[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 220 (Thursday, November 14, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68494-68496]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27202]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70827; File No. SR-CBOE-2013-105]

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

November 7, 2013.
    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 October 29, 2013, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    CBSX proposes to amend its Fees Schedule to remove AAPL, BAC, GOOG,
NOK, and SIRI (the ``Removed Symbols'') from its list of Select Symbols
for whom transactions priced $1 or greater (all fees addressed in this
filing relate to transactions priced $1 or greater) are assessed a fee
of $0.0050 per share (for Maker executions) and provided a rebate of
$0.0045 per share (for Taker executions). This means that the Removed
Symbols will now fall into the ``all other securities'' category and
fees and rebates applicable to ``all other securities'' will apply to
the Removed Symbols, which are as follows (and are not being changed in
this proposed rule change):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Execution type                            Rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maker (adds less than 0.08% of     $0.0018 per share.
 TCV of liquidity in one day)
 (1)(5).
Maker (adds at least 0.08% but     $0.0017 per share.
 less than 0.16% of TCV of
 liquidity in one day) (1)(5).
Maker (adds at least 0.16% but     $0.0016 per share.
 less than 0.24% of TCV of
 liquidity in one day) (1)(5).
Maker (adds at least 0.24% but     $0.0015 per share.
 less than 0.42% of TCV of
 liquidity in one day) (1)(5).
Maker (adds 0.42% or more of TCV   $0.0014 per share.
 of liquidity in one day) (1)(5).
Taker (removes 9,999,999 shares    $0.0015 rebate per share.
 or less of liquidity in one day
 (1) or less than 85% Execution
 Rate).
Taker (removes 10,000,000 shares   $0.0017 rebate per share.
 or more of liquidity in one day
 (1) and equal to or greater than
 85% Execution Rate).
Maker (adds liquidity using a      $0.0018 per share.
 silent order).
Taker (removes silent order        $0.0015 rebate per share.
 liquidity).
Maker (adds liquidity using a      $0.0018 per share.
 silent-mid or silent-post-mid
 order).
Taker (removes silent-mid or       $0.0015 rebate per share.
 silent-post-mid liquidity).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Removed Symbols had been included in the Select Symbols in an
aspirational attempt to increase liquidity provision in these products,
but such increased liquidity has not been achieved. CBSX hopes that
moving the Removed Symbols into the ``all other securities'' category
will increase liquidity provision in these products.
    As no symbols would be listed in the Select Symbols, footnote (6)
of the CBSX Fees Schedule would be amended to read ``There are no
Select Symbols at this time.'' The Exchange does not wish to remove the
concept of the Select Symbols (and corresponding fees structure) from
the CBSX Fees Schedule because CBSX may desire in the future to move
other symbols into the ``Select Symbols'' and apply the corresponding
Select Symbols fees structure to such symbols (of course, the Exchange
would submit a proposed rule change in order to effect such a move).
    The proposed change is to take effect on November 1, 2013.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\3\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\4\ which requires that
Exchange rules provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its Trading Permit Holders and other
persons using its facilities. The Exchange believes that it is
reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to remove the
Removed Symbols from the Select Symbols and to assess the Removed
Symbols the fees of ``all other securities'' because transactions in
these products will merely be assessed the fee and rebate amounts of
all other CBSX securities. Further, this move is designed to attract
more trading in these products, as placing the Removed Symbols in the
Select Symbols (and applying the Select Symbols fees structure to the
Removed Symbols) failed to cause the desired increase in trading volume
in the Removed Symbols. Finally, these fees for the Removed Symbols
will be the same as for all other CBSX securities, and will be assessed
equally to all market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE 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. CBSX does not believe that the
proposed rule changes will impose any burden on intramarket competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act because the proposed changes will be applied to all market
participants. CBSX does not believe that the proposed rule changes will
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the
proposed changes only affect trading on CBSX. Further, the proposed
changes are designed to incentivize more trading on CBSX, which could
encourage other exchanges to enact their own competitive changes. To
the extent that the proposed changes make CBSX a more attractive
trading venue for market participants on other exchanges, such market
participants may elect to become CBSX market participants.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \5\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \6\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2013-105 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2013-105. 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-CBOE-2013-105, and should be
submitted on or before December 5, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-27202 Filed 11-13-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


                   Addendum Responding to Questions Received

Question
Response
1. Where are the EPA designated Class I park areas to be protected by this EPA proposal?
EPA did not designate Class I areas.  These were designated by Congress (see section 162(a)).  The Class I areas relevant to this rulemaking are identified in Table 8 of the proposal (Caney Creek Wilderness Area (AR), Hercules Glades Wilderness Area (MO), Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area (AR), and Wichita Mountains Wilderness Area (OK).
2. How and with what authority and with what State input were these parks designated as Class I areas?
As noted above, Class I areas were designated by Congress.

3. How far and in what direction is each of these parks from the specific Oklahoma OGE and PSO coal-fired power plants targeted by this EPA proposal?
Distances can be found in Appendix B, Table 1-1 of the Technical Support Document (TSD).  Maps provided in the TSD indicate direction.  Please see Figure 1-1 in Appendix B of the TSD.
4. How many other coal-fired power plants of what size are located closer to or at similar distances from the parks in question?
For the FIP EPA evaluated the BART eligible sources within Oklahoma.  Table 2 of the proposal lists Oklahoma's BART eligible sources.  For this rulemaking, EPA did not identify other BART eligible coal-fired power plants located closer to or at similar distances from the Class I areas within Oklahoma.  Other non-BART eligible coal-fired power plant sources are: Grand River Dam Authority Chouteau Plant, Unites 1 (520 MW) and 2 (490 MW), in Mayes County Units 1 and 2 in Mayes County; Western Farmers Electric Cooperative, Inc. Hugo Plant, Unit 1 (446 MW) in Choctaw County; OG&E Muskogee unit 6 (572 MW); and AES Shady Point a coal-fired cogeneration plant (2 units, 320 MW total) in Le Flore County.
5. From EPA's modeling analyses on how many days is visibility expected to be diminished in each park area and to what extent is it expected to be diminished on these days?
See our Response to Modeling Comment #1 in the final rulemaking for the number of days visibility impacts from an individual facility's BART units is over 0.5 deciviews and 1 deciview.
6. In what seasons are these "impact days" expected to occur at each park and how many of these days are single days compared to continuous multiple days?
Observed and modeled visibility impacts, as well as day of the year, for each of the 20% worst days in 2002 are provided in Figure 4-8 of Appendix A of the TSD and Appendix D of the CENRAP TSD.  We note that the monitor takes a sample every three days, year round.  In modeling for individual source impacts on a Class I area, we examine the 98[th] percentile or 8[th] highest impacted day consistent with the BART guidelines.
7. Has EPA provided "Seasonal Wind Roses" that would allow Oklahoma citizens and officials to understand how and when the targeted power plants could affect these remote parks that most people would not consider to be downwind of these plants?
As discussed in the TSD, CALPUFF visibility modeling was performed using three years of prognostic meteorological data.  This meteorological data is more sophisticated than wind rose data.  In modeling for individual source impacts on a Class I area, we examine the 98[th] percentile or 8[th] highest impacted day consistent with the BART guidelines.  Because we evaluate visibility impairment on a 24-hr basis, seasonal wind patterns were not directly considered in our decision.  Please see Appendix W of 40 CFR 51 (Guideline on Air Quality Models, <IP_ADDRESS>(d)).
8. For each park how many visitors are expected by season currently and how many are forecast by season for various future years?
EPA does not forecast the number of visitors to Class I areas.  This factor is not considered under Sections 169A and 169B of the CAA or the RH rule.
9. What additional annual and total costs does EPA believe will be required for OGE and PSO to comply with EPA's proposal?
As part of the FIP, this action includes a thorough evaluation of the cost of compliance for the six units.  EPA's evaluation includes both annual and total costs in accordance with guidance and the RH rule.  See the revised Cost Estimates included in this final rulemaking.
10. Since these costs must be paid by Oklahoma's electric ratepayers for each utility, how much additional annual cost does EPA expect must be paid by each ratepayer/customer for each utility?
EPA does not have expectations of what costs must be paid by each ratepayer/customer for each utility because the CAA and the RH rule do not contemplate this factor as part of the BART analysis.
11. Considering the additional annual costs for OGE and PSO compliance compared to the current and expected visitor days in which visibility would be expected to be impacted (i.e. "visitor impact days"), what does EPA consider to be the effective cost per potential "visitor impact day"?
As required by the CAA, EPA has considered, among other things, the cost of compliance and expected visibility improvement.  While EPA believes the controls to be cost effective, EPA has not estimated an effective cost per potential "visitor impact day".  The CAA and the RH rule do not proscribe that states or EPA estimate a benefit of removing "visitor impact day."  Instead, the RH rule quantifies improvement in visibility using the deciview as the unit of measurement.  For additional information on the visibility improvement of this FIP, see our responses to the Modeling Comments in the final rulemaking and the TSD.
12. What is the estimated benefit of removing these "visitor impact days"?

13. What is the ratio of the Cost to the Benefit of this EPA proposal?
The CAA requires our BART analysis to evaluate both the cost of compliance and the degree of improvement in visibility resulting from the addition of controls.  As directed by Congress, EPA is obligated to consider in determining BART (1) the costs of compliance, (2) the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, (3) any existing pollution control technology in use at the source, (4) remaining useful life of the source, and (5) degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such technology.  CAA section 169A(g)(2).  For more information on this evaluation, see the TSD and the revised cost evaluation.  As stated above, the CAA and the RH rule do not provide for a Cost/Benefit analysis that the commenter describes.
14. Does EPA feel an obligation to consider the Cost/Benefit Ratio in its decision to proceed with this Regional Haze proposal which only relates to aesthetics and not to health?

15. Has EPA estimated a fraction of the year the emissions would need to be controlled at each of the targeted plants to meet these regional haze objectives?
Under 40 CFR section 51.301, Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) means an emission limitation based on the degree of reduction achievable through the application of the best system of continuous emission reduction for each pollutant which is emitted by an existing stationary facility.  Consistent with the definition of BART in 40 CFR 51.301, we evaluated controls based on continuous operation.  Therefore, upon the effective date of our rule, the regional haze controls that will be necessary to meet the SO2 BART emission limit of 0.06 lbs/MMBtu at the six OG&E and AEP/PSO units must operate continuously whenever the units are generating electricity.  Please see the federal register notice associated with the rule for more detail.
16. Has EPA considered the adverse regional economic impact and the adverse impact on Oklahoma's economy that would result from this proposal?
After careful review of cost and visibility benefits EPA determined that controls are cost effective.  Our evaluation found that compliance costs would be significantly less than estimates provided by the State of Oklahoma.
17. Has EPA fully considered its moral and legal authority under the Clean Air Act that would provide the confidence that it would prevail in the courts on its decision to overrule Oklahoma's state's rights by rejecting the plan, and even by the earlier designation of these three Class I air quality areas and even the continuation of the national parks if the states object to these designations?
EPA has fully considered its authority and obligations in undertaking this rulemaking.  EPA has a mandatory duty under the CAA to act on Oklahoma's RH SIP.  Because we have determined that portions of the SIP are not adequate to meet the requirements of the CAA and federal regulations, EPA is obligated to partially disapprove the SIP and implement a FIP.  As stated above, Congress designated the Class 1 areas in CAA section 162(a).  EPA has no authority over the continuation of national parks.

Questions related to the Wichita Wildlife Refuge
Response
1. What study has been done to determine what part of that haze is caused by the natural emittents from the trees and the fauna in that area?
Section 6 of Appendix A of the TSD discusses the types of source categories, source regions and pollutant species that contribute to visibility impairment at Wichita Mountains.  Emissions from biogenic sources, motor vehicles, agricultural activities and other area sources are all included in the emission inventories used to model and project visibility conditions.

As discussed in the TSD, CALPUFF visibility modeling was performed using three years of prognostic meteorological data.  In modeling for individual source impacts on a Class I area, we examine the 98[th] percentile or 8[th] highest impacted day consistent with the BART guidelines.  Please see Appendix Y of 40 CFR 51.
2. What study has been done to determine how much of the haze is caused by the artillery firing at Fort Sill?

3. How much of the haze has been caused by highway traffic in Lawton and what study has proven this.

4. How much of the haze has been caused by farmers plowing and the dust that will create haze in the air.

5. How much of the haze has been caused by coal-fired plants or any kind of plant in Texas which is south down or upwind from the prevailing winds that blow in Oklahoma?

6. I would really like to understand how those pollutants, those so-called pollutants from the clean burning coal-fired plants in Oklahoma that are under discussion, how can that pollution travel that 200 miles against the prevailing winds to create that haze there?


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 111 (Friday, June 8, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26724-26726]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12322]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83370; File No. SR-ISE-2018-48]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend and
Reorganize Chapter V of the ISE Schedule of Fees

June 4, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on May 22, 2018, Nasdaq ISE, LLC (``ISE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``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 Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend and reorganize Chapter V of the ISE
Schedule of Fees.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://ise.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 Exchange proposes to amend Chapter V of the ISE Schedule of
Fees to: (i) Eliminate the Table of Contents; (ii) retitle Section V,
currently titled ``Trading Application;'' (iii) retitle Parts A, B and
C of Chapter V which are currently titled ``Installation,'' ``Software
License & Maintenance'' and ``Reserved'' respectively; and (iv)
eliminate the Part D title, ``INET Port Fees'' and amend and reorganize
the current port fees. Each change will be described in more detail
below. The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to the
Schedule of Fees will provide more clarity as to the current fees. The
Exchange notes that no fee changes are being introduced with this rule
change. The Exchange is simply reorganizing its rules to conform to
other Nasdaq affiliate markets by aligning the location and description
of its rules on each market.

Table of Contents
    The Exchange proposes to eliminate the Table of Contents in the ISE
Schedule of Fees. The Table Contents are unnecessary. The website where
the ISE rules are listed \3\ contains hyperlinks and a skeleton of the
available rules within the site and enables market participants to view
all rules in that section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ISE rules are located at: http://ise.cchwallstreet.demo.cch.com/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section V, Trading Application
    The Exchange proposes to retitle Section V, currently titled
``Trading Application'' as ``Connectivity Fees.'' The Exchange believes
that this title more accurately describes the types of fees contained
in this chapter. No other changes are being made to this section.
Chapter V, Parts A, B and C
    The Exchange proposes to amend Chapter V, Part A to retitle this
section from ``Installation'' to ``Trading Application.'' The Exchange
propose to amend Chapter V, Part B to retitle this section from
``Software License & Maintenance'' to ``Trading Application.'' The
Exchange proposes to retitle Chapter V, Part C, which is currently
``Reserved'' as ``Ports and Other Services.'' The Exchange believes
that these titles more accurately describes the types of fees contained
in Chapter V by section. The Exchange is not otherwise amending Parts A
and B. The Exchange is proposing to relocate from current Part D,
titled ``INET Port Fees'' into Part C.
INET Port Fees
    The Exchange proposes to eliminate the title to Chapter V, Part D,
titled ``INET Port Fees.'' The Exchange is proposing to restructure the
port fees currently in Part D into newly retitled Part C.
    The Exchange proposes to add language at the beginning of new Part
C which provides, ``The below charges are assessed by ISE for
connectivity to ISE.'' The Exchange believes that this sentence makes
clear that the fees apply to ISE. The Exchange proposes to define a
port as ``a logical connection or session that enables a market
participant to send inbound messages and/or receive outbound messages
from the Exchange using various communication protocols.'' The Exchange
believes this definition will assist members in distinguishing ports
from other offerings.
    The Exchange proposes to relocate the current port fees within Part
D to Part C and restructure the port fees into 4 categories. The
Exchange proposes to list order and quote protocols first, order and
execution offerings next, followed by data ports and other ports as the
last section. The Exchange proposes to list data offerings that are
offered at no cost. The Exchange believes that aligning its offerings,
where relevant, with other affiliated markets \4\ will provide more
transparency as to the offerings for market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange offers various services across its 6 affiliated
options markets, ISE, Nasdaq Phlx LLC, Nasdaq BX, Inc., The Nasdaq
Options Market LLC, Nasdaq GEMX, LLC and Nasdaq MRX, LLC (``Nasdaq
Affiliated Markets'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to add a new section (i) and include the
following introductory sentence, ``The following order and quote
protocols are available on ISE.'' The Exchange proposes to list the
order entry protocol port fees for FIX, SQF and OTTO in this section.
The fees are not being amended, the existing fees are being relocated
into new section (i).
    The Exchange proposes to add a new section (ii) and include the
following introductory sentence, ``The following order and execution
information is available to Members.'' The Exchange intends to list
other port or interface information into this section that are
available to ISE Members. The Exchange is relocating the CTI and FIX
DROP port fees. No changes are being made to those fees. The Exchange
also proposes to list TradeInfo ISE Interface into this section. The
Exchange has recently filed to establish this Interface within the ISE
rules.\5\ The Exchange proposes to note this interface is available on
ISE at no cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See SR-ISE-2018-47 (not yet published).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to add a new section (iii) and include the
following language, ``The following data port fees apply in connection
with data subscriptions pursuant to ISE Rules at Chapter VIII. These
ports are available to non-ISE Members and ISE Members.'' Today, ISE
does not assess a fee for these ports outlined in new section (iii).
Similar to other Nasdaq Affiliated Markets the Exchange proposes to
list all of the ports that Members and Non-Members obtain today at no
cost. The Exchange believes that listing these ports in addition to the
data subscriptions will bring more transparency to the Schedule of
Fees.
    The Exchange proposes to add a new section (iv) entitled ``Other
ports'' and relocate the Disaster Recovery Ports into this section. The
Exchange also proposes to make clear that a Disaster Recovery Port is
available for any port listed in proposed sections (i)-(iii).
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
``Act''),\6\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5)
of the Act,\7\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism for a free and open market and a national market system,
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest, by
providing greater transparency as to the ports offered on ISE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange's proposal to remove the Table of Contents and retitle
the various parts of Chapter V are administrative. These changes are
consistent with the protection of investor and the public interest
because the amendments are intended to bring greater clarity to the
Rulebook. The Exchange's proposal to reorganize the port fees into
sections and include pricing for ports that are offered at no cost is
also consistent with the protection of investor and the public interest
because it will bring greater transparency to the Exchange's current
offerings.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\8\ the Exchange does
not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on
intermarket or intra-market competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange's
proposal does not impose an undue burden on competition, rather the
Exchange is seeking to provide greater transparency within its rules
with respect to the various ports offered on ISE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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)(iii)
of the Act \9\ and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \10\ 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) \11\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \12\ permits the Commission to
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 the proposed
rule change may become effective and operative immediately upon filing.
The Exchange states that it believes the waiver will further the
protection of investors and the public interest because it will provide
greater transparency as to various ports available to market
participants. The Exchange further states that the proposed rule change
will bring greater clarity to the Schedule of Fees. The Commission
believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest. Therefore, the
Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the
proposed rule change as operative upon filing.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \13\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also 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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-ISE-2018-48 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-ISE-2018-48. 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-ISE-2018-48 and should be submitted on
or before June 29, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-12322 Filed 6-7-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 189 (Monday, October 4, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 54686]
[FR Doc No: 2021-21528]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER21-2942-000]

EnerSmart El Cajon BESS LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
EnerSmart El Cajon BESS LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is October 18, 2021.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 28, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-21528 Filed 10-1-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 26, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 25443]
[FR Doc No: 2023-08811]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2023-1035]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewal Approval of Information Collection 2120-0768, Part
107 Authorizations and Waivers Under 14 CFR Part 107; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew Information Collection
2120-0768. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on the following collection of information was
published on January 6, 2023 (88 FR 91105). The FAA proposes renewal of
the collection of information related to requests made under 14 CFR
part 107 to operate small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) in controlled
airspace. FAA will use the collected information to make determinations
whether to authorize or deny the requested operation of UAS in
controlled airspace. The proposed information collection is necessary
to issue such authorizations or denials consistent with the FAA's
mandate to ensure safe and efficient use of national airspace. The FAA
received no comments to the 60-day notice. This is a corrected Federal
Register Notice to update a Federal Register Notice posted on April 20,
2023 under Docket Number 2022-0176. This corrected Federal Register
Notice updates the Docket Number to FAA-2023-1035.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by May 26, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of
this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular
information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--
Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Victoria Gallagher by email at:
[email protected]; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0768.
    Title: Part 107 Authorizations and Waivers under 14 CFR part 107.
    Form Numbers: There are no forms associated with this collection.
    Type of Review: Renewal of existing information collection.
    Background: This is a corrected Federal Register Notice to update a
Federal Register Notice posted on April 20, 2023 under Docket Number
2022-0176. This corrected Federal Register Notice updates the Docket
Number to FAA-2023-1035.
    There has been an increased number of operations of small Unmanned
Aircraft Systems in the National Air Space (NAS) in recent years and
regulations and statutes have been enacted to establish the use of
small UAS in the NAS. Included in these is 14 CFR part 107. Section
107.41 states that ``no person may operate a small unmanned aircraft in
Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace or within the lateral boundaries
of the surface areas of Class E airspace designated for an airport
unless that person has prior authorization from Air Traffic Control
(ATC).'' Such authorization may be obtained in the form of either an
airspace authorization issued by the FAA or a waiver of the
authorization requirements of 14 CFR 107.41 (known as an airspace
waiver).
    In order to process authorization and airspace waiver requests, the
FAA requires the operator's name, the operator's contact information,
and information related to the date, place, and time of the requested
small UAS operation. This information is necessary for the FAA to meet
its statutory mandate of maintaining a safe and efficient national
airspace. See 49 U.S.C. 40103, 44701, and 44807. The FAA will use the
requested information to determine if the proposed UAS operation can be
conducted safely.
    The FAA proposes to use the Low Altitude Authorization and
Notification Capability (LAANC) and a web portal to process
authorization requests from the public to conduct Part 107 flight
operations pursuant to Section 107.41. The FAA also proposes to use the
web portal to process requests from the public to conduct Part 107
flight operations that requires an airspace waiver.
    Respondents: Small UAS operators seeking to conduct flight
operations under 14 CFR part 107 within controlled airspace or flight
operations that require waiver from the provisions of 14 CFR 107.41.
Between 2023-2026, the FAA estimates that it will receive a total of
1,477,965 requests for airspace authorizations and 0 requests for
airspace waivers.
    Frequency: The requested information will need to be provided each
time a respondent requests an airspace authorization to operate a small
UAS under 14 CFR part 107 in controlled airspace and each time a
respondent requests a waiver from the provisions of 14 CFR 107.41 to
operate a small UAS in controlled airspace.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: The FAA estimates the
respondents using LAANC will take five (5) minutes per airspace
authorization request and those using the web portal will take thirty
(30) minutes per request. For those making airspace waiver requests
through the web portal, the FAA estimates it takes 30 minutes per
request.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: For airspace authorizations, the FAA
estimates that the average annual burden will be 61,582 burden hours.
This includes 36,949 burden hours for 443,389 LAANC respondents and
24,633 burden hours for 49,266 web portal respondents.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on 21 of April, 2023.
Victoria Gallagher,
UAS LAANC Program Manager.
[FR Doc. 2023-08811 Filed 4-25-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1

	UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

	REGION III

1650 Arch Street

	Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19103-2029

										July 5, 2007

SUBJECT:	Technical Support Document - Findings for Motor Vehicle
Emission Budgets; 2009 and 2018 Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the
Maintenance Plan for the Scranton-Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania 8-Hour
Ozone Nonattainment Area

      /s/

      FROM: 	Martin Kotsch, 3AP23

	TO:	Administrative Record for Review of the 2009 and 2018 Motor Vehicle
Emission Budgets in the Maintenance Plan for the Scranton-Wilkes Barre,
Pennsylvania 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area

THRU:	       /s/

Carol Febbo, Chief

Energy, Radiation and Indoor Environment Branch (3AP23)

I.   Administrative Requirements For Making Adequacy Findings

The adequacy and approvability of the 2009 and 2018 Motor Vehicle
Emissions Budgets contained in the Maintenance Plan submitted by the
Pennsylvania  Department of  Environmental Protection (PADEP) on June
12, 2007 for the Scranton-Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania 8-Hour
Non-attainment Area  was reviewed in accordance with the procedures and
criteria of the Transportation Conformity Rule contained in 40 CFR Part
93, Sections 93.106(a)(1) 106(a)(2)(i), 93.110, 93.113(b), 93.118 (e)
(4) through (5) and the following guidance:

-  January 18, 2002 EPA memorandum from John Seitz and Margo Oge
entitled: “Policy Guidance on the Use of MOBILE6 for SIP Development
and Transportation Conformity”, and

-  February 12, 2003 EPA memorandum from Tom Helms and Leila Cook
entitled: “Clarification of Policy Guidance for MOBILE6 SIPs in
Mid-course Review Areas”, and

- March 8, 2005 EPA memorandum from Suzanne Rudzinski and Lydia Wegman
entitled  “Guidance for Determining the "Attainment Year" for
Transportation Conformity in New 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 Nonattainment
Areas”, and

- May 2005  Reference document entitled  “Complete Transportation
Conformity Regulations that Incorporate Recent Conformity Final Rule
Amendments (Through May 2005)”.

On June 12, 2007, the Pennsylvania Department of the Environmental
Protection (PADEP) submitted its motor vehicle emission budgets to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a part of its State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision.  The Pennsylvania  public comment
period on the SIP revision closed on May 25, 2007.

EPA will be issuing its own Notice of  Proposed Rule Making for a 30-day
public comment period  soliciting public comment as to the approvability
of the Pennsylvania SIP submission.  Concurrently with the EPA Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, a notice will be posted on EPA’s website at
HYPERLINK http://www.epa.gov/otaq/transp.htm     HYPERLINK
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm  for the
purpose of opening EPA’s 30-day public comment period on the
adequacy/approvability of the budgets in the SIP revision.  That notice
will inform  the public of the availability of the Pennsylvania  SIP
revision on its own website.  EPA’s website notice will provide a link
to the address for the  website where interested members of the public
could access the SIP revision.  Following  EPA’s public comment
period, responses to any comments received on the proposed mobile
budgets in the Pennsylvania SIP will be addressed in an amendment to
this TSD.

II.  Evaluation of the Budgets

Table 1 - The Budgets

Clean Air Act Requirement	Milestone Year	Mobile Vehicle Emissions Budget
for NOx in Kilograms Per Day	Mobile Vehicle Emissions Budget for VOCs in
Kilograms Per Day

Maintenance Plan	2009	43,806	22,838

	2018	21,539	15,404

Table 2

Adequacy/Approvability of the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the
Maintenance Plan Submitted by PADEP on June 12, 2007 for the
Scranton-Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania  8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area

Transportation Conformity Rule

	Review Criteria	Was the Criterion Satisfied?    If “Yes” How was
this Criterion Satisfied?

93.106(a)(1)	Are the budget years correct?	Yes

93.106(a)(2)(i)	Does the plan quantify and document the demographic and
employment factors influencing transportation demand?	Yes

93.110	Are the emissions budgets based upon the latest planning
assumptions?

(a)   Are the emission budgets, with respect to all other applicable
criteria in §§93.111 - 93.119, based upon the most recent planning
assumptions in force at the time of the development of the budgets?

(b) Are the assumptions derived from the estimates of current and future
population, employment, travel, and congestion most recently developed
by the MPO or other designated agency and are the budgets based upon the
latest assumptions about current and future background concentrations?

	Yes

Yes

Yes

	(e)  Do the budgets include the latest existing information regarding
the effectiveness of TCMs and other implementation plan measures which
have already been implemented.

(f) Are key assumptions specified and included in the draft documents
and supporting materials used for the interagency and public
consultation required by §93.105?	There are no previous TCMs.

Yes

 93.111	Are the budgets based upon the latest emissions model?	Yes,
MOBILE6.2, the latest EPA emissions model was utilized.

93.113(b)	Have previously committed TCM's been implemented?	There were
no TCMS in the previously approved SIP

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(ii)	Before the control strategy implementation plan
was submitted to EPA, did consultation between  federal, State and local
agencies occur; was full implementation plan documentation provided to
EPA, and were EPA’s stated concerns, if any, addressed?	Yes

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(iii)	Were the motor vehicle emissions budgets clearly
identified and precisely quantified?	Yes

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(iv)	Is the motor vehicle emissions budget(s), when
considered together with all other emission reductions, consistent with
applicable  requirements for the control strategy implementation

plan?	Yes

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(v)	Is the motor vehicle emissions budget(s) consistent
with and clearly related to the emissions inventory and the control
measures in the submitted control strategy? implementation plan?	Yes

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(vi)	Revisions to previously submitted control strategy
implementation plan:  explain and document any changes to previously
submitted budgets and control measures; impacts on point and area source
emissions; any changes to established safety margins (see Sec. 93.101
for definition); and reasons for the changes (including the basis for
any changes related to emission factors or estimates of vehicle miles
traveled).	The new budgets have been changed to reflect a new emissions
inventory and a new baseyear which were required in the development of
the new maintenance plan under the 8-hour ozone standard.

Sec. 93.118(e)(5)	Did they provide and did  we review the State’s
responses to the public comments?	There were no comments submitted
relevant to the mobile vehicle emissions budgets in the SIP during the
State comment period.

III.  Recommendation

Based upon our review and evaluation of the motor vehicle emission
budgets contained in the Maintenance Plan submitted by PADEP for the
Scranton-Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania 8-Hour Ozone Non-attainment Area
submitted on June 12, 2007, we recommend that the mobile emission
budgets be found adequate and approved.