MEMORANDUM

TO:		Public Record for the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule
		EPA Docket Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0274 (www.regulations.gov)

FROM:		Carey A. Johnston, P.E.
            USEPA/OECA/OC
            ph:<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
DATE:		3 February 2014

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT:	Notes from State Technical Workgroup Meeting (30 January 2014) [DCN 0128]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overview

      This was the kick-off meeting for an EPA-state technical workgroup that will discuss key issues related to the proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule. These discussions will help inform the upcoming supplemental Federal Register notice and will also continue afterwards to help EPA address state comments. These technical workgroup meetings are likely to be held on Thursdays at 1pm (Eastern).  EPA plans to work with the group to identify the agenda for each meeting in order to focus these discussions. EPA participants will include the OECA eRule Team as well as representatives from EPA's Office of Water and Office of Environmental Information. State technical workgroup members are listed in Table 1 and the agenda for this meeting is also provided below.

      EPA is engaging with the states to help clarify issues where there is confusion, explore the issues of most concern to the states, and solicit state input on the issues and scenarios that they would like to highlight in the forthcoming supplemental Federal Register notice. The supplemental notice will be accompanied by another public comment period, which gives the Agency more time and flexibility to craft the final rule. In general, changes to any proposed rule are to be expected during the notice-and-comment process; however, such changes to a proposed rule must develop as a "logical outgrowth" of the proposed regulation and public comments. EPA will highlight the most important issues and scenarios in the forthcoming supplemental Federal Register notice.

      EPA is summarizing the notes from these discussions for the docket in order to provide transparency on EPA's outreach during the rulemaking process. The OECE eRule team will also be available for any other stakeholder group that would like to discuss the eRule.

Meeting Notes

     For the first meeting EPA's Deputy Assistant Administrator, Steve Chester, provided an overview and suggested goals for this technical workgroup. He re-stated the importance of the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule and the importance of EPA to engage with states. He noted the following goals:

        *       The goal of this EPA-state workgroup discussion is to clarify issues where there is confusion, explore the issues of most concern to the states, and solicit state input on the issues and potential solutions that could be highlighted in the forthcoming supplemental Federal Register notice.

        *       EPA does not expect to have resolution of these issues prior to publication of the supplemental Federal Register notice but does want to make sure to include the most important issues and potential regulatory options.

      Mr. Chester noted that EPA staff from our Office of Water and Office of Environmental Information will also be part of our discussions. He noted that this will help ensure that the necessary IT and NPDES programmatic experts are on hand in each call to explore potential options. He also noted that EPA would like to continue this dialogue after publication of the supplemental notice, as an on-going and meaningful exchange between EPA and the states is critical to the success of the eRule.

      With respect to these on-going discussions Mr. Chester noted that EPA is open to discuss any aspect of the comments on the rule with states, and we will work with ECOS and ACWA to develop the agenda for each meeting. He also asked that the technical workgroup members think more broadly than the interests of an individual state. EPA's job is to balance the perspectives of all stakeholders.  He also noted that this technical workgroup is not a FACA; EPA is interested in input and ideas from the workgroup, but that this group is not a decision-making body.

      Finally, Mr. Chester stressed the importance of working expeditiously towards agreement on electronic reporting. He reference an article from the September 1993 edition of the Environmental Protection magazine that quoted George Gray, former chief of EPA's compliance evaluation section in the Office of Water, as saying "In the near future, EPA will establish a protocol that will enable dischargers to electronically submit their DMR data and help expedite form processing." Mr. Chester emphasized that EPA and states need to move as quickly as possible to electronic reporting to unlock the many benefits of electronic reporting. He then turned the meeting over to Mr. John Dombrowski, EPA's Division Director for the Enforcement Targeting Data Division.

      Mr. Dombrowksi outlined the following ground rules for this technical workgroup:
         *       The technical workgroup is not a formal decision-making body. The workgroup is expected to develop, research, and evaluate options for consideration by EPA and state senior management.

         *       There are no formal quorum rules for the workgroup. Scheduled teleconferences will proceed with whichever workgroup members call in to participate.

         *       There will be no formal voting or consensus of the workgroup. Instead, the workgroup is expected to try to develop recommendations reflecting their various perspectives, not achieve consensus.

         *       Summaries of the workgroup's discussions will be prepared for and reviewed by the workgroup, for presentation to EPA senior management and other states. The discussions summaries will outline the major elements of the discussions, areas of agreement and any dissenting views.

      Mr. Dombrowksi then turned over the meeting to Mr. Carey Johnston who provided a high level summary of the public comments on the proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule. See attached slides. After this presentation Mr. Johnston asked the technical workgroup to list the topics they would like to discuss.

         *       Oklahoma recommended a re-evaluation of the data elements in Appendix A and the option of phasing in these data elements.

         *       New Jersey asked if EPA could recognize the different capabilities between state NPDES programs to implement electronic reporting. He suggested that Performance Partnership agreements could be used to implement electronic reporting.

         *       Texas noted that their concerns are related to the implementation of the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule. They suggested allowing states to develop their own implementation plans and that the overall workload would be less if electronic reporting was done via the five-year NPDES permit cycle. Mr. Dombrowski noted that EPA would need more specifics and that this could not be an open-ended option with no final deadline for electronic reporting.

         *       Oklahoma (Shellie Chard-McClary) asked about the schedule for the supplemental notice and if that could be delayed. Mr. Dombrowski noted that EPA has a tight deadline and needs to move forward in as practical a manner as possible.

         *       Florida asked if the EPA-state MOU for the NPDES program could be a vehicle to implement electronic reporting.

         *       Indiana (Tom Easterly) noted that having a phase-in implementation process is important as is a "level playing field." He noted that there is a disincentive for states to be the first to implement electronic reporting for fear of additional EPA oversight. He also asked if there were any incentives that EPA could offer to encourage facilities to adopt electronic reporting. Mr. Dombrowski noted that EPA has limited incentives but will continue to thing about this question.

         *       Arkansas noted that EPA should discuss the QA/QC requirements for electronically reporting data and the roles of EPA and states as data stewards. He specifically asked who would be the data steward if EPA were to be the initial recipient for a data flow. Mr. Dombrowski noted that EPA will make the roles of data stewards clear in the supplemental notice. He noted that this rule does not change the current arrangement of data in ICIS-NPDES, which is that states are the data stewards for NPDES facilities in their states regardless of the initial recipient status. For example, facilities that use EPA's NetDMR tool (Federal instance) actually send their data first to EPA but that the local state NPDES program is the responsible data steward. Arkansas also noted that the proposed schedule is too ambitious.

         *       Delaware (Bob Zimmerman) asked if EPA could clarify the `initial recipient status' from the proposed rule as well as any flexibility in the rule's implementation.

         *       Colorado asked if EPA could clarify the Phase I data that are required to be submitted electronically.

Next Steps
      EPA agreed to summarize the meeting notes as well as summarize and compile a few example public comments on a topic. EPA will share these materials with the technical workgroup in advance of the next meeting (6 February 2014).
     State Technical Workgroup Meeting  -  NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule
                                30 January 2014

1pm		Introduction/Roll Call

1:05		Overview from Steve Chester, OECA/DAA

1:10		Workgroup Logistics & Schedule

1:20		High Level Summary of Comments on Proposed Rule

1:30		Listing of Initial Topics for Discussion (examples provide below)

      o	Implementation (schedule, initial recipient status, state readiness criteria),
      o	CROMERR,
      o	CAFO related data
      o	Data from stormwater regulated stormwater entities,
      o	Waivers, and
      o	Other topics?

1:40		Beginning Discussion of Implementation (or another topic chosen by states)

2:00		End of Call

Tab le 1: State Technical Workgroup Members

                                     Name
                             State or Organization
                                     Email
                                 Sean  Rolland
                                     ACWA
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                 Christy Monk
                                      AL
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                 Teresa Marks
                                      AR
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                  Andy Putnam
                                      CO
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                 Elisa Willard
                                      CO
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                 Bob Zimmerman
                                      DE
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                  Beth Graves
                                     ECOS
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                 Lee Garrigan
                                     ECOS
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                  Chris Klena
                                      FL
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                 Tom Easterly
                                      IN
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                  John Murphy
                                    NEIWPCC
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                 Jason Lonardo
                                      NJ
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                  Joe DiMura
                                      NY
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                             Shellie Chard-McClary
                                      OK
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                  Kim Wilson
                                      TX
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                 Jerome Brooks
                                      VA
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                  Nancy Kmet
                                      WA
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 132 (Friday, July 10, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39816-39818]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16857]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75360; File No. SR-BATS-2015-51]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Rule
21.1(d)(9), (h) and (i) To Modify the Operation of BATS Post Only
Orders on the Exchange's Options Platform

July 6, 2015.
    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 June 30, 2015, BATS Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BATS'') 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 Exchange
has designated this proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule
change pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon filing with
the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend Rules 21.1(d)(9), (h) and
(i) to modify the operation of BATS Post Only Orders subject to the
Price Adjust process on the Exchange's options platform (``BATS
Options''). The proposed rule change is based on the operation of
similar order types currently offered by the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC
(``Nasdaq'') and Nasdaq OMX BX, Inc. (``BX'').\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See the description of Post-Only Orders under chapter VI,
section 1(e)(11) of the Nasdaq Rules and chapter VI, section
1(e)(10) of the BX Rules. See also Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 65761 (November 16, 2011), 76 FR 72230 (November 22, 2011) (SR-
Nasdaq-2011-152) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of
Proposed Rule Change to Adopt a ``Post-Only'' Order Type). See also
NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'') Rule 6.62(y) for a description of
PNP Plus orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.batstrading.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 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 is proposing to amend Rules 21.1(d)(9), (h) and (i) to
modify the operation of BATS Post Only Orders that are subject to the
Price Adjust process on BATS Options. The proposed rule change is based
on the operation of similar order types currently offered by Nasdaq and
BX.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BATS Post Only Orders are orders that are to be ranked and executed
on the Exchange pursuant to Rule 21.8 (Order Display and Book
Processing) or cancelled, as appropriate, without routing away to
another trading center. Currently, a BATS Post Only Order will not
remove liquidity from the BATS Options Book \7\ unless the value of
price improvement associated with such execution equals or exceeds the
sum of fees charged for such execution and the value of any rebate that
would be

provided if the order posted to the BATS Options Book and subsequently
provided liquidity. Unless otherwise instructed by the User,\8\ a BATS
Post Only Order will be subject to the Display-Price Sliding process
set forth under Rule 21.1(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ ``BATS Options Book'' is defined as ``the electronic book of
options orders maintained by the Trading System.'' See Exchange Rule
16.1(a)(9).
    \8\ ``User'' is defined as ``any Options Member or Sponsored
Participant who is authorized to obtain access to the System
pursuant to Rule 11.3 (Access).'' See Exchange Rule 16.1(a)(63).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend the operation of BATS Post Only
Orders such that they will not remove liquidity from the BATS Options
Book where the User elects that the order be subject to the Price
Adjust process set forth under Exchange Rule 21.1(i). Specifically, a
BATS Post Only Order subject to the Price Adjust process will no longer
remove liquidity from the BATS Options Book pursuant to Rule 21.1(d)(9)
where the value of price improvement associated with such execution
equals or exceeds the sum of fees charged for such execution and the
value of any rebate that would be provided if the order posted to the
BATS Options Book and subsequently provided liquidity. Under the Price
Adjust process, a BATS Post Only order that locks or crosses a
Protected Quotation displayed by the Exchange upon entry will continue
to be ranked and displayed by the System at one minimum price variation
below the current NBO (for bids) or to one minimum price variation
above the current NBB (for offers). As a result, the Exchange proposes
to amend: (i) The description of BATS Post Only Orders under Rule
21.1(d)(9) to specify that the price improvement formula described
above would only be applied to BATS Post Only Orders subject to the
Display-Price Sliding process; (ii) the description of the Price Adjust
process under Rule 21.1(i)(4) to no longer state that a BATS Post Only
Order subject to the Price Adjust process would be executed as set
forth in Rule 21.1(d)(9); and (iii) Rule 21.1(h) to clarify it is
limited to BATS Post Only Orders subject to the Display-Price Sliding
process.
    The Exchange does not propose to amend the operation of BATS Post
Only Orders subject to the Display-Price Sliding process. A BATS Post
Only Order subject to the Display-Price Sliding process that locks or
crosses a Protected Quotation displayed by the Exchange upon entry will
either remove liquidity from the BATS Options Book pursuant to Rule
21.1(d)(9) or be cancelled. Should the order lock or cross a Protected
Quotation displayed by an external market upon entry, it will be
subject to the Display-Price Sliding process described in Rule 21.1(h).
A BATS Post Only Order subject to the Display-Price Sliding process
would continue to be cancelled where the NBBO changes such that the
order would be ranked at a price at which it could remove displayed
liquidity from the BATS Options Book.
    The Exchange does, however, propose to amend the description of the
Display-Price Sliding process under Rule 21.1(h)(4) to specify that a
Partial Post Only at Limit Order that locks or crosses a Protected
Quotation displayed by the Exchange upon entry will be executed subject
to the price improvement formula set forth in Rule 21.1(d)(10) or
cancelled when the order is subject to display-price sliding process.
The Exchange does not propose to modify the operation of Partial Post
Only at Limit Orders that are subject to the Display-Price Sliding
Process.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that
are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular,
with the requirements of section 6(b) of the Act.\9\ In particular, the
proposal is consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Act \10\ because it
is designed to encourage displayed liquidity and offer market
participants greater flexibility to post liquidity on the BATS Options
Book, thereby promoting just and equitable principles of trade,
fostering cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
facilitating transactions in securities, removing impediments to, and
perfecting the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national
market system. The Exchange notes that Users who wish for their BATS
Post Only Orders to post to the BATS Options Book and forego the
opportunity to remove liquidity upon entry under Rule 21.1(d)(9) would
be required to affirmatively elect that the order be subject to the
Price Adjust process. Absent such an election, a BATS Post Only Order
would be subject to the Display-Price Sliding process and eligible to
remove liquidity from the BATS Options Book pursuant to the price
improvement formula set forth under Rule 21.1(d)(9). In addition, the
proposed operation of BATS Post Only Order subject to the Price Adjust
process is based on the operation of similar order types, called Post-
Only Orders, currently offered by Nasdaq and BX.\11\ There are no
differences between the operation of Post-Only Orders offered by Nasdaq
and BX and the proposed amendments to the operation of BATS Post Only
Orders subject to the Price Adjust process proposed herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \11\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, the Exchange believes the proposed amendment to Rule
21.1(h)(4) specifying that it applies to Partial Post Only at Limit
Orders that are subject to the Display-Price Sliding process also
promotes just and equitable principles of trade, and perfects the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system
because it provides additional specificity to the rule and does not
modify the operation of Partial Post Only at Limit Orders that are
subject to the Display-Price Sliding Process.

(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. To the contrary, the
proposed rule change is a competitive change that is based on the
operation of similar order types currently offered by Nasdaq and
BX.\12\ The proposed rule change would, therefore, increase competition
by enabling the Exchange to offer order type functionality that is
identical to that offered by its competitors. For all the reasons
stated above, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule
changes will impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, and believes the
proposed change will enhance competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any written
comments from members or other interested parties.

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

    The Exchange has designated this rule filing as non-controversial
under section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \13\ and paragraph (f)(6) of Rule
19b-4 thereunder.\14\ The

proposed rule change effects a change that (A) does not significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (B) does not
impose any significant burden on competition; and (C) by its terms,
does not become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest; provided that the
self-regulatory organization has given the Commission written notice of
its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief
description and text of 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (1)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (2) for the protection
of investors; or (3) 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-BATS-2015-51 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-BATS-2015-51. 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-BATS-2015-51,
and should be submitted on or before July 31, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2015-16857 Filed 7-9-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 19, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43082-43083]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15315]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-779; OMB Control No. 3235-0732]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request: Extension: Business
Conduct Standards for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-
Based Swap Participants

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

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (``OMB'') a request for approval of extension of the
previously approved collection of information provided for in Business
Conduct Standards for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-
Based Swap Participants.\1\ (17 CFR 240.3a67-10, 240.3a71-3,240.3a71-6,
240.15Fh-1 through 15Fh-6 and 240.15Fk-1), under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Business Conduct Standards for Security-Based Swap Dealers
and Major Security-Based Swap Participants, Exchange Act Release
77617 (Apr. 14, 2016), 81 FR 29959 (May 13, 2016). See also Business
Conduct Standards for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major
Security-Based Swap Participants; Correction, Exchange Act Release
77617A (May 19, 2016), 81 FR 32643 (May 24, 2016). (together, `the
Business Conduct Rules for SBSDs and MSBSPs'' or ``BCS Rules'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2010, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Act, establishing a
comprehensive framework for regulating the over-the-counter swaps
markets. As required by Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act, new section
15F(h) of the Exchange Act established business conduct standards for
security-based swap (``SBS'') Dealers and Major SBS Participants
(``collectively ``SBS Entities'') in their dealings with
counterparties, including special entities. In 2016, in order to
implement the Dodd-Frank Act, the Commission adopted the BCS Rules for
SBS Dealers and Major SBS Participants,\2\ a comprehensive set of
business conduct standards and chief compliance officer requirements
applicable to SBS Entities, that are designed to enhance transparency,
facilitate informed customer decision-making, and heighten standards of
professional conduct to better protect investors.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Id.
    \3\ Commission staff has prepared separate supporting statements
pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (``PRA'') regarding final
Rules 3a71-3(c) and 3a71-6, which address the cross-border
application of the business conduct standards and the availability
of substituted compliance. The Office of Management and Budget
(``OMB'') has assigned control number 3235-0717 to Rule 3a71-3(c)
and 3235-0715 to Rule 3a71-6. Rule 3a67-10(d) is a definitional rule
and does not have a PRA burden associated with it. Rules 3a71-3(a),
15Fh-1 and 15Fh-2(b) and (c) address scope of the rules and
definitions and so do not have PRA burdens associated with them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rules 15Fh-1 through 15Fh-6 and 15Fk-1 require SBS Entities to:
     Verify whether a counterparty is an eligible contract
participant and whether it is a special entity;
     Disclose to the counterparty material information about
the SBS, including material risks, characteristics, incentives and
conflicts of interest;
     Provide the counterparty with information concerning the
daily mark of the SBS;
     Provide the counterparty with information regarding the
ability to require clearing of the SBS;
     Communicate with counterparties in a fair and balanced
manner based on principles of fair dealing and good faith;
     Establish a supervisory and compliance infrastructure; and
     Designate a chief compliance officer that is required to
fulfill the described duties and provide an annual compliance report.
    The rules also require SBS Dealers to:
     Determine that recommendations they make regarding SBS are
suitable for their counterparties.
     Establish, maintain and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to obtain and retain a record of the
essential facts concerning each known counterparty that are necessary
to conduct business with such counterparty; and
     Comply with rules designed to prevent ``pay-to-play.''
    The rules also define what it means to ``act as an advisor'' to a
special entity, and require an SBS Dealer who acts as an advisor to a
special entity to:
     Make a reasonable determination that any security-based
swap or trading strategy involving a security-based swap recommended by
the SBS Dealer is in the best interests of the special entity whose
identity is known at a reasonably sufficient time prior to the
execution of the transaction to permit the SBS Dealer to comply with
this obligation; and
     Make reasonable efforts to obtain such information that
the SBS Dealer considers necessary to make a reasonable determination
that a security-based swap or trading strategy involving a security-
based swap is in the best interests of the known special entity.
    In addition, the rules require SBS Entities acting as
counterparties to special entities to reasonably believe that the
counterparty has an independent representative who meets the following
requirements:
     Has sufficient knowledge to evaluate the transaction and
risks;
     Is not subject to a statutory disqualification;
     Undertakes a duty to act in the best interests of the
special entity;
     Makes appropriate and timely disclosures to the special
entity of material information concerning the security-based swap;
     Evaluates, consistent with any guidelines provided by the
special entity, the fair pricing and the appropriateness of the
security-based swap;
     Is independent of the security-based swap dealer or major
security-based swap participant that is the counterparty to a proposed
security-based swap.
    Under the rules, the special entity's independent representative
must also be subject to pay-to-play regulations, and if the special
entity is an ERISA plan, the independent representative must be an
ERISA fiduciary.
    The information that must be collected pursuant to the BCS Rules is
intended to increase accountability and transparency in the market. The
information will therefore help establish a framework that protects
investors and promotes efficiency, competition and capital formation.
    Based on a review of recent data, as of 2020, the Commission
estimates the number of respondents to be as follows: 44 SBS Dealers, 0
Major SBS Participants, for a total of 44 ``SBS Entities''.\4\ Further,
we estimate that approximately 41 of these 44 SBS Entities will be
dually registered with the CFTC as Swap Entities. We also estimate that
there are currently 15,187 security-based swap market participants of
which 11,531 are also swap market participants. In 2020, there were
approximately 354,814 security-based swap transactions between an SBS
Dealer and counterparty that is not an SBS Dealer of which 225,924 were
new and 6,841 amended trades (totaling 232,765). The Commission
estimates there are 329 independent, third-party representatives and 23
in-house

independent representatives.\5\ We estimate that there are
approximately 11,219 unique SBS Dealer and non-SBS-Dealer pairs. We
have used these estimates in calculating the hour and cost burdens for
the rule provisions that we anticipate have a ``collection of
information'' burden within the meaning of the PRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Unless otherwise noted, estimates were derived from the
DTCC-TIW data set (November 2006 through December 2020).
    \5\ See, Exchange Act Rule 15Fh-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission estimates that the aggregate burden of the ongoing
reporting and disclosures required by the BCS Rules, as described
above, is approximately 486,535 hours and $1,812,800 calculated as
follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Ongoing annual   Ongoing annual   Industry-wide    Industry-wide
                                                                                burden           burden       annual burden    annual burden
                Section                        Type of burden          Respondents   -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Hours             Cost            Hours             Cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15Fh-3(b), (c), (d):
    Disclosures--SBS Entities..........  Reporting.................               44            4,120               $0          181,280               $0
15Fh-3(b), (c), (d):
    Disclosures--SBS Transactions        Reporting.................          232,765                1                0          232,765                0
     Between SBS Dealer and Non-SBSD
     Counterparty.
15Fh-3(e), (f):
    Know Your Counterparty and           Reporting.................               44              128                0            5,610                0
     Recommendations (SBS Dealers).
15Fh-3(g):
    Fair and Balanced Communications...  Reporting.................               44                2            3,600               88          158,400
15Fh-3(h):
    Supervision........................  Reporting.................               44              540            4,800           23,760          211,200
15Fh-5:
    SBS Entities Acting as               Reporting.................               44              352                0           15,488                0
     Counterparties to Special Entities.
15Fh-5:
    SBS Entities Acting as               Third-Party Disclosure....               44              352                0           15,488                0
     Counterparties to Special Entities.
15Fh-6:
    Political Contributions............  Reporting.................               44                1           25,600               44        1,126,400
15Fk-1:
    Chief Compliance Officer...........  Reporting.................               44              273            7,200           12,012          316,800
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total..........................  ..........................  ...............  ...............  ...............          486,535        1,812,800
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following website: www.reginfo.gov. Find this
particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day
Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information
collection should be sent by August 18, 2022 to (i) www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain and (ii) David Bottom, Director/Chief Information
Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o John Pezzullo, 100 F
Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or by sending an email to:
[email protected].

    Dated: July 13, 2022.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-15315 Filed 7-18-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 23 (Thursday, February 3, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 6180]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02252]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4393-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2022-0001]

North Carolina; Amendment No. 14 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of North Carolina (FEMA-4393-DR), dated September 14,
2018, and related determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on January 18, 2022.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Kevin A.
Wallace, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating
Officer for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Myra M. Shird as Federal
Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

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

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2022-02252 Filed 2-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 249 (Tuesday, December 29, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 85712-85716]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28664]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90744; File No. SR-NYSE-2020-102]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Its Price List

December 21, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on December 15, 2020, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''
or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I
and II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to extend the waiver
of equipment and related service charges and trading license fees for
NYSE Trading Floor-based member organizations. The Exchange proposes to
implement the fee changes effective January 1, 2021. The proposed rule
change is available on the Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to extend the waiver
of equipment and related service charges and trading license fees for
NYSE Trading Floor-based member organizations that have been unable to
resume their Floor operations to a certain capacity level, as discussed
below. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective
January 1, 2021.
    As proposed, the Exchange would waive 50% of the Telephone System
charges and Service Charges (except for the internet Equipment Monthly
Hosting Fee) and trading license fees for the billing month of January
2021 only for member organizations that (1) meet the current
requirements for these waivers, and (2) are unable to operate at more
than 50% of their March 2020 on-Floor staffing levels or, for member
organizations that began Floor operations after March 2020, are unable
to operate at more than 50% of their Exchange-approved on-Floor
staffing levels, both excluding part-time Floor brokers.
Background
    Beginning on March 16, 2020, in order to slow the spread of the
novel coronavirus (``COVID-19'') through social distancing measures,
significant limitations were placed on large gatherings throughout the
country. As a result, on March 18, 2020, the Exchange determined that
beginning March 23, 2020, the physical Trading Floor facilities located
at 11 Wall Street in New York City would close and that the Exchange
would move, on a temporary basis, to fully electronic trading.\4\
Following the temporary closure of the Trading Floor, the Exchange
waived certain equipment fees for the booth telephone system on the
Trading Floor and associated service charges for the months of April
and May.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Press Release, dated March 18, 2020, available here:
https://ir.theice.com/press/press-releases/allcategories/2020/03-18-2020-204202110.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88602 (April 8,
2020), 85 FR 20730 (April 14, 2020) (SR-NYSE-2020-27); Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 88874 (May 14, 2020), 85 FR 30743 (May 20,
2020) (SR-NYSE-2020-29). See footnote 11 of the Price List.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 14, 2020, the Exchange announced that on May 26, 2020
trading operations on the Trading Floor would resume on a limited basis
to a subset of Floor brokers, subject to health and safety measures
designed to prevent the spread of COVID-19.\6\ On June 15, 2020, the
Exchange announced that on June 17, 2020, the Trading Floor would
reintroduce a subset of DMMs, also subject to health and safety
measures designed to prevent the spread of COVID-19.\7\ Following this
partial reopening of the Trading Floor, the Exchange extended the
equipment fee waiver for the months of June through December 2020.\8\
The Trading Floor continues to operate with reduced headcount and
additional health and safety precautions.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Trader Update, dated May 14, 2020, available here:
https://www.nyse.com/traderupdate/history#110000251588.
    \7\ See Trader Update, dated June 15, 2020, available here:
https://www.nyse.com/trader-update/history#110000272018.
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89050 (June 11,
2020), 85 FR 36637 (June 17, 2020) (SR-NYSE-2020-49); Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 89324 (July 15, 2020), 85 FR 44129 (July
21, 2020) (SR-NYSE-2020-59); Securities Exchange Act Release No.
89754 (September 2, 2020), 85 FR 55550 (September 8, 2020) (SR-NYSE-
2020-71); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89798 (September 9,
2020), 85 FR 57263 (September 15, 2020) (SR-NYSE-2020-72);
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90161 (October 13, 2020), 85 FR
66370 (October 19, 2020) (SR-NYSE-2020-81); and Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 90391 (November 10, 2020), 85 FR 73326 (November 17,
2020) (SR-NYSE-2020-92).
    \9\ See Trader Update, dated June 15, 2020, available here:
https://www.nyse.com/trader-update/history#110000272018. DMMs
continue to support a subset of NYSE-listed securities remotely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule Change
    In response to the unprecedented events surrounding the spread of
COVID-19 in 2020, the Exchange waived certain equipment and related
service charges and trading license fees for NYSE Trading Floor-based
member organizations for the months of April through December 2020.
    Specifically, during that period the Exchange waived the Annual
Telephone Line Charge of $400 per phone number and the $129 fee for a
single line phone, jack, and data jack. The Exchange also waived
related service charges, as follows: $161.25 to install single jack
(voice or data); $107.50 to relocate a jack; $53.75 to remove a jack;
$107.50 to install voice or data line; $53.75 to disconnect data line;
$53.75 to change a phone line subscriber; and miscellaneous telephone
charges billed at $106 per hour in 15 minute increments.\10\ These fees
were waived for (1) member organizations with at least one trading
license, a physical Trading Floor presence, and Floor broker executions
accounting for 40% or more of the member organization's combined
adding, taking, and auction volumes during March 1 to March 20, 2020,
or, beginning in August 2020, if not a member organization during March
1 to March 20, 2020, based on the member organization's combined
adding, taking, and auction volumes during its first month as a member
organization on or after May 26, 2020, i.e., the date the Trading Floor
re-opened on a limited basis, and (2) member organizations with at
least one trading license that are Designated Market Makers with 30 or
fewer assigned securities for the billing month of March 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Service Charges also include an internet Equipment
Monthly Hosting Fee that the Exchange did not previously waive and
that the Exchange does not propose to waive for January 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, to further reduce costs for member organizations with
a Trading Floor presence, the Exchange waived the monthly portion of
all applicable annual fees between April and December 2020, for (1)
member organizations with at least one trading license, a physical
Trading Floor presence and Floor broker executions accounting for 40%
or more of the member organization's combined adding, taking, and
auction volumes during March 1 to March 20, 2020, or, beginning in
August 2020, if not a member organization during March 1 to March 20,
2020, based on the member organization's combined adding, taking, and
auction volumes during its first month as a member organization on or
after May 26, 2020, and (2) member organizations with at least one
trading license that are DMMs with 30 or fewer assigned securities for
the billing month of March 2020.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See notes 5-8, supra. See footnote 15 of the Price List.
Beginning in August 2020, member organizations with a physical
trading Floor presence that became member organizations on or after
April 1, 2020 became eligible for a one-time credit for the member
organization's indicated annual trading license fee for the months
of April through July 2020 if the member organization meets the
other requirements for the waiver described in footnote 15 of the
Price List. The Exchange proposes to delete this language from the
Price List as moot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the Trading Floor continues to operate with reduced
capacity, the Exchange proposes to extend the waiver of these Trading
Floor-based fees for the billing month of January 2021. As proposed,
the Exchange would waive 50% of the Annual Telephone Line Charge of
$400 per phone number; the $129 fee for a single line phone, jack, and
data jack; the related service charges ($161.25 to install single jack
(voice or data); $107.50 to relocate a jack; $53.75 to remove a jack;
$107.50 to install voice or data line; $53.75 to disconnect data line;
$53.75 to change a phone line subscriber; and miscellaneous telephone
charges billed

at $106 per hour in 15 minute increments); and the monthly portion of
all applicable annual fees only for member organizations that
     meet the current requirements of having at least one
trading license, a physical trading Floor presence and Floor broker
executions accounting for 40% or more of the member organization's
combined adding, taking, and auction volumes during March 1 to March
20, 2020 or, if not a member organization during March 1 to March 20,
2020, based on the member organization's combined adding, taking, and
auction volumes during its first month as a member organization on or
after May 26, 2020, and
     are unable to operate at more than 50% of their March 2020
on-Floor staffing levels or, for member organizations that began Floor
operations after March 2020, are unable to operate at more than 50% of
their Exchange-approved on-Floor staffing levels, both excluding part-
time Floor brokers known as ``flex brokers'' (hereinafter, ``Qualifying
Firms'').
    Because the Trading Floor will continue to operate with reduced
capacity, the Exchange proposes to extend the fee waiver for Qualifying
Firms for the billing month of January 2021. The Exchange proposes to
cap the waiver at 50%. The Exchange also proposes to clarify that
Qualifying Firms would include firms that began Floor operations after
March 2020 that are unable to operate at more than 50% of their
Exchange-approved on-Floor staffing levels, both excluding part-time
Floor brokers. The Exchange does not propose to extend the waiver of
equipment and related service charges and trading license fees for DMMs
with at least one trading license and 30 or fewer assigned securities
for the billing month of March 2020, which expire at the end of
December 2020.
    The proposed fee change is designed to reduce monthly costs for all
Qualifying Firms whose operations continue to be disrupted even though
the Trading Floor has partially reopened. In reducing this monthly
financial burden, the proposed change would allow Qualifying Firms that
that are unable to operate at more than 50% of their March 2020 or
Exchange-approved on-Floor staffing levels to reallocate funds to
assist with the cost of shifting and maintaining their prior fully-
staffed on-Floor operations to off-Floor and recoup losses resulting
from the partial reopening. The Exchange believes that all Qualifying
Firms would benefit from the proposed fee change.
    The proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address other
issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any significant problems that
market participants would have in complying with the proposed changes.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\12\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\13\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) & (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. 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.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37495, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (S7-10-04) (Final Rule)
(``Regulation NMS'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While Regulation NMS has enhanced competition, it has also fostered
a ``fragmented'' market structure where trading in a single stock can
occur across multiple trading centers. When multiple trading centers
compete for order flow in the same stock, the Commission has recognized
that ``such competition can lead to the fragmentation of order flow in
that stock.'' \15\ Indeed, equity trading is currently dispersed across
16 exchanges,\16\ 31 alternative trading systems,\17\ and numerous
broker-dealer internalizers and wholesalers, all competing for order
flow. Based on publicly-available information, no single exchange has
more than 16% market share.\18\ Therefore, no exchange possesses
significant pricing power in the execution of equity order flow. More
specifically, the Exchange's market share of trading in Tape A, B and C
securities combined is less than 12%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61358, 75 FR 3594,
3597 (January 21, 2010) (File No. S7-02-10) (Concept Release on
Equity Market Structure).
    \16\ 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.
    \17\ See FINRA ATS Transparency Data, available at https://otctransparency.finra.org/otctransparency/AtsIssueData. A list of
alternative trading systems registered with the Commission is
available at https://www.sec.gov/foia/docs/atslist.htm.
    \18\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Equities Market Volume
Summary, available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposed Change Is Reasonable
    The proposed extension of the waiver of equipment and related
service fees and the applicable monthly trading license fee for
Qualified Firms is reasonable in light of the continued partial closure
of the NYSE Trading Floor as a result of spread of COVID-19. The
proposed change is reasonable because it would reduce monthly costs for
all Qualifying Firms whose operations have been disrupted despite the
fact that the Trading Floor has partially reopened because of the
social distancing requirements and/or other health concerns related to
resuming operation on the Trading Floor. In reducing this monthly
financial burden, the proposed change would allow Qualifying Firms that
that are unable to operate at more than 50% of their March 2020 or
Exchange-approved on-Floor staffing levels to reallocate funds to
assist with the cost of shifting and maintaining their prior fully-
staffed on-Floor operations to off-Floor and recoup losses resulting
from the partial reopening of the Trading Floor.
The Proposal Is an Equitable Allocation of Fees
    The Exchange believes the proposed extension of the waiver of
equipment and related service fees and the applicable monthly trading
license fee for Qualified Members is an equitable allocation of fees.
The proposed waivers apply to all Trading Floor-based firms meeting
specific requirements during the specified period that the Trading
Floor remains partially open. The Exchange believes the proposed rule
change is an equitable allocation of its fees and credits as it
continues the previous fee waiver for Qualifying Firms, which affects
fees charged only to Floor participants and does not apply to
participants that conduct business off-Floor. The Exchange believes it
is an equitable allocation of fees and credits to extend the fee waiver
for Qualifying Firms because such firms have either no more than half
of their Floor staff (as measured by either the March 2020 or Exchange-
approved) levels, and this reduction in staffing levels on the Trading
Floor impacts the speed, volume and efficiency with which these

firms can operate, to their financial detriment.
The Proposal Is Not Unfairly Discriminatory
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is not unfairly
discriminatory because the proposed continuation of the fee waiver
would affect all similarly-situated market participants on an equal and
non-discriminatory basis. The Exchange is not proposing to waive the
Trading Floor-related fees indefinitely, but rather during the
specified period during which the Trading Floor is not fully open. The
Exchange believes that it is reasonable to clarify that firms that
began Floor operations on the Exchange after March 2020 would be
included as ``Qualifying Firms'' if such firms are unable to operate at
more than 50% of their Exchange-approved on-Floor staffing levels
insofar as such treatment places all firms on a level playing field,
meet the current requirements for the waiver, and avoids placing
``newer'' Qualifying Firms at a financial disadvantage. The Exchange
also believes that the proposed change would add clarity and
transparency and reduce the potential for confusion in the Fee Schedule
as relates to the treatment new Floor participants. Moreover, as noted,
the proposed fee change is designed to ease the financial burden on
Trading Floor-based member organizations that cannot fully conduct
Floor operations.
    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,\19\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above, the Exchange believes
that the proposed changes would encourage the continued participation
of member organizations on the Exchange by providing certainty and fee
relief during the ongoing pandemic. As a result, the Exchange believes
that the proposed change furthers the Commission's goal in adopting
Regulation NMS of fostering integrated competition among orders, which
promotes ``more efficient pricing of individual stocks for all types of
orders, large and small.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \20\ Regulation NMS, 70 FR at 37498-99.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Intramarket Competition. The proposed continued waiver of equipment
and related service fees and the applicable monthly trading license fee
for Qualified Firms is designed to reduce monthly costs for those Floor
participants whose operations continue to be impacted by the COVID-19
pandemic despite the fact that the Trading Floor has partially
reopened. In reducing this monthly financial burden, the proposed
change would allow Qualifying Firms that had Floor operations in March
2020 to reallocate funds to assist with the cost of shifting and
maintaining their previously on-Floor operations to off-Floor. Absent
this change, all Qualifying Firms may experience an unintended increase
in the cost of doing business on the Exchange, given that the Trading
Floor has only reopened in a limited capacity. The Exchange believes
that the proposed waiver of fees for Qualifying Firms would not impose
a disparate burden on competition among market participants on the
Exchange because off-Floor market participants are not subject to these
Floor-based fixed fees. In addition, Floor-based firms that are not
subject to the extent of staffing shortfalls as are Qualifying Firms,
i.e., firms that have more than 50% of their March 2020, or Exchange-
approved staffing levels on the Trading Floor, do not face the same
operational level of disruption and potential financial impact during
the partial reopening of the Trading Floor. As noted, the proposal
would apply to all similarly situated member organizations on the same
and equal terms, who would benefit from the changes on the same basis.
Accordingly, the proposed change would not impose a disparate burden on
competition among market participants on the Exchange.
    Intermarket Competition. As described above, the Exchange operates
in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily
choose to send their orders to other exchange and off-exchange venues
if they deem fee levels at those other venues to be more favorable. The
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this
competitive environment because it permits impacted member
organizations to continue to conduct market-making operations on the
Exchange and avoid unintended costs of doing business on the Exchange
while the Trading Floor is not fully open, which could make the
Exchange a less competitive venue on which to trade as compared to
other equities markets. In reducing this monthly financial burden, the
proposed change would allow affected participants to reallocate funds
to assist with the cost of shifting and maintaining their prior fully-
staffed on-Floor operations to off-Floor. Absent this change,
Qualifying Firms may experience an unintended increase in the cost of
doing business on the Exchange, which would make the Exchange a less
competitive venue on which to trade as compared to other options
exchanges.

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) \21\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \22\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \22\ 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) \23\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 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-NYSE-2020-102 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-NYSE-2020-102. 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-NYSE-2020-102 and should be submitted on
or before January 19, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-28664 Filed 12-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P