7\ The NYSE National
Integrated Feed includes depth-of-book order data, last sale data,
security status updates (e.g., trade corrections and trading halts),
and stock summary messages.\8\ It also includes information about NYSE
National's best bid or offer at any given time.\9\ NYSE National
proposes the following fees for the NYSE National Integrated Feed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Prior to February 3, 2020, NYSE National did not charge any
fees for the NYSE National Integrated Feed. See Notice, supra note
4, at 9847.
    \7\ See id.
    \8\ See id.
    \9\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     $2,500 per month access fee, which would be charged (once
per firm) to any data recipient that receives a data feed of the NYSE
National Integrated Feed; \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Data recipients that only use display devices to view NYSE
National Integrated Feed data and do not separately receive a data
feed would not be charged an access fee. See id. at 9848.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     $1,500 per month redistribution fee, which would be
charged (once per redistributor account) to any redistributor \11\ of
the NYSE National Integrated Feed;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ A redistributor would be a vendor or person that provides a
real-time NYSE National market data product externally to a data
recipient that is not its affiliate or wholly-owned subsidiary, or
to any system that an external data recipient uses, irrespective of
the means of transmission or access. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     $10 per month professional per user fee and $1 per month
non-professional per user fee, which would apply to each display device
that has access to the NYSE National Integrated Feed; \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Non-display use \13\ fees:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Non-display use would mean accessing, processing, or
consuming the NYSE National Integrated Feed, delivered directly or
through a redistributor, for a purpose other than in support of a
data recipient's display or further internal or external
redistribution. See id. As proposed, non-display use would include
trading uses such as high frequency or algorithmic trading, as well
as any trading in any asset class, automated order or quote
generation and order pegging, price referencing for algorithmic
trading or smart order routing, operations controls programs,
investment analysis, order verification, surveillance programs, risk
management, compliance, and portfolio management. See id. One, two,
or three categories of non-display use may apply to a data
recipient. See id. Moreover, data recipients that receive the NYSE
National Integrated Feed for non-display use would be required to
complete and submit a non-display use declaration before they would
be authorized to receive the feed. See id. at 9849. In addition, if
a data recipient's use of the NYSE National Integrated Feed data
changes at any time after the data recipient submits a non-display
use declaration, the data recipient must inform NYSE National of the
change by completing and submitting an updated declaration
reflecting the change of use at the time of the change. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [cir] $5,000 per month category 1 non-display fee, which would
apply when a data recipient's non-display use of real-time market data
is on its own behalf;
    [cir] $5,000 per month category 2 non-display fee, which would
apply when a data recipient's non-display use of real-time market data
is on behalf of its clients;
    [cir] $5,000 per platform per month category 3 non-display fee
(capped at $15,000), which would apply when a data recipient's non-
display use of real-time market data is for the purpose of internally
matching buy and sell orders within an organization, including matching
customer orders on a data recipient's own behalf and on behalf of its
clients; \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ According to NYSE National, category 3 non-display fees
would apply to non-display use in trading platforms, such as, but
not limited to, alternative trading systems (``ATSs''), broker
crossing networks, broker crossing systems not filed as ATSs, dark
pools, multilateral trading facilities, exchanges, and systematic
internalization systems. See id. at 9848-49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     $1,000 per month non-display use declaration late fee,
which would apply to any data recipient that is paying an access fee
for the NYSE National Integrated Feed and that fails to complete and
submit the annual non-display use declaration by December 31 of the
year, and would apply beginning January 1 and for each month thereafter
until the data recipient has completed and submitted the annual non-
display use declaration; \15\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See id. at 9849.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     $200 per month multiple data feed fee, which would apply
to any data recipient that takes a data feed for a market data product
in more than two locations, and would apply to each location, beyond
the first two locations, where the data recipient receives a data
feed.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The access fees, professional user fees, and non-display fees would
not apply to Federal agencies \17\ that

subscribe to the products listed on the proposed fee schedule that
includes such fees.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The term ``Federal agencies'' as used in the proposed fee
schedule would include all Federal agencies subject to the Federal
Acquisition Regulation (``FAR''), as well as any Federal agency not
subject to FAR that has promulgated its own procurement rules. See
id. All Federal agencies that subscribe to the NYSE National real-
time proprietary market data products would continue to be required
to execute the appropriate subscriber agreement, which includes,
among other things, provisions against the redistribution of data.
See id.
    \18\ The proposed fee schedule lists NYSE National BBO, NYSE
National Trades, and NYSE National Integrated Feed, and specifies
that there would be no fees for NYSE National BBO and NYSE National
Trades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, first-time subscribers \19\ would be eligible for a free
trial by contacting NYSE National and would not be charged the access
fee, the non-display fee, any applicable professional and non-
professional user fee, and the redistribution fee for one calendar
month for each of the products listed on the proposed fee schedule.\20\
The free trial would be for the first full calendar month following the
date a subscriber is approved to receive trial access to NYSE National
market data.\21\ As proposed, NYSE National would provide the one-month
free trial for a particular product to each subscriber only once.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ A first-time subscriber would be any firm that has not
previously subscribed to a particular product listed on the proposed
fee schedule. See Notice, supra note 4, at 9849.
    \20\ See id.
    \21\ See id. at 9849-50.
    \22\ See id. at 9850.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Suspension of the Proposed Rule Change

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act,\23\ at any time within
60 days of the date of filing of an immediately effective proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Act,\24\ the Commission
summarily may temporarily suspend the change in the rules of a self-
regulatory organization (``SRO'') 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. The Commission believes a temporary suspension of the proposed
rule change is necessary and appropriate to allow for additional
analysis of the proposed rule change's consistency with the Act and the
rules thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYSE National proposes to adopt fees for the NYSE National
Integrated Feed and provides various arguments to support the
proposal's consistency with the Act. With respect to whether the
proposed fees are reasonable, NYSE National states that exchanges in
general function as platforms between consumers of market data and
consumers of trading services, and that overall competition between
exchanges will limit their overall profitability.\25\ In connection
with these arguments, NYSE National also provides a report by Marc
Rysman,\26\ which finds that the introduction of the NYSE Integrated
Feed in 2015 attracted more trading to NYSE by both subscribers and
non-subscribers to the NYSE Integrated Feed,\27\ and concludes that
overall competition between exchanges will limit their overall
profitability (not margins on any particular side of the platform).\28\
According to NYSE National, given the conclusion in the Rysman Paper
that exchanges are platforms for market data and transaction services,
competition for order flow on the trading side of the platform acts to
constrain the pricing of market data on the other side of the
platform.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 9852.
    \26\ See Marc Rysman, Stock Exchanges as Platforms for Data and
Trading (December 2, 2019) (``Rysman Paper''), available at https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/nysenat/2020/34-88211-ex3b.pdf.
    \27\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 9852. NYSE National also
states that, since May 2018, when NYSE National relaunched trading,
it has observed a direct correlation between the steady increase of
subscribers to the NYSE National Integrated Feed and the increase in
NYSE National's transaction market share volume over the same
period. See id. at 9850. NYSE National states that, between May 2018
and October 2019, it has grown from 0% to nearly 2% market share of
consolidated trading volume and, between May 2018 and November 2019,
the number of NYSE National Integrated Feed subscribers increased
from 12 to 57. See id. at 9847-48, 9852.
    \28\ See id. at 9852.
    \29\ See id. at 9853.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, NYSE National argues that, due to the ready
availability of substitutes and the low cost to move order flow to the
substitute trading venues, an exchange setting market data fees that
are not at competitive levels would expect to quickly lose business to
alternative platforms with more attractive pricing.\30\ NYSE National
argues that subscribing to the NYSE National Integrated Feed is
optional, that its customers may choose to discontinue using the feed
once the proposed fees are effective, and that any customers who choose
to discontinue using the feed may choose to shift order flow away from
NYSE National.\31\ Similarly, NYSE National argues that its market data
pricing is constrained by the availability of numerous substitute
platforms offering competing proprietary market data products and
trading services.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See id.
    \31\ See id. at 9850, 9853.
    \32\ See id. at 9853.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to its ``platform''-based arguments, NYSE National
presents an alternative competition-based argument, asserting that the
NYSE National Integrated Feed is sold in a competitive market.\33\ NYSE
National provides a report by Charles M. Jones,\34\ which concludes
that exchanges compete with each other in selling proprietary market
data products, as well as with consolidated data feeds and with data
provided by ATSs.\35\ NYSE National also more specifically argues that
NYSE National BBO (which includes best bid and offer information for
NYSE National on a real-time basis), NYSE National Trades (which
includes NYSE National last sale information on a real-time basis), and
consolidated data feeds are substitutes for the NYSE National
Integrated Feed and constrain NYSE National's ability to charge
supracompetitive prices for the feed.\36\ In addition, NYSE National
states that, since the date of filing of SR-NYSENAT-2019-31 and before
the proposed fees went into effect on February 3, 2020, five
subscribers to the NYSE National Integrated Feed (i.e., nearly nine
percent of the prior subscriber base) have cancelled their
subscriptions due to the imminent imposition of the fees.\37\ Moreover,
NYSE National states that a sixth customer informed NYSE National that
if NYSE National is permitted to impose the fees, the customer would
cancel its subscription to the NYSE National Integrated Feed and
instead subscribe to the NYSE National BBO feed.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See id. at 9851.
    \34\ See Charles M. Jones, Understanding the Market for U.S.
Equity Market Data (August 31, 2018) (``Jones Paper''), available at
https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/nysenat/2020/34-88211-ex3a.pdf.
    \35\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 9851. The Jones Paper also
states that the market for order flow and the market for market data
are closely linked, and that an exchange needs to consider the
negative impact on its order flow if it raises the price of market
data. See id.
    \36\ See id. at 9854.
    \37\ See id. at 9848.
    \38\ NYSE National states that six lost subscribers constitute
10.5 percent of the prior NYSE National Integrated Feed subscriber
base. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the other requirements under the Act, NYSE National
argues that the proposed fees are equitably allocated and are not
unfairly discriminatory because they would apply on an equal basis to
all data recipients that choose to subscribe to the data in a manner
that is subject to an applicable fee and because any differences among
categories of users are justified.\39\ Specifically, NYSE National
argues that the professional and non-professional user fee structure
has long been used by NYSE National to reduce the price of data to non-
professional users and make it more broadly available, and that the
non-display fee structure results in

subscribers with greater uses of the data paying higher fees and
subscribers with fewer uses of the data paying lower fees.\40\ For
similar reasons, and because it claims numerous substitute market data
products are available, NYSE National argues that the proposed fees do
not impose an unnecessary or inappropriate burden on competition.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See id. at 9856-58.
    \40\ See id. at 9856-57.
    \41\ See id. at 9858-59.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the redistribution fee, NYSE National argues that
the proposed fee is reasonable because vendors that would be charged
the proposed fee would profit by re-transmitting NYSE National's market
data to their customers,\42\ and that the proposed fee is equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory because the fees would be charged on an
equal basis to those vendors that choose to redistribute the feed.\43\
Similarly, with respect to category 3 non-display fees, which would be
charged to each trading platform on which the customer uses non-display
data (capped at three platforms), NYSE National argues that the
proposal is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory
because such use of data is directly in competition with NYSE National
and NYSE National should be permitted to recoup some of its lost
trading revenue by charging for the data that makes such competition
possible.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See id. at 9854.
    \43\ See id. at 9856-57.
    \44\ See id. at 9855-58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, with respect to the non-display use declaration late fee
and the multiple data feed fee, NYSE National claims that these fees
are reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory because they
would offset NYSE National's administrative burdens and costs
associated with incorrect billing, late payments, and tracking data
usage locations.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission received comment letters that express concerns
regarding the proposed rule change. One commenter states that NYSE
National fails to provide the necessary information for the Commission
to determine whether the proposed fees meet the requirements of the
Act.\46\ This commenter argues that the NYSE National Integrated Feed
is not subject to competitive forces because there are no available
substitutes to NYSE National's depth-of-book product.\47\ This
commenter also argues that competition for order flow under the
``platform theory'' does not constrain the cost of market data, but
instead results in supra-monopoly prices for market data products.\48\
In addition, this commenter argues that NYSE National makes an
unpersuasive attempt to show an elasticity of demand for the NYSE
National Integrated Feed (i.e., in response to the fee increase, 5 of
the 57 subscribers notified NYSE National of their intent to cancel
their subscriptions before the fees went into effect).\49\ Moreover,
this commenter argues that exchanges have yet to show an increase (or
decrease) in trading volume after reducing (or increasing) a respective
exchange's price of market data, and that NYSE National does not state
the anticipated impact on order flow from losing subscribers to the
NYSE National Integrated Feed.\50\ Finally, the commenter argues that,
because it believes competitive forces have not constrained the cost of
market data, NYSE National should provide additional information on
cost.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See letter from Ellen Greene, Managing Director, Equities &
Options Market Structure, Securities Industry and Financial Markets
Association (``SIFMA''), to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary,
Commission, dated March 11, 2020 (``SIFMA Letter''). This commenter
also refers to the comment letter it submitted on SR-NYSENAT-2019-31
in stating that the proposal does not meet the requirements of the
Act. See id. at 2. See also SR-NYSENAT-2019-31 OIP, supra note 4, at
6984-85 (describing the commenter's letter on SR-NYSENAT-2019-31);
letter from Robert Toomey, Managing Director and Associate General
Counsel, SIFMA, to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Commission, dated
January 21, 2020, available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysenat-2019-31/srnysenat201931-6678406-204968.pdf.
    \47\ See SIFMA Letter, supra note 46, at 2.
    \48\ See id.
    \49\ See id.
    \50\ See id.
    \51\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another commenter also states that the information provided by NYSE
National is not adequate to establish that the proposed fees are
consistent with the Act and Commission rules.\52\ This commenter
questions whether third parties can compete with NYSE National in
offering data related to activity on NYSE National.\53\ This commenter
also questions NYSE National's assertion that market participants have
a meaningful ability to choose whether or not to connect to the NYSE
National Integrated Feed and believes instead that many market
participants must buy the feed.\54\ This commenter acknowledges that
NYSE National provides the number of customers that discontinued using
the NYSE National Integrated Feed in response to the proposed fees, but
expresses concern that NYSE National has not provided any relevant
information about these customers (e.g., why they subscribed to the
NYSE National Integrated Feed in the first place; whether they were
proprietary trading firms, agency brokers, or data vendors; and whether
and how often they sent orders to NYSE National).\55\ This commenter
also states that NYSE National should update and further elaborate on
information about the remaining subscribers.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See letter from Tyler Gellasch, Executive Director, The
Healthy Markets Association, to Vanessa Countryman, Office of the
Secretary, Commission, dated March 12, 2020 (``Healthy Markets
Letter''). See also SR-NYSENAT-2019-31 OIP, supra note 4, at 6984
(describing the commenter's letter on SR-NYSENAT-2019-31); letter
from Tyler Gellasch, Executive Director, The Healthy Markets
Association, to Vanessa Countryman, Office of the Secretary,
Commission, dated January 16, 2020, available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysenat-2019-31/srnysenat201931-6663540-203934.pdf.
    \53\ See Healthy Markets Letter, supra note 52, at 6-8. This
commenter states that NYSE National controls who, under what terms,
and when anyone other than NYSE National can obtain order-related
information about NYSE National. See id. at 7.
    \54\ See id. at 4-5. According to this commenter, if one set of
market participants has access to a faster, richer data set, then
those without that information will not be as competitive and may
not be able to quote or otherwise route orders in a manner that
could effectively achieve best execution. See id. at 8.
    \55\ See id. at 5-6.
    \56\ See id. at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, this commenter argues that NYSE National's discussions
regarding the reasonableness of the proposed fees (i.e., the comparison
to similar fees charged by affiliated exchanges, the nature of the
market for order flow, the availability of other data options, and the
lack of a relation between the proposed fees and the costs of
production) do not support a finding that the proposed fees are
reasonable.\57\ This commenter also states that NYSE National does not
provide any information about the costs of production for the NYSE
National Integrated Feed, the expected revenue NYSE National projects
to generate from the proposed fees, the impact of the proposed fees on
subscribers, the competition between subscribers and non-subscribers,
and whether the proposed fees would be equitably allocated and would
not impose any undue burden on competition.\58\ In addition, the
commenter states that NYSE National does not provide any information
about the latency difference between the NYSE National Integrated Feed
and the consolidated data feed or other methods of transmitting
data.\59\ Finally, this commenter objects to NYSE National's platform-
based arguments, stating that the supply and demand

functions for order flow and market data are separate.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ See id. at 8-9.
    \58\ See id. at 9.
    \59\ See id.
    \60\ See id. at 9-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When exchanges file their proposed rule changes with the
Commission, including fee filings like NYSE National's present
proposal, they are required to provide a statement supporting the
proposal's basis under the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to the exchange.\61\ The instructions to Form 19b-4, on
which exchanges file their proposed rule changes, specify that such
statement ``should be sufficiently detailed and specific to support a
finding that the proposed rule change is consistent with [those]
requirements.'' \62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ See 17 CFR 240.19b-4 (Item 3 entitled ``Self-Regulatory
Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for,
the Proposed Rule Change'').
    \62\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 6 of the Act, including Sections 6(b)(4), (5), and (8),
require the rules of an exchange to: (1) Provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable fees among members, issuers, and other persons
using the exchange's facilities; \63\ (2) perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, protect investors
and the public interest, and not be designed to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers; \64\
and (3) not impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \64\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \65\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In temporarily suspending NYSE National's proposed rule change, the
Commission intends to further consider whether the proposal to
establish fees for the NYSE National Integrated Feed is consistent with
the statutory requirements applicable to a national securities exchange
under the Act. In particular, the Commission will consider whether the
proposed rule change satisfies the standards under the Act and the
rules thereunder requiring, among other things, that an exchange's
rules provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable fees among
members, issuers, and other persons using its facilities; not permit
unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers;
and do not impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5), and (8), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the Commission finds that it is appropriate in the
public interest, for the protection of investors, and otherwise in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, to temporarily suspend the
proposed rule change.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ For purposes of temporarily suspending the proposed rule
change, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove the
Proposed Rule Change

    In addition to temporarily suspending the proposal, the Commission
also hereby institutes proceedings pursuant to Sections 19(b)(3)(C)
\68\ and 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \69\ to determine whether NYSE
National's proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Institution of proceedings does not indicate that the Commission has
reached any conclusions with respect to any of the issues involved.
Rather, the Commission seeks and encourages interested persons to
provide additional comment on the proposed rule change to inform the
Commission's analysis of whether to approve or disapprove the proposed
rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C). Once the Commission temporarily
suspends a proposed rule change, Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act
requires that the Commission institute proceedings under Section
19(b)(2)(B) to determine whether a proposed rule change should be
approved or disapproved.
    \69\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\70\ the Commission is
providing notice of the grounds for possible disapproval under
consideration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ Id. Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act also provides that
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove a proposed rule
change must be concluded within 180 days of the date of publication
of notice of the filing of the proposed rule change. See id. The
time for conclusion of the proceedings may be extended for up to 60
days if the Commission finds good cause for such extension and
publishes its reasons for so finding, or if the exchange consents to
the longer period. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether NYSE National has demonstrated how its proposed
fees are consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, which requires
that the rules of a national securities exchange ``provide for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among
its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities''; \71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether NYSE National has demonstrated how its proposed
fees are consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires,
among other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange
not be ``designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers''; \72\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether NYSE National has demonstrated how its proposed
fees are consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, which requires
that the rules of a national securities exchange ``not impose any
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of [the Act].'' \73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in Section III above, NYSE National made various
arguments in support of its proposal and the Commission received
comment letters that expressed concerns regarding the proposal,
including in particular that NYSE National did not provide sufficient
information to establish that the proposed fees are consistent with the
Act and the rules thereunder.
    Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, the ``burden to
demonstrate that a proposed rule change is consistent with the [Act]
and the rules and regulations issued thereunder . . . is on the [SRO]
that proposed the rule change.'' \74\ The description of a proposed
rule change, its purpose and operation, its effect, and a legal
analysis of its consistency with applicable requirements must all be
sufficiently detailed and specific to support an affirmative Commission
finding,\75\ and any failure of an SRO to provide this information may
result in the Commission not having a sufficient basis to make an
affirmative finding that a proposed rule change is consistent with the
Act and the applicable rules and regulations.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ 17 CFR 201.700(b)(3).
    \75\ See id.
    \76\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional
consideration and comment on the issues raised herein, including as to
whether the proposed fees are consistent with the Act, and
specifically, with its requirements that exchange fees be reasonable
and equitably allocated, not be unfairly discriminatory, and not impose
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5), and (8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Commission's Solicitation of Comments

    The Commission requests written views, data, and arguments with
respect to the concerns identified above as well as any other relevant
concerns. Such comments should be submitted by April 28, 2020. Rebuttal
comments should be submitted by May 12, 2020. Although there do not
appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would
be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and

arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any
request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). Section 19(b)(2) of the Act grants the
Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding--either
oral or notice and opportunity for written comments--is appropriate
for consideration of a particular proposal by an SRO. See Securities
Acts Amendments of 1975, Report of the Senate Committee on Banking,
Housing and Urban Affairs to Accompany S. 249, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th
Cong., 1st Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency and
merit of NYSE National's statements in support of the proposal, in
addition to any other comments they may wish to submit about the
proposed rule change.
    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the proposed rule change, 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 No. SR-NYSENAT-2020-05 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 No. SR-NYSENAT-2020-05. The 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 such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of NYSE National. 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 publicly available. All submissions
should refer to File No. SR-NYSENAT-2020-05 and should be submitted on
or before April 28, 2020. Rebuttal comments should be submitted by May
12, 2020.

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the
Act,\79\ that File No. SR-NYSENAT-2020-05, be and hereby is,
temporarily suspended. In addition, the Commission is instituting
proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be
approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\80\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.

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

    \80\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57) and (58).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2020-07231 Filed 4-6-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P