Assessing the Effect of Five Gasoline Properties on Exhaust Emissions from Light-Duty Vehicles certified to Tier-2 Standards

                       Analysis of Data from EPA Phase 3

                                (EPAct/V2/E-89)

                                 Appendix I.1e
                              Final Model Fitting
                       Total Hydrocarbons (THC) (Bag 2)

No. Observations:			832
No. Vehicles:		  		  13   (exclude Odyssey and Sienna)
No. censored measurements:		    0
No. missing measurements:		    0
No. measurements removed:		    0
Model Type:				Mixed model

I.1e.1   Model fitting with respect to the 11-term design model.
Design Model (11-terms):  Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) vs. number of terms in model (p) for all possible models respecting hierarchy.

Design Model (11-terms):  Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) vs. number of terms in model (p) for all possible models respecting hierarchy (CLOSEUP of previous figure).

Design Model (11-terms):  Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) vs. number of terms in model (p) for all possible models respecting hierarchy (CLOSEUP of previous figure).

THC (Bag 2):  Number of terms (p), Goodness-of-fit (BIC) and terms included in the 35 best-fitting candidate models (out of a total of 294 possible models with hierarchy).  (Terms included in models ranked 1-5 comprise the "superset" for final model-fitting).

      Models fit for THC (Bag 2): (all models include an intercept term).
Model Term
                                   Notation
                                     Model

                                   Superset
                                    SM3[1]
                                     etOH
Ze
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                     Arom
Za
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      RVP
Zr
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      T50
Z5
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      T90
Z9
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                 etOH x etOH
ZZee
                                      ---

                                  T50 x T50
ZZ55
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                 etOH x Arom
ZZea
                                      ●
                                      x
                                  etOH x RVP
ZZer
                                      ●
                                      x
                                  etOH x T50
ZZe5
                                      ---

                                  etOH x T90
ZZe9
                                      ●
                                      x

[1] Represents "Superset minus 3," etc.

 THC (Bag 2): Model fitting history, starting with the 10-term superset model.
                                Fit Parameters

                             Test with respect to
                                Previous Model
Model
                                                                              p
-2lnL
BIC[1]

                                                                           Dev.
                                                                              d
                                                                    Pr>χ[2]
Superset
                                                                             10
195.334
226.113

SM3[2]
                                                                              7
201.213
224.297

                                                                          5.879
                                                                              3
                                                                          0.118

[1] A lower value indicates a better fit.
[2] Best fit with respect to the 11-term design model.

THC (Bag 2): Coefficients  and Tests of Effect for the Superset and Reduced Models, with respect to the 11-term design model.

I.1e.2		Model Fitting with respect to the 16-term extended Model.
Extended Model (16-terms):  Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) vs. number of terms in model (p) for all possible models respecting hierarchy.

Extended Model (16-terms):  Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) vs. number of terms in model (p) for subset of models respecting hierarchy (CLOSEUP of previous figure).

 Extended Model (16-terms):  Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) vs. number of terms in model (p) for subset of models respecting hierarchy (CLOSEUP of previous figure).

THC (Bag 2):  Number of terms (p), Goodness-of-fit (BIC) and terms included in the 35 best-fitting candidate models (out of a total of 2,964 possible models with hierarchy).  (Terms included in models ranked 1-5 comprise the "superset" for final model-fitting).

      Models fit for THC (Bag 2): (all models include an intercept term).
Model Term
                                   Notation
                                     Model

                                   Superset
                                    SM1[1]
                                      SM4
                                     etOH
Ze
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                     Arom
Za
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      x
                                      RVP
Zr
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      T50
Z5
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      T90
Z9
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                 etOH x etOH
ZZee
                                      ---

                                  T50 x T50
ZZ55
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                 etOH x Arom
ZZea
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      x
                                  etOH x RVP
ZZer
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                  etOH x T50
ZZe5
                                      ---

                                  etOH x T90
ZZe9
                                      ---

                                  Arom x RVP
ZZar
                                      ---

                                  Arom x T50
ZZa5
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      x
                                  Arom x T90
ZZa9
                                      ---

                                  T50 x T90
ZZ59
                                      ●
                                      x

                                  RVP x T90
ZZr9
                                      ---

[1] denotes "Superset minus 1, etc."

THC (Bag 2): Model fitting history, starting with the 15-term superset model.
                                Fit Parameters

                             Test with respect to
                                Previous Model
Model
                                                                              p
-2lnL
BIC[1]

                                                                           Dev.
                                                                              d
                                                                    Pr>χ[2]
Superset
                                                                             11
190.795
224.139

SM1[2]
                                                                             10
192.466
223.245

                                                                          1.671
                                                                              1
                                                                          0.196
SM4[3]
                                                                              7
203.136
226.220

                                                                         10.670
                                                                              3
                                                                         0.0137

[1] A lower value indicates a better fit.
[2] Best fit with respect to the 16-term extended model.
[3] Fit because the linear term for Aromatics appears insignificant in
The superset model; therefore, dropped aromatics and its interactions.
Test results indicate that these three terms contribute to fit.

THC (Bag 2): Coefficients  and Tests of Effect for the Superset and Reduced Models, with respect to the 16-term extended model.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 21, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 78175]
[FR Doc No: 2022-27652]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-96505; File No. SR-PEARL-2022-47]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX PEARL, LLC; Notice of
Withdrawal of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the MIAX PEARL Options Fee
Schedule To Remove a Monthly Credit Associated With Trading Permit Fees

December 15, 2022.
    On November 2, 2022, MIAX PEARL, LLC (``MIAX Pearl'') 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 remove a monthly credit
associated with trading permit fees. The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on November 14, 2022.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 96249 (November 7,
2022), 87 FR 68217.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 14, 2022, MIAX Pearl withdrew the proposed rule change
(SR-PEARL-2022-47).

For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant
to delegated authority.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-27652 Filed 12-20-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 160 (Monday, August 21, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 39578]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17557]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 6550-004]

Bidden Creek Bores Properties, LLC; JBS Rentals, LLC; Notice of
Transfer of Exemption

    1. By letter filed June 23, 2017, Stephen J. Bores informed the
Commission that the exemption from licensing for the Biber-Spellenberg
Hydro Project No. 6550, originally issued February 14, 1983 \1\ has
been transferred to JBS Rentals, LLC. The project is located on Bidden
Creek in Trinity County, California. The transfer of an exemption does
not require Commission approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Order Granting Exemption from Licensing of a Small
Hydroelectric Project of 5 MW or Less. Frank M. Biber and Steven
Spellenberg, 22 FERC ] 62,182 (1983).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. JBS Rentals, LLC is now the exemptee of the Biber-Spellenberg
Project No. 6550. All correspondence should be forwarded to: Mr. Jeremy
Brown, Owner, P.O. Box 1233, Willow Creek, CA 95573, Phone 530-629-
3100.

    Dated: August 15, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-17557 Filed 8-18-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 140 (Monday, July 24, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 34345]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15415]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81166; File No. SR-IEX-2017-21]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Investors Exchange LLC; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule
Change To Adopt Rule 15.130 To Establish the Procedures for Resolving
Potential Disputes Related to CAT Fees Charged to Industry Members

July 18, 2017.
    On June 6, 2017, the Investors Exchange LLC (``IEX'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'' or ``Exchange Act'')\1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to adopt Rule 15.130
(Consolidated Audit Trail--Fee Dispute Resolution). The proposed rule
change was published for comment in the Federal Register on June 20,
2017.\3\ The Commission received no comment letters on the proposed
rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80936 (June 15, 2017),
82 FR 28153 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act\4\ provides that, within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
Commission is extending this 45-day time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer
period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that
it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change. The
proposed rule change would establish the procedures for resolving
potential disputes related to CAT Fees charged to Industry Members.
    Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\5\ designates September 18, 2017, as the date by which the
Commission should either approve or disapprove or institute proceedings
to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change (File
Number SR-IEX-2017-21).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-15415 Filed 7-21-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 184 (Friday, September 21, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58622-58623]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23336]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA--PHMSA-2012-0137]

Pipeline Safety: Information Collection Activities

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, PHMSA
invites comments on a new information collection (IC) to help determine
the effectiveness of PHMSA's 811 Public Service Announcement (PSA)
campaign. A Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on this information collection was published on
July 5, 2012 (77 FR 39797). No comments were received.

ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding the burden estimate, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, to OMB, Attention: Desk Officer
for PHMSA, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before October 22, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Angela Dow by telephone at 202-366-
1246, by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by

mail at U.S. DOT, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., PHP-30,
Washington, DC 20590-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration 811 Awareness Survey.
    OMB Control Number: Pending.
    Type of Request: New information collection.
    Abstract: PHMSA is conducting a survey of awareness of 811 as the
national ``Call Before You Dig'' toll-free telephone number, the
importance of calling 811 before beginning an excavation project and
the extent to which the newly-released PHMSA PSA is effective in
raising awareness about this topic. This data is necessary to measure
the effectiveness of the PSA campaign and plan future educational and
outreach efforts.
    Affected Public: All.
    Estimated number of responses: 1,000.
    Estimated annual burden hours: 120.
    Frequency of collection: One time collection.
    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the
proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility
and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize
the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including
the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology. A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB
receives it within 30 days of the date of this notice's publication in
the Federal Register.

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

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 18, 2012.
Jeffrey D. Wiese,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2012-23336 Filed 9-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 26 (Monday, February 9, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7052-7054]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02498]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74190; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2015-006]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Modify the List of Securities Eligible for the Select Symbol Program
Under Rule 7018(a)(4)

February 3, 2015.
    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 January 27, 2015, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to modify the list of securities eligible for
the Select Symbol program under Rule 7018(a)(4).
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal office of
the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed

any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these
statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below.
The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C
below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to replace the security
of a company that is eligible for reduced fees under the Select Symbol
program under Rule 7018(a)(4). NASDAQ recently adopted the Select
Symbol program,\3\ which provides lower execution fees for a select
group of securities where access fees may be discouraging the use of
public markets. NASDAQ is implementing the program on February 2, 2015.
Since filing the program with the Commission, one symbol included in
the program no longer exists because the company was acquired by
another company. Specifically, Avanir Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (AVNR) was
recently acquired by Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and was suspended
from trading on NASDAQ on January 14, 2015. Accordingly, NASDAQ is
proposing to replace AVNR with Micron Technology, Inc. (MU), which has
similar off-exchange trading and other attributes as other Select
Symbol securities in the program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73967 (December 30,
2014), 80 FR 594 (January 6, 2015) (SR-NASDAQ-2014-128)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6 of the Act,\4\ in general, and furthers the objectives
of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\5\ in particular, in that it is designed
to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest; and is not designed to
permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers. Specifically, the proposed change furthers these objectives
because it replaces a Select Symbol security that no longer exists with
another security that has similar attributes. Removal of the Select
Symbol security from the program will serve to avoid any investor
confusion concerning trading in a security that no longer exists.
Adding a replacement security to the list of symbols eligible for the
reduced transaction fees of the program ensures that the program has an
adequate number of securities on which the Exchange may gather data as
part of its analysis of the impact of reducing fees on exchange
trading. The Exchange notes that, in selecting the replacement
security, it applied the same eligibility criteria as it did in
selecting the current symbols eligible for the program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.
Specifically, the change does not alter the meaning or application of
the fees and credits provided under Rule 7018(a)(4), but rather affects
only which securities are included in the Select Symbol program. The
Select Symbol program is designed to benefit market quality and
ultimately, price competition among market participants on the
Exchange, and the proposed change to the program furthers those goals.
Accordingly, the proposed change does not place any burden on
competition.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \6\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(ii).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \8\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\9\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that NASDAQ may
remove AVNR from the list of Select Symbols and add MU immediately. The
Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because it will allow NASDAQ to remove a company that no longer exists
from the Select Symbols immediately, and add another company that meets
the same criteria as the other companies in the Select Symbols,
enabling NASDAQ to implement the program with a full complement of
securities. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day
operative delay and designates the proposed rule change to be operative
upon filing with the Commission.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \10\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2015-006 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2015-006. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal offices of the Exchange.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2015-
006, and should be submitted on or before March 2, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-02498 Filed 2-6-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 240 (Friday, December 13, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68236-68239]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26853]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87695; File No. SR-NYSENAT-2019-30]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE National, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its
Schedule of Fees and Rebates

December 9, 2019.
    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 27, 2019, NYSE National, Inc. (``NYSE National'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees and Rebates
(``Fee Schedule'') to eliminate the fees currently charged for MPL
orders that add liquidity on the Exchange and provide that liquidity-
removing orders that execute at prices better than the contra-side NBBO
will not be subject to any fee. The proposed rule change is available
on the Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of
the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to (1) eliminate
the fee currently charged for non-tiered MPL orders adding liquidity in
securities priced at or above $1.00, (2) eliminate the fee currently
charged for liquidity-adding MPL orders in Adding Tiers 1, 2, and 3,
and (3) revise its rates for removing liquidity to provide that
liquidity-removing orders that execute at prices better than the
contra-side NBBO will not be subject to any fee.
    The Exchange proposes to implement the rule change on December 2,
2019.
Background
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. The
Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over
regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services
in the securities markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the
Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining
prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation
of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in promoting
market competition in its broader forms that are most important to
investors and listed companies.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (S7-10-04) (Final Rule) (``Regulation
NMS'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the Commission itself recognized, the market for trading
services in NMS stocks has become ``more fragmented and competitive.''
\4\ Indeed, equity trading is currently dispersed across 13
exchanges,\5\ 31 alternative trading systems,\6\ and numerous broker-
dealer internalizers and wholesalers. Based on publicly-available
information, no single exchange has more than 17% of the market share
of executed volume of equity trades (whether excluding or including
auction volume).\7\ Therefore, no exchange possesses significant
pricing power in the execution of equity order flow. More specifically,
in each of the last three months, the Exchange had approximately 2%
market share of executed volume of equity trades (whether excluding or
including auction volume).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808, 84 FR 5202,
5253 (February 20, 2019) (File No. S7-05-18) (Transaction Fee Pilot
for NMS Stocks Final Rule) (``Transaction Fee Pilot'').
    \5\ See Cboe Global Markets, U.S. Equities Market Volume
Summary, available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/. See generally https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/divisionsmarketregmrexchangesshtml.html.
    \6\ See FINRA ATS Transparency Data, available at https://otctransparency.finra.org/otctransparency/AtsIssueData. Although 54
alternative trading systems were registered with the Commission as
of July 29, 2019, only 31 are currently trading. A list of
alternative trading systems registered with the Commission is
available at https://www.sec.gov/foia/docs/atslist.htm.
    \7\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Equities Market Volume Summary,
available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/.
    \8\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
shift order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain products.
While it is not possible to know a firm's reason for shifting order
flow, the Exchange believes that one such reason is because of fee
changes at any of the registered exchanges or non-exchange trading
venues to which a firm routes order flow. These fees vary month to
month, and not all are publicly available. With respect to non-
marketable order flow that would provide liquidity on an exchange, ETP
Holders can choose from any one of the 13 currently operating
registered exchanges to route such order flow. Accordingly, competitive
forces constrain the Exchange's transaction fees, and market
participants can readily trade on competing venues if they deem

pricing levels at those other venues to be more favorable.
    The Exchange utilizes a ``taker-maker'' or inverted fee model to
attract orders that provide liquidity at the most competitive prices.
Under the taker-maker model, offering rebates for taking liquidity
increases the likelihood that market participants will send orders to
the Exchange to trade with liquidity providers' orders. This increased
taker order flow provides an incentive for market participants to send
orders that provide liquidity. The Exchange generally charges fees for
order flow that provides liquidity. These fees are reasonable due to
the additional marketable interest (in part attracted by the Exchange's
rebate to remove liquidity) with which those order flow providers can
trade.
Proposed Rule Change
    To respond to this competitive environment, the Exchange proposes
to amend its transaction fees as follows.
    First, by eliminating the $0.0010 fee currently applied to non-
tiered MPL orders adding liquidity in securities priced at or above
$1.00. To effect this change, the Exchange proposes to revise the table
in Section C of the Fee Schedule to replace the ``$0.0010 per share''
text with ``No charge'' in the first row under the ``Adding Liquidity''
header. The Exchange's General Rates would otherwise remain the same.
    The Exchange believes that eliminating the per share charge for MPL
orders that add liquidity to the Exchange will incentivize ETP Holders
to route liquidity-providing MPL orders to the Exchange, thereby
attracting liquidity-providing and price improving order flow to the
Exchange and enhancing order execution opportunities, to the benefit of
all ETP Holders seeking to remove liquidity. In addition, by
eliminating this charge in its General Rates, the Exchange believes
that ETP Holders may be more likely to contribute liquidity-adding MPL
order flow even if they do not qualify for an Adding Tier.
    Second, by eliminating the $0.0005 fee currently applied to MPL
orders adding liquidity in Adding Tiers 1, 2, and 3 (as set forth in
Section D.1. of the Fee Schedule). Currently, MPL orders adding
liquidity, on all Tapes, are subject to a $0.0005 fee in Adding Tiers
1, 2, and 3. To effect the proposed change, the Exchange proposes to
revise the table in Section D.1. to replace the current fee of $0.0005
with ``No charge'' in the ``Adding MPL Rate'' column for Adding Tiers
1, 2, and 3. The Exchange's Tiered Rates for Adding Liquidity would
otherwise remain the same.
    The Exchange believes that the elimination of the fee currently
charged for MPL orders adding liquidity at these tiers will encourage
ETP Holders to send additional mid-point liquidity to the Exchange,
thereby enhancing order execution and price improvement opportunities
for ETP Holders seeking to remove liquidity.
    Finally, by amending its rates for removing liquidity to provide
that liquidity-removing orders that execute at prices better than the
contra-side NBBO will not be subject to any fee, across all Removing
Tiers set forth in Section D.2. of the Fee Schedule. Under the
Exchange's current Tiered Rates for Removing Liquidity, as reflected in
Section D.2. of the Fee Schedule, MPL orders removing liquidity receive
a rebate of $0.0002 at Removing Tiers 1, 2, and 3.
    To effect this proposed change, the Exchange proposes to revise the
table in Section D.2. to reflect that all orders removing liquidity
(not just MPL orders) that execute at a price better than the contra-
side NBBO will carry no charge and will not be eligible for a rebate.
The Exchange proposes to revise the header of the third column in the
table in Section D.2. to ``Removing Rate for Orders that Execute at a
Price Better than Contra-Side NBBO'' and replace ``($0.0002)'' with
``No Charge'' as the rate applicable to each Removing Tier in this
column. The remainder of the Removing Rates in this section would
remain unchanged.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change reflects a
reasonable effort to both encourage ETP Holders to route liquidity-
removing order flow to the Exchange and remain consistent with the
Exchange's taker-maker fee model. The Exchange proposes to eliminate
credits available to removing orders that execute at a price better
than the contra-side NBBO because such orders receive the benefit of an
execution at a price superior to the best protected quote in the
national market system (including the Exchange's best protected bid or
offer). As proposed, the tiered rates for such orders would be at no
charge, which remains better than the current General Rate to remove
liquidity, which is $0.0005 per share. The Exchange believes that the
proposed change would continue to promote market quality and execution
opportunities for ETP Holders. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes that
while such orders will not receive a rebate, they also will not be
subject to a fee at any of the Removing Tiers.
    Although the Exchange does not have a full view of ETP Holders'
activity on other markets and off-exchange venues, the Exchange
believes that these changes would be significant enough to incentivize
market participants to direct increased order flow to the Exchange. The
Exchange believes that the changes will encourage ETP Holders to route
additional liquidity to the Exchange and further believes that ETP
Holders are likely to respond by in turn routing more liquidity-
providing order flow to the Exchange.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\9\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ in
particular, because it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and
other persons using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate
between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) & (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposed Change Is Reasonable
    As discussed above, the Exchange operates in a highly fragmented
and competitive market. The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting
market share among the exchanges from month to month demonstrates that
market participants can move order flow, or discontinue or reduce use
of certain categories of products, in response to fee changes. While it
is not possible to know a firm's reason for shifting order flow, the
Exchange believes that one such reason is because of fee changes at any
one of the registered exchanges or non-exchange trading venues that a
firm routes order flow to, which vary month to month, and not all of
which are publicly known. With respect to non-marketable order flow
that would provide liquidity on an Exchange, ETP Holders can choose
from any one of the 13 currently operating registered exchanges to
route such order flow. Accordingly, competitive forces constrain
exchange transaction fees that relate to orders that would provide
liquidity on an exchange.
    Given the current competitive environment, the Exchange believes
that this proposal represents a reasonable attempt to attract
additional order flow to the Exchange. Specifically, the Exchange
believes that eliminating the fees currently charged for both tiered
and non-tiered MPL orders adding liquidity, as described above, is

reasonable because ETP Holders will have an incentive to route
additional liquidity-providing orders to the Exchange without incurring
any transaction fees, thereby providing meaningful liquidity and
increasing the opportunity for contra-side order flow to receive price
improvement. In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed
changes to the Removing Tiers are reasonable because they would promote
execution opportunities for ETP Holders routing order flow to the
Exchange.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal as a whole represents a
reasonable effort to promote price improvement and enhanced order
execution opportunities for ETP Holders. All ETP Holders would benefit
from the greater amounts of liquidity on the Exchange, which would
represent a wider range of execution opportunities.
The Proposal Is an Equitable Allocation of Fees
    The Exchange believes its proposed change equitably allocates its
fees among its market participants. The proposed change would continue
to encourage ETP Holders to both submit additional liquidity to the
Exchange and execute orders on the Exchange, thereby contributing to
robust levels of liquidity, to the benefit of all market participants.
The Exchange believes that eliminating fees in connection with MPL
orders adding liquidity would encourage the submission of additional
liquidity to a national securities exchange, thus enhancing order
execution opportunities for ETP Holders from the substantial amounts of
liquidity present on the Exchange. All ETP Holders seeking to remove
liquidity would benefit from the greater amounts of liquidity that will
be present on the Exchange, which would provide greater execution
opportunities.
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change would also improve
market quality for all market participants seeking to remove liquidity
on the Exchange and, as a consequence, attract more liquidity to the
Exchange, thereby improving market-wide quality. The proposal neither
targets nor will it have a disparate impact on any particular category
of market participant.
    Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposal constitutes
an equitable allocation of fees because all similarly situated ETP
Holders and other market participants would be eligible for the same
general and tiered rates and would be eligible for the same fees and
credits. Moreover, the proposed change is equitable because the revised
fees would apply equally to all similarly situated ETP Holders.
The Proposal Is Not Unfairly Discriminatory
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is not unfairly
discriminatory. In the prevailing competitive environment, ETP Holders
are free to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe that
alternatives offer them better value.
    Moreover, the proposal neither targets nor will it have a disparate
impact on any particular category of market participant. The Exchange
also believes that the proposed change is not unfairly discriminatory
because it is reasonably related to the value to the Exchange's market
quality associated with higher volume at prices more favorable than the
NBBO. The Exchange believes that the proposal does not permit unfair
discrimination because the proposal would be applied to all similarly
situated ETP Holders and all ETP Holders would be subject to the same
rates, and, in this case, benefit from the elimination of fees
previously charged to ETP Holders. Accordingly, no ETP Holder already
operating on the Exchange would be disadvantaged by the proposed
allocation of fees.
    The Exchange further believes that the proposed changes would not
permit unfair discrimination among ETP Holders because the general and
tiered rates are available equally to all ETP Holders. As described
above, in today's competitive marketplace, order flow providers have a
choice of where to direct liquidity-providing order flow, and the
Exchange believes there are additional ETP Holders that could qualify
if they chose to direct their order flow to the Exchange.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant
competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement
regarding the burden on competition.
    For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal
is consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\11\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above, the Exchange believes
that the proposed change would encourage the submission of additional
liquidity and order flow to a public exchange, thereby enhancing order
execution opportunities for ETP Holders. As a result, the Exchange
believes that the proposed change furthers the Commission's goal in
adopting Regulation NMS of fostering competition among orders, which
promotes ``more efficient pricing of individual stocks for all types of
orders, large and small.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \12\ Regulation NMS, 70 FR at 37498-99.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Intramarket Competition. The proposed change is designed to attract
additional order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that its
proposal to eliminate certain fees applying to MPL orders adding
liquidity and apply no charge to liquidity-removing orders that execute
at a price better than the contra-side NBBO would provide additional
incentives for market participants to route orders to the Exchange.
Greater liquidity benefits all market participants on the Exchange by
providing more trading opportunities and encourages ETP Holders to send
orders, thereby contributing to robust levels of liquidity. The
proposed revised fees would be available to all similarly-situated
market participants, and thus, the proposed change would not impose a
disparate burden on competition among market participants on the
Exchange.
    Intermarket Competition. The Exchange operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily choose to
send their orders to other exchanges and off-exchange venues if they
deem fee levels at those other venues to be more favorable. As noted
above, the Exchange's market share of intraday trading was less than 2%
in each of the last three months. In such an environment, the Exchange
must continually adjust its fees and rebates to remain competitive with
other exchanges and off-exchange venues. Because competitors are free
to modify their own fees and credits in response, and because market
participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the
Exchange does not believe its proposed fee change can impose any burden
on intermarket competition.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change could promote
competition between the Exchange and other execution venues, including
those that currently offer similar order types and comparable
transaction pricing, by encouraging additional orders to be sent to the
Exchange for execution.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \13\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \14\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \15\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSENAT-2019-30 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-NYSENAT-2019-30. 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 offices 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-NYSENAT-2019-30, and should be submitted
on or before January 3, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-26853 Filed 12-12-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 121 (Monday, June 24, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29562-29563]
[FR Doc No: 2019-13298]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-549, OMB Control No. 3235-0610]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736.

    Extension: Rule 248.30

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget a request for extension of the previously
approved collection of information discussed below.
    Rule 248.30 (17 CFR 248.30) under Regulation S-P is titled
``Procedures to Safeguard Customer Records and Information; Disposal of
Consumer Report Information.'' Rule 248.30 (the ``safeguard rule'')
requires brokers, dealers, investment companies, and investment
advisers registered with the Commission (``registered investment
advisers'') (collectively ``covered institutions'') to adopt written
policies and procedures for administrative, technical, and physical
safeguards to protect customer records and information. The safeguards
must be reasonably designed to ``insure the security and
confidentiality of customer records and information,'' ``protect
against any anticipated threats or hazards to the security and
integrity'' of those records, and protect against unauthorized access
to or use of those records or information, which ``could result in
substantial harm or inconvenience to any customer.'' The safeguard
rule's requirement that covered institutions' policies and procedures
be documented in writing constitutes a collection of information and
must be maintained on an ongoing basis. This requirement eliminates
uncertainty as to required employee actions to protect customer records
and information and promotes more systematic and organized reviews of
safeguard policies and procedures by institutions. The information
collection also assists the Commission's examination staff in assessing
the existence and adequacy of covered institutions' safeguard policies
and procedures.
    We estimate that as of the end of 2018, there are 3,926 broker-
dealers, 4,095 investment companies, and 13,230 investment advisers
registered with the Commission, for a total of 21,251 covered
institutions. We believe that all of these covered institutions have
already documented their safeguard policies and procedures in writing
and therefore will incur no hourly burdens related to the initial
documentation of policies and procedures.
    Although existing covered institutions would not incur any initial
hourly burden in complying with the safeguards rule, we expect that
newly registered institutions would incur some hourly burdens
associated with documenting their safeguard policies and procedures. We
estimate that approximately 1,350 broker-dealers, investment companies,
or investment advisers register with the Commission annually. However,
we also expect that approximately 55% of these newly registered covered
institutions, or 743 institutions, are affiliated with an existing
covered institution, and will rely on an organization-wide set of
previously documented safeguard policies and procedures created by
their affiliates. We estimate that these affiliated newly registered
covered institutions will incur a significantly reduced hourly burden
in complying with the safeguards rule, as they will need only to review
their affiliate's existing policies and procedures, and identify and
adopt the relevant policies for their business. Therefore, we expect
that newly registered covered institutions with existing affiliates
will incur an hourly burden of approximately 15 hours in identifying
and adopting safeguard policies and procedures for their business, for
a total hourly burden for all affiliated new institutions of 11,145
hours. We expect that half of this time would be incurred by inside
counsel at an hourly rate of $401, and half would be by a compliance
officer at an hourly rate of $352, for a total cost of $4,196,093.
    Finally, we expect that the 607 newly registered entities that are
not affiliated with an existing institution will incur a significantly
higher hourly burden in reviewing and documenting their safeguard
policies and procedures. We expect that virtually all of the newly
registered covered entities that do not

have an affiliate are likely to be small entities and are likely to
have smaller and less complex operations, with a correspondingly
smaller set of safeguard policies and procedures to document, compared
to other larger existing institutions with multiple affiliates. We
estimate that it will take a typical newly registered unaffiliated
institution approximately 60 hours to review, identify, and document
their safeguard policies and procedures, for a total of 36,420 hours
for all newly registered unaffiliated entities. We expect that half of
this time would be incurred by inside counsel at an hourly rate of
$401, and half would be by a compliance officer at an hourly rate of
$352, for a total cost of $13,712,130.
    Therefore, we estimate that the total annual hourly burden
associated with the safeguards rule is 47,565 hours at a total hourly
cost of $17,908,223. We also estimate that all covered institutions
will be respondents each year, for a total of 21,251 respondents.
    These estimates of average burden hours are made solely for the
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid control number. The
safeguard rule does not require the reporting of any information or the
filing of any documents with the Commission. The collection of
information required by the safeguard rule is mandatory.
    The public may view the background documentation for this
information collection at the following website, www.reginfo.gov.
Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to Lindsay.M.
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Charles Riddle, Acting Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Candace
Kenner, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or send an email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days
of this notice.

    Dated: June 18, 2019.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-13298 Filed 6-21-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 16 (Thursday, January 26, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8517-8518]
[FR Doc No: 2017-01781]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #2

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

    Docket Numbers: ER14-649-005.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Entergy
Services, Inc.
    Description: Report Filing: 2017-01-19_Entergy Refund Report
pursuant to 9/28/2016 Order on Settlement to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 1/19/17.
    Accession Number: 20170119-5053.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/9/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-559-001.
    Applicants: Mid-Atlantic Interstate Transmission, LLC, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to MAIT Agency Agreement
No. 4593 among MetEd, Penelec and MAIT to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 1/19/17.
    Accession Number: 20170119-5097.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/9/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-818-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of
Original Service Agreement No. 3386, Queue No. W2-022 to be effective
1/16/2017.
    Filed Date: 1/19/17.
    Accession Number: 20170119-5095.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/9/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-819-000.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Rate Schedule No. 33--WAPA
Triangle Agreement, Exhibit A Revision No. 51 to be effective 3/22/
2017.
    Filed Date: 1/19/17.
    Accession Number: 20170119-5109.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/9/17.

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

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

    Dated: January 19, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-01781 Filed 1-25-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 27, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 227)]
[Notices]
[Page 66214-66216]
[DOCID:fr27no07-127]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56819; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2007-115]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Rule 6.87--Obvious Error

November 19, 2007.
    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 8, 2007, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Rule 6.87 governing
obvious errors. Specifically, the Exchange proposes a revised review
procedure for contesting decisions made pursuant to the options obvious
error rule. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the
Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and http://www.nyse.com
.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Rule 6.87 governing
options obvious errors. Specifically, the Exchange proposes a revised
review procedure for contesting decisions made pursuant to the obvious
error rule. Currently, NYSE Arca Rule 6.87 provides that the Exchange
will determine whether an ``Obvious Error'' \3\ has occurred after a
market maker believes and notifies the Exchange that it participated in
a transaction that was the result of an Obvious Error. If the Exchange
believes that an Obvious Error has occurred, the Exchange will take one
of the following actions depending on the parties to the trade: (1)
Adjust the price with an adjustment; (2) bust the trade; or (3) adjust
the trade without an adjustment penalty. Currently, if a party does not
agree with the action taken by the Exchange, the party may appeal the
decision to the Exchange's Board of Directors (``Board'') pursuant to
NYSE Arca Rule 10.14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Obvious Error'' is defined in NYSE Arca Rule 6.87(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.87 by removing the Board
appeal process pursuant to Rule 10.14 and replacing it with a revised
appeal process. Proposed NYSE Arca Rule 6.87 would permit a party
affected by the determination of an Obvious Error to request an appeal
to the Obvious Error Panel (``OE Panel'') to review the determination
made by the Exchange's representative pursuant to Rule 6.87(a)(3). The
OE Panel would be comprised of the NYSE Arca Chief Regulatory Officer
(``CRO''), or a designee of the CRO,\4\ and representatives from two
options and trading permit firms (``OTP Firms'').\5\ One representative
on the OE Panel will be from an OTP Firm directly engaged in market
making activities and one representative on the OE Panel will be from
an OTP Firm directly engaged in the handling of options orders for
public customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange represents that a designee of the CRO would be
an employee of the Exchange, working closely with and reporting
directly to, the CRO, such as one of the Directors of Options
Regulation. The Exchange notes that the International Securities
Exchange, LLC (``ISE'') designates an obvious error panel to
independently make appeals decisions and also to overturn or modify
actions taken by the ISE. See ISE Rule 720.
    \5\ The Exchange proposes to designate at least ten (10) OTP
Firm representatives to be called upon to serve on the OE Panel. In
no case would the OE Panel include a person related to a party to
the trade in question. To the extent reasonably possible, the
Exchange proposes to call upon the designated representatives to
participate on an OE Panel on an equally frequent basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, requests for an appeal would have to be made via
facsimile or e-mail within thirty minutes after the party requesting
the appeal is given notification of the initial determination.
Thereafter, the OE Panel would review the information and may overturn
or modify the action taken by the Officer. Such determination by the OE
Panel would be considered a final action by the Exchange on the matter
at issue. All final determinations made by the OE Panel would be
rendered, without prejudice, as to the rights of the parties to the
transaction to submit their dispute to arbitration. The Exchange states
that the revised process is intended to provide a timely appeal for OTP
Firms and options and trading permit holders (``OTP Holders'') in place
of the lengthy Board appeals process currently provided in Rule 10.14.
    Finally, if the OE Panel upholds the Exchange's decision made
pursuant to Rule 6.87(a)(4) to bust or adjust a trade, the Exchange
would assess a $500.00 fee against the OTP Holder or OTP Firm that
initiated the request for appeal. The Exchange believes that assessing
a $500.00 fee would discourage frivolous and abusive practices of the
appeal process.
    The Exchange is also proposing amendments to Rule 10.14 to remove
the Board appeals process for Rule 6.87, and remove the appeals process
from Commentary .02 of Rule 6.87.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
section 6(b) of the Act,\6\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ in particular, because it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, and to remove impediments and perfect the mechanisms of a
free and open market and to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

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

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding, or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    A. By order approve the proposed rule change; or
    B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-NYSEArca-2007-115 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2007-115. This
file number should be included on the

subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and
review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The
Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site
(http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all

subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the
proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all
written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2007-115 and should be submitted on or before
December 18, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-22979 Filed 11-26-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P