[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 68 (Friday, April 8, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20892-20894]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07467]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-94590; File No. SR-MEMX-2022-06]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; MEMX LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Exchange's Fee Schedule Concerning Volume Calculations for Transaction
Pricing Tiers

April 4, 2022.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on March 31, 2022, MEMX LLC (``MEMX'' or the ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change
to amend the Exchange's fee schedule applicable to Members \3\ (the
``Fee Schedule'') pursuant to Exchange Rules 15.1(a) and (c). The
Exchange proposes to implement the changes to the Fee Schedule pursuant
to this proposal on April 1, 2022. The text of the proposed rule change
is provided in Exhibit 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Exchange Rule 1.5(p).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Fee
Schedule to exclude any days that the MSCI Equity Indexes and the S&P
400, S&P 500, and S&P 600 Indexes are rebalanced from the volume
calculations used by the Exchange for purposes of determining a
Member's qualification for the Exchange's transaction pricing tiers/
incentives. Currently, the Exchange's Fee Schedule includes a note
stating that the Exchange excludes from its calculations of ADAV,\4\
ADV \5\ and TCV,\6\ and for purposes of determining qualification for
the Displayed Liquidity Incentive: (1) Any trading day that the
Exchange's system experiences a disruption that lasts for more than 60
minutes during regular trading hours; and (2) the day that Russell
Investments reconstitutes its family of indexes (i.e., the last Friday
in June). Now, the Exchange proposes to include in this list of days
excluded from such calculations any day that the MSCI Equities Indexes
are rebalanced (``MSCI Rebalance Day''), which occur on a quarterly
basis each year, and any day that the S&P 400, S&P 500, and S&P 600
Indexes are rebalanced (``S&P Rebalance Day''), which also occur on a
quarterly basis each year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ As set forth on the Fee Schedule, ``ADAV'' means average
daily added volume calculated as the number of shares added per day,
which is calculated on a monthly basis.
    \5\ As set forth on the Fee Schedule, ``ADV'' means average
daily volume calculated as the number of shares added or removed,
combined, per day, which is calculated on a monthly basis.
    \6\ As set forth on the Fee Schedule, ``TCV'' means total
consolidated volume calculated as the volume reported by all
exchanges and trade reporting facilities to a consolidated
transaction reporting plan for the month for which the fees apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the same reasons that the Exchange currently excludes the day
that Russell Investments reconstitutes its family of indexes (``Russell
Reconstitution Day'') from these calculations,\7\ the Exchange believes
it is appropriate to exclude MSCI Rebalance Days and S&P Rebalance Days
from these calculations in the same manner, as such days typically have
extraordinarily high and/or abnormally distributed trading volumes,
which the Exchange believes is attributed to market participants who
are not generally as active entering the market to rebalance their
holdings in-line with these rebalances, and the Exchange believes this
change to normal activity may affect a Member's ability to meet the
applicable volume thresholds under its volume-based tiers, as well as
the daily quoting requirements under the Displayed Liquidity Incentive.
The Exchange notes that the proposed exclusion of MSCI Rebalance Days
and S&P Rebalance Days from the relevant calculations would be applied
in the same manner that the Exchange currently excludes system
disruption days and the Russell Reconstitution Day from such
calculations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 92150 (June 10,
2021), 86 FR 32090, 32092 (June 16, 2021) (SR-MEMX-2021-07).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\8\ in general, and with
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among its Members and other persons using its facilities
and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is reasonable
and appropriate because, as described above, MSCI Rebalance Days and
S&P Rebalance Days typically have extraordinarily high and/or
abnormally distributed trading volumes which, in turn, may affect a
Member's ability to meet the applicable volume thresholds and/or daily
quoting requirements under its transaction pricing tiers/incentives,
and the Exchange believes that excluding such days from the relevant
calculations for purposes of determining a Member's qualification for
such tiers/incentives would help to avoid penalizing Members that might
otherwise have met the requirements to qualify for such tiers/
incentives due to abnormal market conditions. Additionally, the
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because it will apply to all Members uniformly,
in that each Member's volume and quoting activities for purposes of
pricing tiers/incentives would continue to be calculated in a uniform
manner and would now exclude MSCI Rebalance Days and S&P Rebalance
Days.
    For the reasons discussed above, the Exchange submits that the
proposal satisfies the requirements of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of
the Act \10\ in that it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its Members and other
persons using its facilities and is not designed to unfairly
discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposal will result in any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Rather, as described above, the
proposed change is intended to avoid penalizing Members that might
otherwise have met the applicable volume thresholds and/or quoting
requirements to qualify for the Exchange's transaction pricing tiers/
incentives due to the abnormal trading volumes and market conditions
typically experienced in the equities markets on MSCI Rebalance Days
and S&P Rebalance Days. The Exchange does not believe the proposal
would impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as
the Exchange believes the proposal is not concerned with competitive
issues, but rather relates to calculation methodologies applicable to
its pricing tiers/incentives. Additionally, the Exchange believes the
proposal would not impose any burden on intramarket competition that is
not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act
because, as described above, the proposed exclusion of MSCI Rebalance
Days and S&P Rebalance Days from the relevant calculations will apply
to all Members uniformly and in the same manner that the Exchange
currently excludes system disruption days and the Russell
Reconstitution Day from such calculations.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \11\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \12\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-MEMX-2022-06 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MEMX-2022-06. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change.
    Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or
edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MEMX-2022-06
and should be submitted on or before April 29, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-07467 Filed 4-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 195 (Wednesday, October 8, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 60848]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24024]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9917-65-OARM; EPA-HQ-OA-2014-0113]

National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of Advisory Committee Teleconference.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92463,
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) gives notice of a public
teleconference of the National Advisory Council for Environmental
Policy and Technology (NACEPT). NACEPT provides advice to the EPA
Administrator on a broad range of environmental policy, technology, and
management issues. NACEPT members represent academia, industry, non-
governmental organizations, and local, state, and tribal governments.
The purpose of this committee meeting is for NACEPT to continue
developing sustainability strategies to strengthen the Agency's core
business principles and practices outlined in the FY2014-2018 EPA
Strategic Plan. A copy of the meeting agenda will be posted at http://www2.epa.gov/faca/nacept.

DATES: NACEPT will hold a public teleconference on Monday, November 3,
2014, from 12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the U.S. EPA, William Jefferson
Clinton Federal Building East, 1201 Constitution Ave. NW., Room 1132,
Washington, DC 20004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eugene Green, Acting Designated
Federal Officer<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202) 564-2432, U.S. EPA, Office
of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach (1601M), 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting is open to the public with
limited seating and requests to provide oral and/or written comments to
NACEPT should be sent directly to Eugene Green by Monday, October 27,
2014.
    In addition, members of the public wishing to participate in-person
or via teleconference should follow the same procedure as noted above.
    Accessibility/Accommodations: Individuals with disabilities
requesting reasonable accommodations should submit requests to Eugene
Green at least 10 days in advance of the scheduled meeting.

    Dated: September 29, 2014.
Eugene Green,
Acting Designated Federal Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-24024 Filed 10-7-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 64 (Wednesday, April 3, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 20160]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07713]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69254; File No. SR-CME-2012-34]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc.;
Notice of Withdrawal of Proposed Rule Change Related to the Liquidity
Factor of CME's CDS Margin Methodology

March 28, 2013.
    On December 10, 2012, Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. (``CME'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to make
adjustments to the liquidity risk factor component of its credit
default swap (``CDS'') margin model. The proposed rule change would
permit CME to use an index portfolio's market risk rather than its
gross notional as the basis for determining the margins associated with
the liquidity risk factor of CME's CDS margin methodology. Notice of
the proposed rule change was published in the Federal Register on
December 31, 2012.\3\ The Commission did not receive comments on the
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68529 (Dec. 21, 2012),
77 FR 77160 (Dec. 31, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 14, 2013, the Commission extended the time period in
which to either approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the
proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove the proposed rule change to March 31, 2013.\4\ On March 28,
2013, CME withdrew the proposed rule change (SR-CME-2012-34).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68929 (Feb. 14, 2013),
78 FR 12127 (Feb. 21, 2013).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-07713 Filed 4-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 162 (Monday, August 22, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56475-56477]
[FR Doc No: 2016-20000]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2016-8029; Special Conditions No. 25-634-SC]

Special Conditions: Garmin International, Beechcraft Corporation
Model 400A Airplanes; Airplane Electronic-System Security Protection
From Unauthorized External Access

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Beechcraft
Corporation (Beechcraft) Model 400A airplane. This airplane, as
modified by Garmin International (Garmin), will have a novel or unusual
design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in
the airworthiness standards for transport-category airplanes. These
airplanes will have a digital-systems network architecture composed of
several connected networks that may allow access to or by external
computer systems and networks, and may otherwise result in airplane
electronic-system security vulnerabilities without appropriate
protection. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain
adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These
special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the
Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety
equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: This action is effective on Garmin on August 22, 2016. We must
receive your comments by October 6, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2016-8029
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/ and follow the online instructions for sending
your comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the
docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all
comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the
individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an
association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov/.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of
the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Varun Khanna, FAA, Airplane and Flight
Crew Interface, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA has determined that notice of, and
opportunity for prior public comment on, these special conditions is
impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay
issuance of the design approval and thus delivery of the affected
airplane.
    In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been
subject to the public-comment process in several prior instances with
no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good
cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon
publication in the Federal Register.

Comments Invited

    We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by
sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
    We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for
comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments
we receive.

Background

    On February 13, 2014, Garmin applied for a supplemental type
certificate to allow installation of digital-systems network
architecture, composed of several connected networks that may allow
access to or by external computer systems and networks, in Beechcraft
Model 400A airplanes. The Model 400A airplane is a small, twin-engine,
transport-category airplane with a maximum takeoff weight of 16,300 lbs
and capable of carrying 7 to 9 passengers, plus 2 crew members.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14
CFR) 21.101, Garmin must show that the Beechcraft Model 400A airplane,
as changed, continues to meet the applicable provisions of the
regulations listed in Type Certificate No. A16SW, or the applicable
regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except
for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the Beechcraft Model 400A airplane
because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are
prescribed under the provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the applicant apply for a supplemental type
certificate to modify any other model included on the same type
certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature,
these special conditions would also apply to the other model under
Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Beechcraft Model 400A airplane must comply with the
fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the
noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type
certification basis under Sec.  21.101.

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Beechcraft Model 400A airplanes will incorporate the following
novel or unusual design features:
    The Garmin G5000, installed in the Beechcraft Model 400A airplane,
may add wired and wireless access points to the networks of the
Aircraft Control Domain and Airline Information Services Domain. This
creates a potential for unauthorized persons to access the Aircraft
Control Domain and Airline Information Services Domain, and presents
security vulnerabilities related to the introduction of computer
viruses and worms, user error, and intentional sabotage of airplane
electronic assets (networks, systems, and databases) if not
appropriately protected.

Discussion

    The Garmin G5000 allows connection to airplane electronic systems
and networks, and access from airplane external sources (e.g., operator
networks, wireless devices, Internet connectivity, service-provider
satellite communications, electronic flight bags, etc.) to the
previously isolated airplane electronic assets. Airplane electronic
assets include electronic equipment and systems, instruments, networks,
servers, software and electronic components, field-loadable software
and hardware applications, and databases. This proposed design may
otherwise result in network security vulnerabilities from intentional
or unintentional corruption of data and systems required for the
safety, operation, and maintenance of the airplane if not appropriately
protected. The existing regulations and guidance material did not
anticipate this type of system architecture, or external wired and
wireless electronic access to airplane electronic systems. Furthermore,
regulations, and current system safety-assessment policy and
techniques, do not address potential security vulnerabilities that
could be caused by unauthorized access to airplane electronic systems
and networks.
    These special conditions contain the additional safety standards
that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of
safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness
standards.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
Beechcraft Model 400A airplane. Should Garmin apply at a later date for
a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on
Type Certificate No. A16SW to incorporate the same novel or unusual
design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as
well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability and
affects only the

applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the
airplane.
    The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the
notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been
derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is
unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change
from the substance contained herein. Therefore, because a delay would
significantly affect the certification of the airplane, which is
imminent, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment
are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting
these special conditions upon publication in the Federal Register. The
FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views
that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities
for comment described above.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for Beechcraft Model 400A airplanes
modified by Garmin.
    1. The applicant must ensure that the airplane electronic systems
are protected from access by unauthorized sources external to the
airplane, including those possibly caused by maintenance activity.
    2. The applicant must ensure that electronic system-security
threats are identified and assessed, and that effective electronic
system-security protection strategies are implemented to protect the
airplane from all adverse impacts on safety, functionality, and
continued airworthiness.
    3. The applicant must establish appropriate procedures to allow the
operator to ensure that continued airworthiness of the airplane is
maintained, including all post-type-certification modifications that
may have an impact on the approved electronic system-security
safeguards.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 11, 2016.
Paul Bernado,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-20000 Filed 8-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 175 (Wednesday, September 9, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 55675]
[FR Doc No: 2020-19879]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL20-69-000]

Californians for Renewable Energy (CARE) and Michael E. Boyd v.
California Independent System Operator Corporation, California Public
Utilities Commission, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas &
Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company; Notice of
Complaint

    Take notice that on August 31, 2020, pursuant to sections 206 of
the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e(a), and Rule 206 of the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206, Californians for Renewable Energy and
Michael E. Boyd (Complainants) filed a formal complaint against
California Independent System Operator Corporation, California Public
Utilities Commission, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas &
Electric Company, and Southern California Edison Company (California
Parties or Respondents) alleging that, Respondent's markets for energy
and ancillary services operated by the California Parties are not
workable, and that the prices in those markets are unjust and
unreasonable requiring mitigation as requested, all as more fully
explained in the complaint.
    The Complainant certifies that copies of the complaint were served
on the contacts listed for Respondents in the Commission's list of
Corporate Officials.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. 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://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_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on September 21, 2020.

    Dated: September 1, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-19879 Filed 9-8-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


absolute;font-size:0;left:201pt;top:4149pt;width: 1pt;height: 1pt;background-color:#252321;"><SPAN STYLE="position:absolute;font-size:0;l


EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER

EPA Registration Division contact: Richard Gebken,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4)

Petition Number: 9E8743

	EPA has received a pesticide petition (9E9743) from IR-4, 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton, New Jersey, 08540, proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.613 by amending the tolerance for residues of the insecticide flonicamid and its metabolites and degradates determined by measuring flonicamid [N-(cyanomethyl)-4-(trifluoromethyl)- 3-pyridinecarboxamide] and its metabolites TFNA (4-trifluoromethylnicotinic acid), TFNA-AM (4-trifluoromethyl-nicotinamide), and TFNG [N-(4-trifluoromethylnicotinoyl)glycine], calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of flonicamid in or on the raw agricultural commodity Leafy greens subgroup 4-16A, except spinach at 8.0 parts per million (ppm).

IR-4 is proposing, upon the approval of the aforementioned tolerance, to remove established tolerances for the residues of the insecticide flonicamid and its metabolites and degradates determined by measuring flonicamid [N-(cyanomethyl)-4-(trifluoromethyl)- 3-pyridinecarboxamide] and its metabolites TFNA (4-trifluoromethylnicotinic acid), TFNA-AM (4-trifluoromethyl-nicotinamide), and TFNG [N-(4-trifluoromethylnicotinoyl)glycine], calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of flonicamid in or on the raw agricultural commodity Leafy greens subgroup 4-16A, except spinach at 4.0 parts per million (ppm).

EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

	1. Plant metabolism. Wheat, potato and peach metabolism studies were conducted using [14C]-pyridyl-flonicamid.  The metabolic profile was similar for all three matrices.  The major metabolites for the various crops were:  TFNA in peach, TFNA and TFNG in potato and TFNG in wheat. The metabolism of flonicamid in plants shows the main pathway of metabolism involves hydrolysis of -CN and BCONH2 functional groups in the molecule.  The metabolism of flonicamid in plants is well understood.

	2. Analytical method. Analytical methodology has been developed to determine the residues of flonicamid and its three major plant metabolites, TFNA, TFNG, and TFNA-AM in various crops.   The residue analytical method for the majority of crops includes an initial extraction with acetonitrile (ACN)/deionized (DI) water, followed by a liquid-liquid partition with ethyl acetate.  The residue method for wheat straw is similar, except that a C18 solid phase extraction (SPE) is added prior to the liquid-liquid partition.  The final sample solution is quantitated using a liquid chromatograph (LC) equipped with a reverse phase column and a triple quadruple mass spectrometer (MS/MS).

	3. Magnitude of residues. Residue data were collected on greenhouse-grown lettuce during four field trials. Maximum total residues ranged from 1.81 to 4.13 parts per million (ppm).

B. Toxicological Profile

	1. Acute toxicity.  A battery of acute toxicity studies was conducted which placed flonicamid technical in Toxicity Category III for oral LD50, Category IV for dermal LD50, inhalation LC50, dermal irritation, and eye irritation. Flonicamid technical is not a dermal sensitizer.  In an acute neurotoxicity study, the no observed adverse effect levels (NOAELs) for neurotoxicity were 600 mg/kg in males and 1000 mg/kg in female (highest doses tested).  The systemic NOAELs were 600 mg/kg in males and 300 mg/kg in females.

	2. Genotoxicity.  Flonicamid technical did not cause mutations in the bacterial reverse mutation or mouse lymphoma tests with or without metabolic activation, chromosome damage in the mouse micronucleus or cytogenetics tests with and without metabolic activation, an increase in DNA damage in the comet assay or in an in vivo rat unscheduled DNA synthesis (UDS) study.  Based on the weight of evidence, it is concluded that flonicamid technical is not genotoxic.

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity.  A developmental toxicity study in rats resulted in the maternal and developmental no observed effect levels (NOELs) of 100 mg/kg/day.  The maternal lowest observed effect level (LOEL) was 500 mg/kg/day based on the treatment-related effects observed on the liver and kidney of the dams in the highest dose group.  The developmental lowest observed effect level (LOEL) was 500 mg/kg/day based on incidences of fetal skeletal variations seen only at maternally toxic doses of 500 mg/kg/day.
In the rabbit developmental toxicity study, the maternal and developmental NOELs were 7.5 mg/kg/day and > 25 mg/kg/day (HDT), respectively.  The maternal LOEL was 25 mg/kg/day based on decreased body weights, body weight gains and food consumption.  No adverse effects on the fetuses were observed at the highest dose.
In the multigeneration rat reproduction study, the NOAEL was 50 ppm for parental animals (3.7 and 4.4 mg/kg/day, respectively, for males and females) and 300 ppm for their offspring (22.3 and 26.5 mg/kg/day, respectively, for males and females).  The effects at the highest dose of 1800 ppm included the following: increased kidney weights and gross and histopathological alterations in the kidney.  Findings noted in the top dose females included delayed vaginal opening and increased liver, kidney and spleen weights in the F1 generation and reduced ovary and adrenal weights in the parental generation and decreased uterine weights in the F1 female weanlings.  There was an increase in the FSH and LH levels in F1 females tested for these endpoints.  These findings did not affect the reproductive performance or survival of offspring in the study.

	4. Subchronic toxicity. The no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) for flonicamid technical in the rat 28-day dermal toxicity study was 1000 mg/kg/day, which was the highest dose tested.
In a 90-day rat feeding study the NOAEL was established at 200 ppm (12.11 mg/kg/day) for males and 1000 ppm (72.3 mg/kg/day) for females.  The LOAELs were 1000 ppm (60.0 mg/kg/day) for males and 5000 ppm (340 mg/kg/day) for females based on effects on hematology, triglycerides, and pathology in the liver and kidney.
   In a 13-week mouse study, the NOAEL was 100 ppm (15.25 mg/kg/day in males and 20.1 mg/kg/day in females).  The LOAEL is 1000 ppm (153.9 mg/kg/day in males and 191.5 mg/kg/day in females) based on hematology effects and changes in glucose, creatinine, bilirubin, sodium, chloride and potassium levels, increased liver and spleen weights and histopathology findings in the bone marrow, spleen and kidney.
   In a subchronic toxicity study in dogs with capsule administration, the NOAEL was 8 mg/kg/day in males and 20 mg/kg/day in females based on findings of severe toxicity at a dose exceeding the maximum tolerated dose; symptoms included collapse, prostration and convulsions leading to early sacrifice at the LOAEL of 50 mg/kg/day.
   In a subchronic neurotoxicity study in rats, the NOAEL for dietary administration was 200 ppm for males and 1000 ppm for females (13 mg/kg/day in males and 81 mg/kg/day in females).  The LOAEL was 1000 and 10,000 ppm (67 and 722 mg/kg/day) in males and females, respectively (highest dose tested) based on decreased motor activity, body weight and food consumption effects.

   	5. Chronic toxicity. In the chronic dog study with administration via using capsules, the NOEL was 8 mg/kg/day.  The LOAEL was 20 mg/kg/day based on reduced body weights in females and effects on the circulating red blood cells.

   In a rat 24-month combined chronic and oncogenicity study, flonicamid technical was not carcinogenic in rats.  The NOAEL was 200 ppm (7.32 mg/kg/day) for males and 1000 ppm (44.1 mg/kg/day) for females. The LOAEL was 1000 ppm for males and 5000 ppm for females based on histopathology in the kidney, hematology effects, hepatic effects including changes in biochemical parameters, increased organ weights, and histopathological changes.  Atrophy of striated muscle fibers, cataract and retinal atrophy observed in the high dose females were considered to be due to acceleration of spontaneous age-related lesions.
   In the 18-month mouse study, effects were observed in the lung, liver, spleen and bone marrow at 250 ppm or higher.  Findings included centrilobular hepatocellular hypertrophy, extramedullary hematopoiesis and pigment deposition in the spleen and decreased cellularity (hypocellularity) in the bone marrow.  There were statistically significant increases in the incidence of alveolar/bronchiolar adenomas in both sexes of treated groups with hyperplasia/hypertrophy of epithelial cells in terminal bronchioles.  There was a statistically significant increase in the incidence of alveolar/bronchiolar carcinomas in males at 750 ppm and 2250 ppm and in females at 2250 ppm only.  These effects in the lungs of mice were not life threatening as most of effects were observed at the terminal sacrifice and there was no effect of treatment on mortality in the study.  A no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) could not be determined from the dose levels administered.  Mechanism-of-action studies have indicated that the lung effects are unique to the mouse and are not likely to translate to other species including the rat.  A second 18-month mouse study was conducted in CD-1 mice at dose levels ranging from 10 to 250 ppm to establish a NOAEL for hyperplasia/hypertrophy of epithelial cells in terminal bronchioles and for the incidence of alveolar/bronchiolar adenomas and carcinomas in both sexes.  There was a statistically significant increase in the incidence of alveolar/bronchiolar adenomas in males at 250 ppm.   In females, there was no statistically significant increase in the incidence of pulmonary neoplastic lesions at any dose level.  The incidence of hyperplasia/hypertrophy of epithelial cells lining the terminal bronchioles of the lungs was statistically increase at 250 ppm in both sexes.  There were no treatment-related increases in neoplastic or non-neoplastic lesions at dose levels of 80 ppm or lower in either sex.  The NOAELs were 10.0 and 11.8 mg/kg body weight/day for males and females, respectively.  This study confirmed a threshold for these effects at 80 ppm.  Flonicamid technical was not carcinogenic in the rat.

   	6. Animal metabolism. Rat, goat and poultry metabolism studies were conducted using [[14]C]-pyridyl-flonicamid.  The majority of the dose was rapidly excreted.  Flonicamid was a major component of rat urine 48 hours after dosing.  TFNA-AM was the major metabolite found in rats (urine), goats (milk and tissues) and in laying hens (tissues and eggs).  TFNG was found between 8 - 24% of the total radioactive residue (TRR) in the livers of rats sacrificed at intervals between 0.5 - 6 hours after dosing.  The liver samples at these time intervals had [14]C-residues of 2.3% - 4.6% of the dose.  TFNA was not a major component in animal tissues.  The metabolism of flonicamid in animals shows the main pathway of metabolism involves hydrolysis of -CN and -CONH2 functional groups in the molecule, identical to plant metabolism.  The main metabolic reactions were hydrolysis of cyano to the amide function and ring hydroxylation.  In rats flonicamid was further metabolized by several routes, including nitrile hydrolysis, amide hydrolysis, N-oxidation, and hydroxylation of the pyridine ring, leading to multiple metabolites. The metabolism of flonicamid in animals is well understood.

   	7. Metabolite toxicology. The main metabolites of flonicamid were examined in acute oral toxicity studies in rats and bacterial reverse mutation tests.  All the metabolites were less toxic than flonicamid and not mutagenic.

   	8. Endocrine disruption.  No special studies investigating potential estrogenic or other endocrine effects of flonicamid have been conducted.  Some suggestions of possible endocrine effects were reported at the highest dose tested (1800 ppm) in the multi-generation reproduction study which showed increased FSH and LH levels, a delay in the time to vaginal opening in the F1 generation, and reduced ovary and adrenal weights in the parental generation.  However, there were no effects on reproductive performance or survival of the offspring in the study.  At levels that are expected to be found in the environment, flonicamid will not cause any endocrine-related effects.

C. Aggregate Exposure.

   	1. Dietary exposure
   	i. Food.

   Tier 1 chronic dietary exposure assessments on flonicamid were conducted using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID (TM), Version 2.14), which uses food consumption data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Continuing Surveys of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSF II) from 1994-1996 and 1998.  Overall dietary exposure to flonicamid was expressed in mg/kg/day and was calculated as a percent of Chronic Population Adjusted Dose (cPAD).

   The proposed tolerance for residues of flonicamid representing Sunflower subgroup 20B (0.7 ppm) was incorporated into the DEEM-FCID residue file for dietary exposure assessment.

   The Chronic Reference Dose (cRfD) was established at 0.04 mg/kg/day. The cRfD was based on a 2-generation reproduction rat study with a NOAEL of 3.7 mg/kg/day. The uncertainty factor of 100 was applied to the NOAEL to derive cRfD.  The cPAD is equivalent to the cRfD of 0.04 mg/kg/day (FQPA SF = 1).

   	ii. Drinking water.

   A Tier II drinking water assessment was conducted to represent drinking water exposure (SCI-GROW2 for groundwater and PRZM/EXAMS for surface water).  The maximum chronic Estimated Environmental Concentration (EEC) from PRZM/EXAMS was 1.5 ppb, derived from the ME potato and CA lettuce standard EPA scenarios (see "Flonicamid: Human health risk assessment for proposed uses on root vegetables (except sugarbeet; Subgroup 1B), tuberous corm vegetables (subgroup 1C), leafy Brassica green vegetables (subgroup 5B), turnip greens, hops and okra. PC Code: 128016, Petition No: 6E7081, DP Barcode: D347805.  December 21, 2007").  Using the Tier 1 screening model SCI-GROW2, the ground water EEC for flonicamid was 0.00132 ppb, which was considered appropriate for chronic EEC.  To be protective of all drinking water systems, the predicted chronic EEC for surface water (1.5 ppb) was incorporated in the DEEM dietary assessment modeling.

	2. Non-dietary exposure.  Based upon the product label, EPA assumes that the proposed food-use sites are commercial in nature, and that the applications on landscape ornamentals would only be made by professional pest control operators.  Therefore, residential handler scenarios are not expected and need not be assessed.  Flonicamid label language should preclude use by non-professionals (e.g., homeowners), particularly regarding landscape ornamentals.

D. Cumulative Effects.

        The 2016 EPA assessment (refer to Section C) was conducted for food and water exposure only.  There are no expected long-term residential exposures.  Because drinking water estimates have been combined with dietary exposures, the dietary assessment serves as the aggregate exposure and risk assessment for flonicamid.  The addition of the proposed uses is not expected to change the nature of the aggregate assessment.  Because aggregated food and drinking water exposures from this conservative Tier I assessment for the most highly exposed population subgroup (Children 1-2 years old) only amount to 66.5% of the cPAD, exposure to flonicamid from the all current and proposed uses should not exceed HED's level of concern.

E. Safety Determination.

       1. U.S. population.  Using the conservative Tier 1 assumptions described in Section C., based on the completeness and reliability of the toxicology data, it is estimated that the chronic dietary exposure (food plus drinking water) at the 95[th] percentile general U.S. population comprises 26.1% of the cPAD.  These conservative estimates include exposure to flonicamid from tolerance-level residues representing the proposed uses.  The EPA generally has no concern for exposures below 100% of the Population Adjusted Dose (aPAD/cPAD) because it represents the level at or below which daily aggregate dietary exposure over a lifetime will not pose any unacceptable risks to human health.  It is concluded that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to residues of flonicamid, including all anticipated dietary exposure.

   2. Infants and children.  The FQPA safety factor was set at 1 to derive the cPAD (i.e. 0.04 mg/kg/day) for chronic dietary risk assessment to infants and children as well as adults.  Using the conservative Tier 1 assumptions described in Section C and based on the completeness and reliability of the toxicology data, it is estimated that the chronic dietary exposure (food plus drinking water) at the 95[th] percentile for the most sensitive sub-population (Children 1-2 years old) comprises 66.5% of the cPAD.  The risk from incorporating the proposed tolerances into the dietary risk assessment increased the cPAD by less than 2% for the most sensitive population subgroup (Children 1-2 years old).

Based on the above information, there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants, children, or adults from dietary (food plus drinking water) exposure to flonicamid residues from the proposed uses, as well as all other existing flonicamid-treated human dietary food sources.

F. International Tolerances

Canada has established MRLs for flonicamid and its metabolites on Brassica (cole) leafy vegetables, cucurbit vegetables, fruiting vegetables, leafy vegetables (excluding Brassica), hop, tuberous and corm vegetables, root vegetables (excluding sugar beets), pome fruit, stone fruit, alfalfa grown for seed, mint (spearmint, peppermint), greenhouse cucumbers, greenhouse tomatoes, greenhouse peppers, low growing berries, radish tops, turnip greens, hops, and resulting secondary residues in meat, milk, poultry and eggs.

Mexican residue limits for flonicamid and its metabolites align with those established by US EPA. Codex MRL have been established for celery, cherries, cotton seed, fruiting vegetables, cucurbit vegetables, hops, lettuce (head and leaf), low growing berries, mint, stone fruits, pecans, radish, radish leaves, and spinach.


Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US

03/11/2008 10:46 AM

To

<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> cc

Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject

NAM and exposure/risk comment/responses

Here they are.

----- Forwarded by Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US on 03/11/2008 10:45 AM -----

Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/US

03/11/2008 10:38 AM

To

Wegman Lydia@EPA

cc

Harvey Richmond/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

NAM and exposure/risk comment/responses

Karen Martin, Ph.D.

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

U.S. EPA (C504-06)

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 215 (Tuesday, November 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 66602]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27017]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14154-001-Idaho]

Mr. William Arkoosh; Notice of Availability of Environmental
Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations, 18 CFR Part
380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47,897), the Office of Energy Projects has
reviewed the application for an original license to construct the
Little Wood River Ranch II Hydropower Project, and has prepared an
Environmental Assessment (EA). The proposed 1.23-megawatt project would
be located on the Little Wood River, six miles west of the Town of
Shoshone, in Lincoln County, Idaho. The project would be located on
119.1 acres of private land and would occupy 3.3 acres of federal lands
managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management.
    The EA includes staff's analysis of the potential environmental
impacts of the project and concludes that licensing the project, with
appropriate environmental measures, would not constitute a major
federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human
environment.
    A copy of the EA is available for review at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
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. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-866-208-
3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please contact Jennifer Harper by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
if you have any questions.

    Dated: October 25, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-27017 Filed 11-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 223 (Wednesday, November 18, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73549-73550]
[FR Doc No: 2020-25383]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90402; File No. SR-ICEEU-2020-014]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating
to Amendments to the ICE Clear Europe Delivery Procedures

November 12, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 6, 2020, ICE Clear Europe Limited (``ICE Clear Europe'' or
the ``Clearing House'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule changes described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been primarily prepared by
ICE Clear Europe. ICE Clear Europe filed the proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4)(ii)
\4\ thereunder, such that the proposed rule change was immediately
effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    The principal purpose of the proposed amendments is for ICE Clear
Europe to amend its Delivery Procedures (the ``Delivery Procedures'')
in connection with the commencement of clearing for certain European
emissions futures contracts and to clarify certain defined terms.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the
meaning specified in the ICE Clear Europe Clearing Rules (the
``Rules'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

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

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

(a) Purpose
    ICE Clear Europe is proposing to amend Part A of its Delivery
Procedures.
    The Clearing House is proposing to amend the definitions of the
terms ``Carbon Emissions Allowance'' or ``EUA'' to provide that such
terms include allowances that are valid for determining compliance with
emission limitations commitments during the period starting from 1
January 2021, with respect to the ICE Futures EUA Phase 4 Daily Futures
Contract (the ``EUA Phase 4 Contract'') only, which is a new contract
expected to be listed for trading by ICE Futures Europe. Other
amendments to those definitions would remove unnecessary words for
conciseness.
    Other amendments to Part A would simplify the drafting to state
that Part A applies to all ICE Deliverable EU Emissions Contracts which
go to physical delivery on the expiry date (``ICE Deliverable EU
Emissions Contracts''), rather than reference such contracts
individually. In Part A of the Delivery Procedures, the new defined
term ``ICE Deliverable EU Emissions Contracts'' would be introduced in
lieu of naming the following separate contracts: ICE Futures EUA
Futures Contract, ICE Futures EUA Daily Futures Contract, ICE Futures
EUA Auction Contract, ICE Futures EUAA Futures Contract, ICE Futures
EUAA Auction Contract, ICE Futures CER Futures Contract and ICE Futures
CER Futures Daily Contract. These changes would be general drafting
clarifications and improvements for improved readability and
conciseness, and would not affect the substance of the Delivery
Procedures.
(b) Statutory Basis
    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \6\ requires, among other things,
that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt
and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and,
to the extent applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and
transactions, the safeguarding of securities and funds in the custody
or control of the clearing agency or for which it is responsible, and
the protection of investors and the public interest. The proposed
amendments are designed to incorporate the new EUA Phase 4 Contracts
into the existing Delivery Procedures, in a manner that is similar to
other EU emissions contracts and supported by ICE Clear Europe's
existing financial resources, risk management, systems and operational
arrangements. ICE Clear Europe believes that its financial resources,
risk management, systems and operational arrangements are sufficient to
support clearing of such contract (and to address physical delivery
under such contract) and to manage the risks associated with such
contract. As a result, in ICE Clear Europe's view, the amendments would
be consistent with the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
the EUA Phase 4 Contract (as well as the existing cleared contracts),
and the protection of investors and the public interest consistent with
the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\7\ (In ICE Clear
Europe's view, the amendments would not affect the safeguarding of
funds or securities in the custody or control of the clearing agency or
for which it is responsible, within the meaning of Section
17A(b)(3)(F).\8\)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, Rule 17Ad-22(e)(10) \9\ requires that each covered
clearing agency establish and maintain transparent written standards
that state its obligations with respect to the delivery of physical
instruments, and establish and maintain operational practices that
identify, monitor and manage the risks associated with such physical
deliveries. As discussed above, the amendments would incorporate into
the existing Delivery Procedures the new EUA Phase 4 Contract, in a
manner similar to other EU emissions contracts and supported by ICE
Clear Europe's existing financial resources, risk management, systems
and operational arrangements. The amendments would also simplify and
clarify the application of the existing Delivery Procedures to the
other ICE Futures Europe EU emissions contracts. As a result, ICE Clear
Europe believes the amendments are consistent with the requirements of
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(10).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(10).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    ICE Clear Europe does not believe the proposed rule changes would
have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The changes are
being proposed in order to update the Delivery Procedures in connection
with the incorporation into the existing

Delivery Procedures of the new EUA Phase 4 Contract and to provide
general drafting clarifications and improvements for improved
readability and conciseness. ICE Clear Europe believes that the new EUA
Phase 4 Contracts would provide opportunities for interested market
participants to engage in trading activity in this market. ICE Clear
Europe does not believe the amendments would adversely affect
competition among Clearing Members, materially affect the cost of
clearing, adversely affect access to clearing in the new contracts for
Clearing Members or their customers, or otherwise adversely affect
competition in clearing services. Accordingly, ICE Clear Europe does
not believe that the amendments would impose any impact or burden on
competition that is not appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of
the Act.

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments relating to the proposed amendments have not been
solicited or received by ICE Clear Europe. ICE Clear Europe will notify
the Commission of any comments received with respect to the proposed
amendments.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \12\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml) or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ICEEU-2020-014 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICEEU-2020-014. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filings will also be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of ICE Clear Europe and on ICE
Clear Europe's website at https://www.theice.com/notices/Notices.shtml?regulatoryFilings.
    All comments received will be posted without change. Persons
submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit
personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICEEU-2020-014 and should be
submitted on or before December 9, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-25383 Filed 11-17-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 182 (Thursday, September 23, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52933-52937]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20554]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 4-757; Release No. 93051/September 17, 2021]

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

    In the Matter of: Joint Industry Plan; Order Approving, as
Modified, a National Market System Plan Regarding Consolidated
Equity Market Data.

Order Denying Stay

    On August 6, 2021, the Commission issued Joint Industry Plan; Order
Approving, as Modified, a National Market System Plan Regarding
Consolidated Equity Market Data, Release, No. 34-92586 (the ``CT Plan
Order''). It was published five days later in the Federal Register. See
86 FR 44,142 (Aug. 11, 2021). Later that month, The Nasdaq Stock Market
LLC, Nasdaq BX, Inc., Nasdaq PHLX LLC,

New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE American LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc., NYSE
Chicago, Inc., NYSE National, Inc., Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc., Cboe BZX
Exchange, Inc., Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc., Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc., and
Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``exchanges'') filed with the Commission a
motion to stay the effect of the CT Plan Order pending final resolution
of their petitions for review filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the D.C. Circuit that challenge the CT Plan Order and the Order
Directing the Exchanges and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority
to Submit a New National Market System Plan Regarding Consolidated
Equity Market Data, Release No. 88827, 85 FR 28,702 (May 13, 2020) (the
``NMS Governance Order'').\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Petitioners filed a stay motion with the Commission dated
August 19, 2021. Due to an administrative oversight, Commission
staff did not learn of the filing and bring it to the Commissioners'
attention until three weeks later. The Commission has issued this
order expeditiously after becoming aware of the filing and, in any
event, well within ``a reasonable period'' under Section 25(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 25(c)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act'') and Section 705 of the Administrative Procedure Act,
the Commission has discretion to stay the CT Plan Order. See 15 U.S.C.
78y(c)(2); 5 U.S.C. 705. As discussed below, however, the exchanges
have not met their burden to demonstrate that a stay of the CT Plan
Order is appropriate. Accordingly, the exchanges' stay motion is
denied.
    1. Staying a final agency action pending review is an
``extraordinary remedy.'' 85 FR 36,921, 36,921 (June 18, 2020)
(Commission order denying stay of NMS Governance Order). The Commission
has discretion to grant a stay of its rules pending judicial review if
it finds that ``justice so requires.'' 15 U.S.C. 78y(c)(2); 5 U.S.C.
705. Traditionally, the Commission uses ``the familiar four-factor
framework'' when considering whether a stay during litigation is
appropriate:
    Whether there is a strong likelihood that a party will succeed on
the merits in a proceeding challenging the particular Commission action
(or, if the other factors strongly favor a stay, that there is a
substantial case on the merits);
    whether the issuance of a stay would likely serve the public
interest;
    whether there would be substantial harm to any person if the stay
were granted; and
    whether, without a stay, a party will suffer imminent, irreparable
injury. In re Am. Petroleum Inst., Release No. 68197, 2012 WL 5462858,
at *2 (Nov. 8, 2012); see Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434-35 (2009)
(noting that the harm-to-others factor and the public-interest factor
``merge when the Government is the opposing party'').
    2. The exchanges have not met their burden to demonstrate a
likelihood of success on the merits. The Commission has previously
addressed the three arguments the exchanges make, not only in the CT
Order itself, but also in denying a stay of the NMS Governance Order
and in the prior litigation challenging that order. None has merit.
    First, the exchanges state that the CT Plan Order ``unlawfully
vests representatives of [non-self-regulatory organizations, or non-
SROs] with voting power on the plan's operating committee,'' Mot. 5,
because, in their view, SROs--and only SROs--may have voting power on a
national market system operating committee. This argument
misunderstands the statutory scheme and the Commission's authority.
Section 11A(a)(2) directs the Commission to use its authority under the
Exchange Act to facilitate the establishment of the national market
system in accordance with and in furtherance of Congress's specific
findings and objectives. One of Congress's express objectives in
Section 11A(a)(1) is to assure the availability to brokers, dealers,
and investors of information with respect to quotations for and
transactions in securities. See 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1)(C). And Congress
expressly authorized the Commission in Section 11A(c)(1)(B) to
prescribe rules ``to assure the prompt, accurate, reliable, and fair
collection, processing, distribution, and publication of information
with respect to quotations for and transactions in'' NMS securities.
Id. Sec.  78k-1(c)(1)(B). Section 11A(a)(3) grants the Commission
additional authority, including ``to authorize or require self-
regulatory organizations to act jointly'' with respect to ``matters as
to which they share authority under this chapter in planning,
developing, operating, or regulating a national market system.'' Id.
Sec.  78k-1(a)(3)(B); see also 17 CFR 242.608(a). Pursuant to its
authority under Section 11A, as the CT Plan Order explained, the
Commission may permit or require the operating committee to include
voting rights for non-SROs. See 86 FR at 44,156-58.
    Against this backdrop, the exchanges insist that Section
11A(a)(3)(B) forecloses the Commission from extending voting power to
representatives of non-SROs. But nothing in the text of that provision
constrains the manner in which the Commission can regulate the
operating committee. Section 11A(a)(3)(B) authorizes the Commission to
require the SROs to act ``jointly'' in furtherance of Section 11A's
goals--which the CT Plan Order does. It does not provide that the
Commission can only include the SROs in its regulation of the national
market system or indicate that acting ``jointly'' means acting
``jointly and exclusively.'' CT Plan Order, 86 FR at 44,157.
    Indeed, here the Commission is requiring joint action with respect
to the planning, development, and operation of a national market system
plan governing dissemination of consolidated equity market data to
further the goals of Section 11A(c). That provision tasks the
Commission with prescribing rules to ensure ``the prompt, accurate,
reliable, and fair collection, processing, distribution, and
publication of information with respect to quotations for and
transactions in securities and the fairness and usefulness of the form
and content of such information,'' and expressly contemplates the
involvement of non-SROs in that process. See 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(c)(1).
Moreover, as the CT Plan Order stated, ``an operating committee that
takes into account views from non-SRO members that are charged with
carrying out the objectives of the CT Plan will have an overall
improved governance structure that better supports those goals, because
it will reflect a more diverse set of perspectives from a range of
market participants, including significant subscribers of SIP core data
products.'' 86 FR at 44,157.
    Relying on the expressio unius canon, the exchanges claim that
Section 11A's reference to the Commission's ability to order SROs to
``act jointly'' categorically precludes the Commission from allowing
any non-SRO entity to participate in plan governance. Mot. 6-7. But,
given the express contemplation of the involvement of non-SROs in the
dissemination of national market system data elsewhere in Section 11A,
see 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(c)(1), this reference to joint SRO action does not
preclude their inclusion. Section 11A's text, structure, and history
demonstrate Congress's intent to provide the Commission with
flexibility in carrying out the enumerated statutory goals. And
granting non-SROs voting power is consistent with Section 11A for the
reasons discussed above.
    Nor is the Commission expanding its authority to regulate entities
over which it does not otherwise have authority. Instead, the CT Plan
Order requires the plan operating committee to include non-SROs. Any
specific non-SRO selected to be on an operating

committee can choose to participate or not.
    The exchanges likewise err in arguing that ``Section 11A's
reference to `self-regulatory organizations' would be entirely
superfluous if . . . the statute does not in fact limit the
Commission's `act jointly' authority to SROs alone.'' Mot. 8. As the CT
Plan Order explained, in granting the Commission broad powers, Congress
was cognizant of how doing so could raise antitrust concerns. The
provision allowing or requiring SROs to ``act jointly'' enables the
Commission to require joint activity that otherwise might raise
antitrust concerns. 86 FR at 44,157-58 & n.242; see Brief for NYSE
Group, Inc. as Amicus Curiae, 2007 WL 173673, at *8, in Credit Suisse
Sec. (USA) LLC v. Billing, 551 U.S. 264 (2007) (NYSE previously
acknowledging that the Exchange Act ``enables the Commission to require
joint activity that otherwise might be asserted to have an impact on
competition, where the activity serves the public interest and the
interests of investors''). And even if Section 11A's grant of authority
to permit or require SROs to act jointly could be read as superfluous
or redundant of other Commission authority to oversee SROs, Congress's
decision to remove any doubt that the Commission may authorize joint
action by SROs cannot fairly be read as a conscious choice to limit the
Commission's ability to require non-SRO participation.
    The exchanges are on no firmer ground in arguing that, ``even if
the Exchange Act did not foreclose the Commission's effort to grant
voting power to representatives of non-SROs, Rule 608 ``plainly'' does.
Mot. 9. Rule 608 implements Section 11A(a)(3)(B), authorizing joint
action in the creation, operation, and implementation of national
market system plans. Specifically, it provides that ``[a]ny two or more
self-regulatory organizations, acting jointly, may file a national
market system plan'' and that ``[s]elf-regulatory organizations are
authorized to act jointly in'' ``[p]lanning, developing, and operating
any national market subsystem or facility contemplated by a national
market system plan,'' ``[p]reparing and filing a national market system
plan,'' and ``[i]mplementing or administering an effective national
market system plan.'' 17 CFR 242.608(a). Nothing in the rule, which
authorizes the SROs to act jointly, limits the Commission's ability to
extend voting right to non-SROs under the Commission's Section 11A
authority. To ``act jointly'' means to act together or cooperatively.
There is no indication that in using the same phrase as in Section 11A
the Commission intended to attribute a different meaning to that phrase
or to constrain its own discretion in achieving Section 11A's goals.
    Nor does the exchanges' reference (Mot. 6) to a remark at oral
argument in the prior litigation regarding the NMS Governance Order
satisfy their burden to show that they now have a likelihood of success
on the merits. See In re Adelphia Commc'ns Corp., 336 B.R. 610, 636
n.44 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2006) (``Thoughts voiced by judges in oral
argument do not always find their way into final decisions, often
intentionally and for good reason.''), aff'd, 342 B.R. 122 (S.D.N.Y.
2006); Bd. of Trade of City of Chicago v. SEC, 883 F.2d 525, 530 (7th
Cir. 1989) (``Comments by Commissioners during a meeting are no more
the `decision' of the Commission than comments by judges of this court
during oral argument are our opinion or judgment.'').
    Second, the exchanges contend that ``the CT Plan Order
impermissibly allocates operating committee votes to `exchange
groups'--rather than to each individual affiliated exchange--with each
group limited to a maximum of two votes, no matter the number of
exchanges in the group,'' which under the exchanges' view gives too
much power to non-SROs and also disadvantages affiliated SROs. Mot. 10.
The Commission in the CT Plan Order, just as it did in the NMS
Governance Order, thoroughly considered and rejected that argument.
E.g., CT Plan Order, 86 FR at 44,163-65. The ``proposed allocation of
votes to Non-SRO Voting Representatives will provide the Non-SRO Voting
Representatives a meaningful presence and opportunity to vote on
Operating Committee matters, while assuring that their voting power
does not equal or exceed that of the SRO Voting Representatives.'' Id.
at 44,165. Under this structure, SROs will control two-thirds of the
votes on the new plan operating committee and can collectively govern
the plan without a single vote from a voting member that is not a self-
regulatory organization.
    The exchanges assert that it is improper to take into account
corporate affiliations of the exchanges when deciding how votes should
be allocated on the operating committee. Mot. 11. But as the Commission
explained in the CT Plan Order, that argument fails for several
reasons. ``Sometimes, the Commission treats affiliated entities
independently,'' while ``[o]ther times, the Commission takes into
account corporate relationships when deciding how to regulate.'' 86 FR
at 44,164 (citing examples). Here, ``[b]ecause of the concentrated
power affiliated SROs exert in the governance structure of consolidated
equity market data, as demonstrated by the indisputable fact that
affiliated SROs vote as blocs, the Commission has determined that
affiliated exchanges under common management and control should be
treated as one SRO Group limited to one vote, or at most two votes, in
the context of NMS plan governance.'' Id.
    Third, the exchanges assert that the CT Plan Order ``arbitrarily
and capriciously requires that the administrator of the CT Plan be
`independent.' '' Mot. 11. But the Commission acted reasonably in
finding that the new plan's administrator should not at the same time
offer for sale its own proprietary data products because such an entity
would have access to confidential information as administrator that
would benefit its proprietary data business. The exchanges claim that
the Commission did not adequately demonstrate that current
administrators have ``misused customer audit data or that the
combination of existing safeguards and the new confidentiality measures
imposed by the CT Plan Order will be insufficient to eliminate that
purported risk.'' Id. at 12. But the exchanges do not dispute the
existence of this conflict of interest, or that such information is
sensitive and commercially valuable. Further, as explained in the CT
Plan Order, the Commission has ``provided evidence of problems in the
current Administrator framework for the existing Equity Data Plans.''
CT Plan Order, 86 FR at 44,195. Moreover, ``the conflicts of interest
faced by a non-independent Administrator are so great that these
conflicts cannot be sufficiently mitigated by policies and procedures
alone.'' Id. And the exchanges' concerns about costs were similarly
addressed and rejected in the CT Plan Order. Id. at 44,196-97.
    3. The CT Plan Order serves a strong public interest. The
governance model for the Equity Data Plans was established in 1970s.
Since then, critical developments in the equities markets--including
the heightening of an inherent conflict of interest between the for-
profit and regulatory roles of the exchanges and the concentration of
voting power in the Equity Data Plans among a few large exchange
groups--have demonstrated the need for an updated governance model. See
CT Plan Order, 86 FR at 44,142. The public interest will be served by
the enhanced decisionmaking and potential for innovation in the
provision of equity market data that will result from the governance
changes compelled by the

CT Plan Order. And the governance of the consolidated data feeds can be
improved by consolidating the three existing, separate Equity Data
Plans into a single New Consolidated Data Plan that will reduce
existing redundancies, inefficiencies, and inconsistencies between and
among the Equity Data Plans. See id.; see also NMS Governance Order, 85
FR at 28,711. Moreover, ``[a]ddressing the issues with the current
governance structure of the Equity Data Plans discussed in [the CT Plan
Order] is a key step in responding to broader concerns about the
consolidated data feeds.'' 86 FR at 44,142. Any further delay in
establishing a new governance structure will impede the achievement of
these benefits, including the Commission's efforts to mitigate the
clear, inherent conflict between the exchanges' commercial interests in
selling proprietary data products and their regulatory obligations to
produce and disseminate consolidated market data. Indeed, the exchanges
nowhere contest that this intractable conflict exists.
    The exchanges state that ``the CT Plan Order will not yield any
immediate benefits for market participants'' because the Commission set
forth an implementation schedule. Mot. 15. That argument could be made
every time any agency adopts any rule or order that does not take
effect immediately, yet a stay in those circumstances remains an
extraordinary remedy. The exchanges also claim that any benefit from
the CT Plan is ``purely speculative,'' id. at 16, but the Commission
determined that the exchanges' inherent conflict affects their
incentives to meaningfully enhance the provision of consolidated data
and concluded that the current governance structure of the Equity Data
Plans is inadequate to respond to these changes or to the evolving
needs of investors and other market participants.
    The exchanges also claim that the operating committee of the CT
Plan may set the fees for core data at the same level or a higher level
than they are now. Mot. 16. That argument, however, is speculative and
the exchanges offer no reason why that unsubstantiated concern warrants
a stay. And that argument is particularly misplaced because the
exchanges themselves will play a major role in setting those fees. In
any event, the CT Plan Order is reasonably designed to improve the
governance of the national market system by, among other things,
addressing the conflict of interest between the exchanges' for-profit
and regulatory roles.
    The exchanges speculate that, if the D.C. Circuit vacates the CT
Plan, there will be market uncertainty regarding the distribution of
core data. Mot. 16-17. But that speculation is insufficient to justify
the extraordinary remedy of a stay, particularly when weighed against
the harms from the delay of efforts to mitigate the undisputed
conflicts of interest faced by the exchanges through their for-profit
and regulatory roles. The Court could act before the CT Plan becomes
operative in August 2022 and, in doing so, confirm the validity of the
plan. And even if the Court were to decide in favor of the exchanges,
the decision may not affect the entirety of the CT Plan. Moreover, the
three Equity Data Plans will not simply cease to exist in August 2022
or automatically lose their ability to fulfill their functions if the
CT Plan Order were vacated.
    The exchanges' contention that vacatur would complicate the
implementation of the Market Data Infrastructure rule, see 86 FR 18,596
(Apr. 9, 2021), is likewise off base. As the Commission has already
made clear, its initiatives to improve the governance and
infrastructure of the national market system are mutually reinforcing
but ``[n]either initiative depends on the other initiative being
implemented before it may take effect.'' Order Denying Stay, Market
Data Infrastructure Rule 5, Release No. 34-91397, (Mar. 24, 2021).
Finally, the exchanges argue that ``a decision invalidating the CT Plan
Order would raise a host of legally complicated and practically fraught
questions about the validity of actions already taken by the CT Plan
and the prospective implications of those actions.'' Mot. 17. That
speculative concern is routinely present any time an agency rule or
order is subject to legal challenge and in this case does not warrant a
stay.
    4. The exchanges' stay request also mischaracterizes the harm that
will result from their compliance with the CT Plan Order. The exchanges
assert that they will incur ``out-of-pocket expenditures'' and devote
``substantial time and effort'' as they work toward implementing the CT
Plan. Mot. 14. But ``ordinary compliance costs are typically
insufficient to constitute irreparable harm,'' Freedom Holdings, Inc.
v. Spitzer, 408 F.3d 112, 115 (2d Cir. 2005), and ``it proves too much
to suggest that `irreparable' injury exists, as a matter of course,
whenever a regulated party seeks preliminarily to enjoin the
implementation of a new regulatory burden,'' California Ass'n of
Private Postsecondary Sch. v. DeVos, 344 F. Supp. 3d 158, 170 (D.D.C.
2018). Otherwise, a regulated party would always suffer cognizable
irreparable harm whenever it faces compliance costs from agency action
while its legal challenge proceeds. The costs of complying with a new
regulatory burden do not qualify as irreparable harm except in
extraordinary circumstances. See Nat'l Lifeline Ass'n v. FCC, No. 18-
1026, 2018 WL 4154794, at *1 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 10, 2018) (stay justified
where implementation of order ``will result in substantial,
unrecoverable losses . . . that may indeed threaten the future
existence of [petitioners'] businesses'' and ``is likely to result in a
major reduction, or outright elimination, of critical
telecommunications services for many tribal residents, which are vital
for day-to-day medical, educational, family care, and other
functions''). Here, the exchanges have made no attempt to offer even an
estimate of their compliance costs or explain the extent to which those
costs may affect their businesses.
    5. Finally, a stay is not warranted under the statutory provision
granting the Commission authority to issue a stay where ``justice so
requires.'' 15 U.S.C. 78y(c)(2). As the Commission has explained, the
traditional four-factor analysis provides ``a useful framework to guide
our consideration'' under the justice-so-requires standard. In re Am.
Petroleum Inst., 2012 WL 5462858, at *2 n.1. As already discussed, the
exchanges have failed to carry their burden to meet the traditional
requirements for a stay. Although the exchanges cite two cases in which
the Commission granted stays under this standard, Mot. 18-19, neither
case involved the Commission's determination that a stay was justified
despite the petitioner's failure to satisfy the traditional four-factor
stay analysis. See In re Rule 610T of Regulation NMS, Release No.
85447, 2019 WL 1424351 (Mar. 28, 2019); In re Motion of Business
Roundtable and the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America
for Stay of Effect of Commission's Facilitating Shareholder Director
Nominations Rules, Release No. 9149, 2010 WL 3862548 (Oct. 4, 2010).
And in this matter, the exchanges cannot meet any of the factors. The
exchanges have not demonstrated that the Commission should grant a stay
even though they cannot meet their burden to show a strong likelihood
of success on the merits, they have not shown that the issuance of a
stay would serve the public interest, and they offer no evidence of
legally cognizable irreparable harm.
    Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to Exchange Act Section
25(c)(2) and Section 705 of the Administrative Procedure Act that the
motion for a stay be denied.

    By the Commission.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-20554 Filed 9-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P