[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 195 (Friday, October 7, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69889-69892]
[FR Doc No: 2016-24281]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79027; File No. SR-CHX-2016-19]

Self Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
To Amend Rules To Describe Changes Necessary To Implement the Tick Size
Pilot Program

October 3, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that on September 30, 2016, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX''
or the ``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

    CHX proposes to amend the Rules of the Exchange (``CHX Rules'') to
describe changes to CHX Matching System \3\ functionality necessary to
implement the quoting and trading provisions of the Regulation NMS Plan
to Implement a Tick Size Pilot Program (``Plan'' or ``Pilot'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Matching System is an automated order execution system,
which is a part of the Exchange's ``Trading Facilities,'' as defined
under CHX Article 1, Rule 1(z).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74892 (May 6, 2015),
80 FR 27513 (May 13, 2015) (``Approval Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has designated this proposal as ``non-controversial''
and provided the Commission with the notice required by Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) under the Act.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of this proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site at (www.chx.com) and in 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 CHX included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule changes 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 CHX 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 Changes

1. Purpose
    On August 25, 2014, NYSE Group, Inc., on behalf of the Exchange,
Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. f/k/a BATS Z-Exchange, Inc., Bats BYX Exchange,
Inc. f/k/a BATS Y-Exchange, Inc., Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc. f/k/a EDGA
Exchange, Inc., Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc. f/k/a EDGX Exchange, Inc.,
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA''), NASDAQ OMX
BX, Inc., NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, New York
Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''), NYSE MKT LLC, and NYSE Arca, Inc.
(collectively ``Plan Participants''),\6\ filed with the Commission,
pursuant to Section 11A of the Act \7\ and Rule 608 of Regulation NMS
\8\ thereunder, the Plan.\9\ The Plan Participants filed the Plan to
comply with an order issued by the Commission on June 24, 2014.\10\ The
Plan \11\ was published for comment in the Federal Register on November
7, 2014, and approved by the Commission, as modified, on May 6,
2015.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A ``Participant'' is a ``member'' of the Exchange for
purposes of the Act. See CHX Article 1, Rule 1(s). For clarity, the
Exchange proposes to utilize the term ``CHX Participant'' when
referring to members of the Exchange and the term ``Plan
Participant'' when referring to Participants of the Plan.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \8\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \9\ See Letter from Brendon J. Weiss, Vice President,
Intercontinental Exchange, Inc., to Secretary, Commission, dated
August 25, 2014.
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72460 (June 24,
2014), 79 FR 36840 (June 30, 2014).
    \11\ Unless otherwise specified, capitalized terms used in this
rule filing are defined as set forth in the Plan.
    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74892 (May 6,
2015), 80 FR 27514 (May 13, 2015) (``Approval Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Plan is designed to allow the Commission, market participants,
and the public to study and assess the impact of increment conventions
on the liquidity and trading of the common stocks of small-
capitalization companies. Each Plan Participant is required to comply
with, and to enforce compliance by its member organizations, as
applicable, with the provisions of the Plan.
    The Pilot will include stocks of companies with $3 billion or less
in market capitalization, an average daily trading volume of one
million shares or less, and a volume weighted average price of at least
$2.00 for every trading day. The Pilot will consist of a control group
of approximately 1400 Pilot Securities and three test groups (``Test
Groups'') with 400 Pilot Securities in each selected by a stratified
sampling.\13\ During the Pilot, Pilot Securities in the control group
will be quoted and traded at the currently permissible increments.
Pilot Securities in the first test group (``Test Group One'') will be
quoted in $0.05 minimum increments but will continue to trade at any
price increment that is currently permitted.\14\ Pilot Securities in
the second test group (``Test Group Two'') will be quoted in $0.05
minimum increments and will trade at $0.05 minimum increments subject
to a midpoint exception, a retail investor order exception, and a
negotiated trade exception.\15\ Pilot Securities in the third test
group (``Test Group Three'') will be subject to the same restrictions
as Test Group Two and also will be subject to the ``trade-at''
requirement to prevent price matching by a market participant that is
not displaying at a price of a trading center's \16\ best protected bid
or best protected offer (``Trade-at Prohibition''), unless an
enumerated exception applies.\17\ In addition to the exceptions
provided under Test Group Two, an exception for Block Size orders and
exceptions that mirror those under Rule

611 of Regulation NMS \18\ will apply to the Trade-at Prohibition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Section V of the Plan for identification of Pilot
Securities, including criteria for selection and grouping.
    \14\ See Section VI(B) of the Plan.
    \15\ See Section VI(C) of the Plan.
    \16\ The Plan incorporates the definition of ``trading center''
from Rule 600(b)(78) of Regulation NMS. Regulation NMS defines a
``trading center'' as ``a national securities exchange or national
securities association that operates an SRO trading facility, an
alternative trading system, an exchange market maker, an OTC market
maker, or any other broker or dealer that executes orders internally
by trading as principal or crossing orders as agent.''
    \17\ See Section VI(D) of the Plan.
    \18\ 17 CFR 242.611.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Plan requires the Exchange to establish, maintain, and enforce
written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to comply
with applicable quoting and trading requirements specified in the Plan.
Accordingly, the Exchange adopted Article 20, Rule 13(a) to require CHX
Participants to comply with the quoting and trading provisions of the
Plan.\19\ The Exchange also adopted Article 20, Rule 13(b) to require
CHX Participants to comply with the data collection provisions under
Appendix B and C of the Plan.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78146 (June 23,
2016), 81 FR 42380 (June 29, 2016) (SR-CHX-2016-09).
    \20\ See Exchange Act Release No. 78812 (September 12, 2016)
(SR-CHX-2016-17); see also Exchange Act Release No. 77469 (March 29,
2016), 81 FR 19275 (April 4, 2016) (SR-CHX-2016-03).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Operation of Certain Order Types and Modifiers for Pilot
Securities
    Current Article 20, Rule 13(a)(2) provides that the Matching System
will not display, quote or trade in violation of the applicable quoting
and trading requirements for a Pilot Security specified in the Plan and
Article 20, Rule 13, unless such quotation or transaction is
specifically exempted under the Plan. The Exchange now proposes to
adopt Article 20, Rule 13(c) (Operation of Certain Order Types and
Modifiers for Pilot Securities) to describe specific changes to
existing Matching System functionality necessary to implement the
applicable quoting and trading requirements of the Plan or to clarify
the operation of certain functionality in light of the Plan.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The Exchange notes that, in connection with this proposed
rule change, the Exchange intends to file an exemptive request
seeking relief from certain of the Plan's trading and quoting
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Initially, the Exchange proposes to amend current CHX Article 20,
Rule 13(a)(2) to adopt an additional sentence that provides that ``The
operation of certain order types and modifiers applicable to the Pilot
Securities are set forth under paragraph (c) below.''
CHX Only \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See CHX Article 1, Rule 2(b)(1)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CHX Only modifier is a limit order modifier that instructs the
Exchange to reprice the CHX Only order pursuant to the CHX Only Price
Sliding Processes \23\ under certain circumstances, including for Rule
610(d) of Regulation NMS \24\ (NMS Price Sliding \25\) and Rule 201 of
Regulation SHO \26\ (Short Sale Price Sliding \27\) compliance
purposes.\28\ Pursuant to NMS Price Sliding, a CHX Only order that, at
the time of entry, would lock or cross a protected quotation of an
external market in violation of Rule 610(d) would be repriced to be
executable at the locking price in the Matching System and, if not
marked Do Not Display,\29\ displayable at one minimum price variation
below the current NBO (for bids) or at one minimum price variation
above the current NBB (for offers).\30\ CHX Only orders subject to the
CHX Only Price Sliding Processes may be price slid once or multiple
times depending on changes to the prevailing NBBO.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See id.
    \24\ 17 CFR 242.610(d).
    \25\ See CHX Article 1, Rule 2(b)(1)(C)(i).
    \26\ See 17 CFR 242.201.
    \27\ See CHX Article 1, Rule 2(b)(1)(C)(ii).
    \28\ See CHX Article 1, Rule 2(b)(1)(C).
    \29\ See CHX Article 1, Rule 2(c)(2). Price slid undisplayed CHX
Only orders (i.e., CHX Only orders marked Do Not Display) would only
be executable at the locking price and not displayable at any price.
    \30\ See CHX Article 1, Rule 2(b)(1)(C).
    \31\ See CHX Article 1, Rule 2(b)(1)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Assuming no changes to the CHX Only modifier, the Trade-at
Prohibition would result in CHX Only price slid orders in Test Group 3
securities to only be executable at the locking price pursuant to an
exception or exemption to the Trade-at Prohibition. In order to avoid
the order cancellations that could result from CHX Only price slid
orders being ranked at the locking price, the Exchange now proposes to
adopt proposed paragraph (c)(1) to adopt a modification to the current
CHX Only Price Sliding processes for Test Group Three securities
(``Trade-at price sliding'') which provides as follows:

    In Test Group Three, an incoming CHX Only buy order priced at or
through the current NBO shall be price slid to be executable and
displayable at one minimum price variation below the current NBO and
an incoming CHX Only sell order priced at or through the current NBB
shall be price slid to be executable and displayable at one minimum
price variation above the current NBB. Thereafter, in Test Group
Three, a price slid CHX Only order shall continue to be price slid
and executable at its displayed price pursuant to Article 1, Rule
2(b)(1)(C)(i)(b) or Rule 2(b)(1)(C)(ii)(b), as applicable.

    The result of Trade-at price sliding is that the executable and
displayable price of a CHX Only order that is price slid upon initial
receipt and continually thereafter will always be the same.\32\ CHX
Only orders in non-Test Group Three securities that would lock or cross
a protected quotation of an external market in violation of Rule 610(d)
would continue to be repriced pursuant to Article 1, Rule 2(b)(1)(C),
as described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ CHX Only sell orders subject to Short Sale Price Sliding
are similarly repriced to one minimum price variation above the
current NBB. See CHX Article 1, Rule 2(b)(1)(C)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cross Orders \33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See CHX Article 1, Rule 2(a)(2) defining ``cross order.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes the following amendments regarding the
operation of cross orders in certain Pilot Securities.
Block Size Exception for Cross Orders Only
    Section VI(D)(2) of the Plan provides that trading centers will be
permitted to execute Block Size \34\ orders for a Pilot Security at a
price equal to a protected bid or protected offer (``Block Size
exception''). The Exchange now proposes to adopt paragraph (c)(2),
which provides that only cross orders received by the Matching System
shall be eligible for the Block Size exception to the Trade-at
Prohibition.\35\ Thus, limit \36\ and market \37\ orders for Test Group
Three securities shall not be eligible for the Block Size exception at
CHX. In the event the Exchange receives a limit or market order of
Block Size that is subject to the Trade-at Prohibition, the Exchange
will either (1) price slide the order if it is marked CHX Only, as
described above, or (2) cancel the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ ``Block Size'' is defined in the Plan as an order (1) of at
least 5,000 shares or (2) with a market value of at least $100,000.
    \35\ Given that cross orders are always handled IOC, cross
orders can never be routed away and can never be ranked on the CHX
book. Moreover, cross orders can only execute as a clean cross and
cannot execute against resting orders on the CHX book. See id.
    \36\ See CHX Article 1, Rule 2(a)(1) defining ``limit orders.''
    \37\ See CHX Article 1, Rule 2(a)(3) defining ``market orders.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cross Order Exemption From Minimum Increment Requirement
    Section VI(B) of the Plan prohibits the Exchange from, among other
things, accepting orders in any Pilot Security in Test Group One in
price increments other than $0.05 (``$0.05 minimum order increment
requirement''); provided that orders priced to execute at the midpoint
and orders entered in a Plan Participant-operated retail liquidity
program may be ranked and accepted in increments of less than $0.05.
The $0.05 minimum order increment requirement and related exceptions
also apply to Pilot Securities in Test Group Two and Test Group
Three.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Section VI(C) of the Plan provides that Pilot Securities in
Test Group Two will be subject to the same quoting requirements as
Test Group One. Moreover, Section VI(D) of the Plan provides that
Pilot Securities in Test Group Three will be subject to the same
quoting and trading requirements as Test Group Two, along with the
applicable quoting and trading exceptions.

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

    Following the adoption of Rule 612 of Regulation NMS,\39\ the
Commission granted the national securities exchanges a limited
exemption from Rule 612 to permit the exchanges to accept cross orders
priced in sub-penny increments if (1) the orders are immediately
executed against each other and (2) the cross transaction is effected
in accordance with exchange rules approved or established pursuant to
Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act \40\ (``cross order exemption'').\41\
This exception is not set forth in the Plan, and thus does not
currently apply to cross orders for securities in the Test Groups
(``Test Groups securities''). The Exchange has determined that it is
appropriate to incorporate the cross order exemption to the $0.05
minimum order increment requirement, as this exemption is equally
applicable to cross orders for Test Groups securities. Accordingly, the
Exchange is proposing to adopt CHX Article 20, Rule 13(c)(4), which
provides as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 17 CFR 242.612.
    \40\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \41\ Currently, the Exchange permits any type of cross order in
any security, whether the order is priced less than or at or above
$1.00, to be submitted in an increment as small as $0.000001. See
CHX Article 20, Rule 4(a)(7)(B). This rule is based on exemptive
relief from Rule 612 granted by the Commission to the national
securities exchanges in 2006. See Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 54714 (November 6, 2006), 71 FR 66352 (November 14, 2006)
(``Rule 612 Exemptive Relief Order'').

    In Test Group One, the Exchange shall accept cross orders in
increments less than $0.05, subject to Article 20, Rule
4(a)(7)(B).\42\ In Test Groups Two and Three, the Exchange shall
accept cross orders in increments less than $0.05 only if the cross
orders would qualify as Negotiated Trades, subject to Article 20,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 4(a)(7)(B).

    \42\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In connection with this proposed amendment, the Exchange is seeking
exemptive relief from complying with the $0.05 minimum order increment
requirement as currently set forth in the Plan, which does not contain
this exception.43 44
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See supra note 21.
    \44\ The Exchange notes that cross orders in Test Group Two and
Three securities would continue to be subject to the $0.05 minimum
trading increment requirement set forth under Section VI(C) of the
Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Special Handling of Certain Intermarket Sweep Orders (``ISOs'') \45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See 17 CFR 242.600(b)(30); see also CHX Article 1, Rule
2(b)(3)(B) defining ``ISO.'' The Exchange recently amended the
operation of the Exchange's various ISO modifiers and thus changes
to CHX Article 1, Rule 2(b)(3)(B) are currently effective, but not
yet operative. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78684 (August
25, 2016), 81 FR 60034 (August 31, 2016) (SR-CHX-2016-15). Changes
effected pursuant to SR-CHX-2016-15 will be operative upon, or prior
to, the commencement of the Pilot Period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to clarify how it will handle certain ISOs
received by the Exchange in Test Group Three securities. Specifically,
in Test Group Three, the Exchange proposes to handle an ISO with a
Time-In-Force of Day \46\ or GTD \47\ (``Day ISO'') as a Trade-at
ISO,\48\ as an order sender that submits a Day ISO to the Exchange
would be representing that it has swept protected quotations priced
better than or equal to the limit price of the Day ISO,\49\ which would
be the same representation made by an order sender submitting a Trade-
at ISO to the Exchange.\50\ However, an ISO with a Time-In-Force of IOC
\51\ (``IOC ISO'') would not be handled as a Trade-at ISO (i.e., the
Exchange will not ignore protected quotations priced at the limit price
of the IOC ISO when processing the IOC ISO), as the sender of an IOC
ISO would only be representing that it has swept protected quotations
priced better than the limit price of the IOC ISO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See CHX Article 1, Rule 2(d)(1) defining ``Day.''
    \47\ See CHX Article 1, Rule 2(d)(3) defining ``GTD.''
    \48\ CHX Article 20, Rule 13(a)(7)(A)(i) defines ``Trade-at
Intermarket Sweep Order'' as follows:
    (i) '' Trade-at Intermarket Sweep Order'' means a limit order
for a Pilot Security that meets the following requirements: (1) When
routed to a Trading Center, the limit order is identified as a
Trade-at Intermarket Sweep Order; and (2) Simultaneously with the
routing of the limit order identified as a Trade-at Intermarket
Sweep Order, one or more additional limit orders, as necessary, are
routed to execute against the full size of any Protected Bid, in the
case of a limit order to sell, or the full displayed size of any
Protected Offer, in the case of a limit order to buy, for the Pilot
Security with a price that is better than or equal to the limit
price of the limit order identified as a Trade-at Intermarket Sweep
Order. These additional routed orders also must be marked as Trade-
at Intermarket Sweep Orders.
    \49\ See CHX Article 20, Rule 6(c)(3); see also Question 5.02 of
``Division of Trading and Markets: Responses to Frequency Asked
Questions Concerning Rule 611 and Rule 610 of Regulation NMS.'' U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission, 4 April 2008. Web. 21 May 2015.
http://www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/nmsfaq610-11.htm
    \50\ See id.; see also CHX Article 20, Rule 6(c)(3).
    \51\ See CHX Article 1, Rule 2 (d)(4) defining ``IOC.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, proposed paragraph (c)(3) provides that in Test Group Three,
an Intermarket Sweep Order with a Time-In-Force of Day or GTD shall be
treated as a Trade-at Intermarket Sweep Order. Moreover, as the Trade-
at Prohibition does not apply to non-Test Group Three securities,
proposed paragraph (c)(3) also provides that in non-Test Group Three
securities, a Trade-at Intermarket Sweep Order shall be treated as an
Intermarket Sweep Order.
Proposed CHX Routing Services Changes
    Currently, the Exchange routes away Routable Orders \52\ received
by the Exchange that trigger a Routing Event, which are listed and
described under Article 19, Rule 3(a). For example, Article 19, Rule
3(a)(1) (``Routing Event #1'') provides that the Exchange will route
away orders to the extent necessary to permit the display and/or
execution of an incoming Routable Order on the Exchange in compliance
with Rules 610(d) and 611.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See CHX Article 1, Rule 1(oo) defining ``Routable Order.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the Trade-at Prohibition, the Exchange proposes to
amend Article 19, Rule 3(a)(1) to provide that that the Exchange will
route away orders to the extent necessary to permit the display and/or
execution of an incoming Routable Order on the Exchange in compliance
with Rules 610(d) and 611 and, for the duration of the pilot period to
coincide with the pilot period for the Plan, the Trade-at Prohibition
described under the Plan. The Exchange will continue to route orders
pursuant to amended Routing Event #1 as IOC ISOs.
    For example, assume that the NBBO for security XYZ, a Test Group
Three security, is 20.00--20.05. Assume that the CHX has one
undisplayed buy order for 100 shares of security XYZ priced at 20.00.
Assume that two away markets are displaying protected bids for security
XYZ at the NBB, each for 100 shares. Assume then that the Exchange
receives a Routable Order to sell 300 shares of security XYZ at 20.00/
share. Pursuant to amended Routing Event #1, the Exchange would route
away two IOC ISOs, each for 100 shares of security XYZ priced at 20.00,
to satisfy the full displayed size of the two protected bids at the
NBB. The Exchange would then fully execute the remaining 100 shares of
the incoming sell order against the resting undisplayed order at 20.00/
share.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \53\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \54\

in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \54\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that this proposal is consistent with the Act
because it implements, interprets, and clarifies the provisions of the
Plan and CHX Rules, and is designed to assist the Exchange and CHX
Participants in meeting regulatory obligations pursuant to the Plan. In
approving the Plan, the SEC noted that the Pilot was an appropriate,
data-driven test that was designed to evaluate the impact of a wider
tick size on trading, liquidity, and the market quality of securities
of smaller capitalization companies, and was therefore in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act. To the extent that this proposal
implements, interprets, and clarifies the Plan and applies specific
requirements to CHX Participants, the Exchange believes that this
proposal is in furtherance of the objectives of the Plan, as identified
by the SEC, and is therefore consistent with the Act.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange
notes that the proposed rule change implements the provisions of the
Plan, and is designed to assist the Exchange in meeting its regulatory
obligations pursuant to the Plan. The Exchange also notes that the
quoting and trading requirements of the Plan will apply equally to all
CHX Participants that trade Pilot Securities.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) \55\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \56\ thereunder
because the proposal does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection
of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden
on competition; and (iii) by its terms, become operative for 30 days
from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \56\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \57\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\58\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that so that the
proposed rule change can become operative on September 30, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \58\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because it will allow the Exchange to implement the proposed rules
immediately thereby preventing delays in the implementation of the
Plan. The Commission notes that the Plan is scheduled to start on
October 3, 2016. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day
operative delay and designates the proposed rule change to be operative
upon filing with the Commission.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-CHX-2016-19 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 No. SR-CHX-2016-19. 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 changes 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 the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the CHX. 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 No. SR-CHX-2016-19 and should be
submitted on or before October 28, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\60\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-24281 Filed 10-6-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 69 (Thursday, April 9, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20017-20018]
[FR Doc No: 2020-07427]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2020-0014]

Program Approval; Canadian National Railway

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of approval.

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

SUMMARY: FRA is issuing this notice to explain its rationale for
approving a Canadian National Railway (CN) petition for a Test Program
designed to test track inspection technologies (i.e., an autonomous
track geometry measurement system) and new operational approaches to
track inspections and its rationale for granting a limited, temporary
suspension of a substantive FRA rule that is necessary to facilitate
the conduct of the Test Program.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yu-Jiang Zhang, Staff Director, Track
Division, Office of Railroad Safety, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Aaron Moore, Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel,
FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, telephone (202)
493-7009 or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 11, 2019, CN petitioned FRA
under Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 211.51 to
suspend certain requirements of FRA's track safety regulations to
conduct a program to test new track inspection technologies (i.e., an
autonomous track geometry measurement system) and new operational
approaches to track

inspections. CN also submitted a written Test Program providing a
description of the proposed tests and the geographic scope of the
testing territory.
    The Test Program specifies that the tests will be conducted on
approximately 1,204 miles of main line and siding tracks on CN's
corridor between Chicago and New Orleans, spanning 11 subdivisions.
    The Test Program is designed to test autonomous track geometry
measurement systems and gradually decrease manual visual inspections as
an alternative to FRA's inspection frequency requirements. CN indicates
that it will continue to use other inspection technologies during the
Test Program, including: (1) Vehicle Track Interaction monitoring
systems; (2) ultrasonic rail inspection systems; and (3) optical joint
bar inspection systems. The Test Program will be carried out in four
separate phases over the course of 12 months, as detailed in Exhibit C
of the Test Program (available for review at www.regulations.gov
(docket number FRA-2020-0014)).
    After review and analysis of CN's petition for a Test Program,
subject to certain conditions designed to ensure safety, FRA approved
CN's Test Program and suspended the requirements of 49 CFR
213.233(b)(3) \1\ and (c) as necessary to carry out the Test Program. A
copy of FRA's letter approving CN's Test Program and granting the
requested limited temporary suspension of 49 CFR 213.233(b)(3) and (c),
as well as a complete copy of the Test Program, is available in docket
number FRA-2020-0014 at www.regulations.gov. FRA's letter approving
CN's Test Program and granting the requested limited temporary
suspension of certain regulations specifically details the conditions
CN will need to undertake during the Test Program. As required by 49
CFR 211.51(c), FRA is providing this explanatory statement describing
the Test Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The suspension of 49 CFR 213.233(b)(3) only applies to
Phases 3 and 4 of the Test Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained more fully in its approval letter, FRA finds that the
temporary, limited suspension of 49 CFR 213.233(b)(3) and (c) is
necessary to the conduct of the approved Test Program, which is
specifically designed to evaluate the effectiveness of new automated
track inspection technologies and operational methods. Furthermore, FRA
also finds that the scope and application of the granted suspension of
49 CFR 213.233(b)(3) and (c) as applied to the Test Program are limited
to that necessary to conduct the Test Program. Finally, FRA's approval
letter outlines the conditions of the Test Program that will ensure
standards sufficient to assure safety.

John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2020-07427 Filed 4-8-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 22 (Thursday, February 1, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4595-4597]
[FR Doc No: 2018-01924]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0343; FRL-9973-49-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving
elements of a state implementation plan (SIP) submission from Indiana
regarding the infrastructure requirements of section 110 of the Clean
Air Act (CAA) for the 2012 fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The infrastructure
requirements are designed to ensure that the structural components of
each state's air quality management program are adequate to meet the
state's responsibilities under the CAA. EPA proposed this action on
August 31, 2017, and received one public comment in response.

DATES: This final rule is effective on March 5, 2018.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0343. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
through www.regulations.gov or at the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We recommend
that you telephone Eric Svingen, Environmental Engineer, at (312) 353-
4489 before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Svingen, Environmental Engineer,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. What is the background of this SIP submission?
II. What comments were submitted on the proposed rulemaking?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background of this SIP submission?

A. What state submission does this rulemaking address?

    This rulemaking addresses a June 10, 2016, submission from the
Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) intended to
address all applicable infrastructure requirements for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS. On December 28, 2016, IDEM supplemented this
submittal with additional documentation intended to address the
transport requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(D) for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS; EPA will take action on this supplement in a
separate rulemaking.

B. Why did the state make this SIP submission?

    Under section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA, states are required to
submit infrastructure SIPs to ensure that their SIPs provide for
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS, including
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. These submissions must contain any
revisions needed for meeting the applicable SIP requirements of section
110(a)(2), or certifications that their existing SIPs for the NAAQS
already meet those requirements.
    EPA highlighted this statutory requirement in an October 2, 2007,
guidance document entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under
Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and
PM2.5 \1\ National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' (2007
Guidance) and has issued additional guidance documents, the most recent
on September 13, 2013, entitled ``Guidance on Infrastructure State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under CAA Sections 110(a)(1) and
(2)'' (2013 Guidance). The SIP submission referenced in this rulemaking
pertains to the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2),
and addresses the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ PM2.5 refers to particles with an aerodynamic
diameter of less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers, oftentimes
referred to as ``fine'' particles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. What is the scope of this rulemaking?

    EPA is acting upon the SIP submission from Indiana that addresses
the infrastructure requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) for
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The requirement for states to make SIP
submissions of this type arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1), which
states that states must make SIP submissions ``within 3 years (or such
shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the
promulgation of a national primary ambient air quality standard (or any
revision thereof),'' and these SIP submissions are to provide for the
``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. The
statute directly imposes on states the duty to make these SIP
submissions, and the requirement to make the submissions is not
conditioned upon EPA's taking any action other than promulgating a new
or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific
elements that ``[e]ach such plan'' submission must address.
    EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the
purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2)
as ``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. Although the term
``infrastructure SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to
distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions
that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such
as SIP submissions that address the nonattainment planning requirements
of part D and the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD)
requirements of part C of title I of the CAA, and ``regional haze SIP''
submissions required to address the visibility protection requirements
of CAA section 169A.
    In this rulemaking, EPA will not take action on three substantive
areas of section 110(a)(2): (i) Existing provisions related to excess
emissions during periods of start-up, shutdown, or malfunction
(``SSM'') at sources, that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's
policies addressing such excess emissions; (ii) existing provisions
related to ``director's variance'' or ``director's discretion'' that
purport to permit revisions to SIP approved emissions limits with
limited public notice or without requiring further approval by EPA,
that may be contrary to the CAA; and, (iii) existing provisions for PSD
programs that may be inconsistent with current requirements of EPA's
``Final NSR Improvement Rule,'' 67 FR 80186 (December 31,

2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (``NSR Reform'').
Instead, EPA has the authority to address each one of these substantive
areas in separate rulemakings. A detailed history, interpretation, and
rationale as they relate to infrastructure SIP requirements can be
found in EPA's May 13, 2014, proposed rule entitled, ``Infrastructure
SIP Requirements for the 2008 Lead NAAQS'' in the section, ``What is
the scope of this rulemaking?'' (see 79 FR 27241 at 27242-27245).

II. What comments were submitted on the proposed rulemaking?

    On August 31, 2017 (82 FR 41379), EPA proposed to approve the
above-cited elements of Indiana's infrastructure SIP submission for the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. In response to this proposed action, EPA
received one comment from a person identifying as a ``citizen of
Indiana and a law student.'' The commenter expressed support for EPA's
proposed approval of the Indiana infrastructure SIP for the
PM2.5 NAAQS, but ``encourage[d] some sort of change that
would be stricter on states regarding localities.'' EPA thanks the
commenter for her/his thoughts and support regarding rulemakings.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is taking final action to approve most elements of a submission
from Indiana certifying that its current SIP is sufficient to meet the
required infrastructure elements under section 110(a)(1) and (2) for
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA's actions for the state's
satisfaction of infrastructure SIP requirements, by element of section
110(a)(2) and NAAQS, are contained in the table below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  2012
                           Element                               PM2.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A)--Emission limits and other control measures..............        A
(B)--Ambient air quality monitoring/data system..............        A
(C)1--Program for enforcement of control measures............        A
(C)2--PSD....................................................        A
(D)1--I Prong 1: Interstate transport--significant                  NA
 contribution................................................
(D)2--I Prong 2: Interstate transport--interfere with               NA
 maintenance.................................................
(D)3--II Prong 3: Interstate transport--prevention of                A
 significant deterioration...................................
(D)4--II Prong 4: Interstate transport--protect visibility...       NA
(D)5--Interstate and international pollution abatement.......        A
(E)1--Adequate resources.....................................        A
(E)2--State board requirements...............................        A
(F)--Stationary source monitoring system.....................        A
(G)--Emergency power.........................................        A
(H)--Future SIP revisions....................................        A
(I)--Nonattainment planning requirements of part D...........      (*)
(J)1--Consultation with government officials.................        A
(J)2--Public notification....................................        A
(J)3--PSD....................................................        A
(J)4--Visibility protection..................................      (*)
(K)--Air quality modeling/data...............................        A
(L)--Permitting fees.........................................        A
(M)--Consultation and participation by affected local                A
 entities....................................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the above table, the key is as follows:

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
A.................................  Approve.
NA................................  No Action/Separate Rulemaking.
*.................................  Not germane to infrastructure SIPs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by April 2, 2018. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: January 17, 2018.
Cathy Stepp,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

0
2. In Sec.  52.770, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an
entry in alphabetical order for ``Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure
requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.770  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                       EPA-Approved Indiana Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Title                   Indiana date          EPA approval                 Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure             6/10/2016  2/1/2018, [Insert Federal  This action addresses the
 requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.                  Register citation].        following CAA elements:
                                                                                110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C),
                                                                                (D)(i)(II) except
                                                                                visibility, (D)(ii), (E),
                                                                                (F), (G), (H), (J) except
                                                                                visibility, (K), (L), and
                                                                                (M).

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2018-01924 Filed 1-31-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 198 (Monday, October 16, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48034-48035]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22240]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0437; FRL-9969-34-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Adoption of Control Techniques Guidelines for Control of
Volatile Organic Compound Emissions From Miscellaneous Metal Parts
Surface Coating, Miscellaneous Plastic Parts Surface Coating, and
Pleasure Craft Surface Coatings

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve
the state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The revision includes amendments to the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection's (PADEP)
regulations and addresses the requirement to adopt reasonably available
control technology (RACT) for sources covered by EPA's control
techniques guidelines (CTG) standards for the following categories:
Miscellaneous metal parts surface coating, miscellaneous plastic parts
surface coating, and pleasure craft surface coatings, as well as
related cleaning activities. The SIP revision also amends regulations
for graphic arts systems and mobile equipment repair and refinishing
and includes related general administrative amendments. In the Final
Rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving Pennsylvania's
SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no
adverse comments. If no adverse comments are received in response to
this action, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives
adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all
public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment
period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do
so at this time.

DATES: Comments must be received in writing by November 15, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2017-0437 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory A. Becoat,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For further information, please see the
information provided in the direct final action, with the same title,
that is located in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this
Federal Register publication. Please note that if EPA receives adverse
comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that
provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt
as final those provisions

of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

    Dated: September 27, 2017.
Cecil Rodrigues,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2017-22240 Filed 10-13-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 3, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 14269]
[FR Doc No: 2018-06699]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER18-1186-000]

Turtle Creek Wind Farm 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
Turtle Creek Wind Farm 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 April 17, 2018.
    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 should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
[email protected] or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 28, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-06699 Filed 4-2-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 190)]
[Notices]
[Page 56858-56859]
[DOCID:fr30se08-85]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1786-DR]

Louisiana; Amendment No. 7 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 Louisiana (FEMA-1786-DR), dated September 2, 2008, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: September 18, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Louisiana is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his
declaration of September 2, 2008.

    Allen, Avoyelles, Beauregard, Cameron, East Feliciana,
Evangeline, Jefferson Davis, Lafayette, Orleans, Rapides, Sabine,
St. Charles, St. John the Baptist, St. Martin, St. Mary, Terrebonne,
and Vermilion Parishes for Public Assistance (already designated for
Individual Assistance and debris removal and emergency protective
measures [Categories A and B], including direct Federal assistance,
under the Public Assistance program).
    Calcasieu, Franklin and St. Tammany Parishes for Public
Assistance (already designated for Individual Assistance and
emergency protective measures [Category B], including direct Federal
assistance, under the Public Assistance program).

    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.

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E8-22948 Filed 9-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 97 (Tuesday, May 19, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30011-30013]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10700]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2020-0024]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Hearing

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 11 individuals from the
hearing requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs) to operate a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate
commerce. The exemptions enable these hard of hearing and deaf
individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: The exemptions were applicable on May 15, 2020. The exemptions
expire on May 15, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
exception occurred on : 2020-10700.htm
exception occurred on : 2020-10700.htm
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>, fmcsamedica[email protected], FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal

holidays. If you have questions regarding viewing or submitting
material to the docket, contact Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Viewing Documents and Comments

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2020-0024 and choose the document to review. If you do
not have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by
visiting the Docket Operations in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of
the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202)
366-9317 or<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting Docket Operations.

B. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.transportation.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    On April 7, 2020, FMCSA published a notice announcing receipt of
applications from 11 individuals requesting an exemption from the
hearing requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) to operate a CMV in
interstate commerce and requested comments from the public (85 FR
19572). The public comment period ended on May 7, 2020, and one comment
was received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and
determined that granting exemptions to these individuals would achieve
a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would
be achieved by complying with Sec.  391.41(b)(11).
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding hearing
found in Sec.  391.41(b)(11) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person first perceives a forced
whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or
without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric
device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater
than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a
hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American
National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5--1951.
    This standard was adopted in 1970 and was revised in 1971 to allow
drivers to be qualified under this standard while wearing a hearing
aid, 35 FR 6458, 6463 (April 22, 1970) and 36 FR 12857 (July 3, 1971).

III. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received one comment in this proceeding. Victoria Johnson of
Driver and Vehicle Services, State of Minnesota commented that
Minnesota has no objections to Matthew Honkanen receiving a hearing
exemption to drive in interstate commerce.

IV. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-year period if it finds such
exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to,
or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such
exemption. The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at
the end of the 5-year period. FMCSA grants medical exemptions from the
FMCSRs for a 2-year period to align with the maximum duration of a
driver's medical certification.
    The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is
based on current medical information and literature, and the 2008
Evidence Report, ``Executive Summary on Hearing, Vestibular Function
and Commercial Motor Driving Safety.'' The evidence report reached two
conclusions regarding the matter of hearing loss and CMV driver safety:
(1) No studies that examined the relationship between hearing loss and
crash risk exclusively among CMV drivers were identified; and (2)
evidence from studies of the private driver's license holder population
does not support the contention that individuals with hearing
impairment are at an increased risk for a crash. In addition, the
Agency reviewed each applicant's driving record found in the Commercial
Driver's License Information System, for commercial driver's license
(CDL) holders, and inspections recorded in the Motor Carrier Management
Information System. For non-CDL holders, the Agency reviewed the
driving records from the State Driver's Licensing Agency. Each
applicant's record demonstrated a safe driving history. Based on an
individual assessment of each applicant that focused on whether an
equal or greater level of safety is likely to be achieved by permitting
each of these drivers to drive in interstate commerce as opposed to
restricting him or her to driving in intrastate commerce, the Agency
believes the drivers granted this exemption have demonstrated that they
do not pose a risk to public safety.
    Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these
applicants from the hearing standard in Sec.  391.41(b)(11) is likely
to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption.

V. Conditions and Requirements

    The terms and conditions of the exemption are provided to the
applicants in the exemption document and includes the following: (1)
Each driver must report any crashes or accidents as defined in Sec.
390.5; (2) each driver must report all citations and convictions for
disqualifying offenses under 49 CFR 383 and 49 CFR 391 to FMCSA; and
(3) each driver is prohibited from operating a motorcoach or bus with
passengers in interstate commerce. The driver must also have a copy of
the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized
Federal, State, or local enforcement official. In addition, the
exemption does not exempt the individual from meeting the applicable
CDL testing requirements.

VI. Preemption

    During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with
respect to a person operating under the exemption.

VII. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 11 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts the following drivers from the hearing standard, Sec.
391.41(b)(11), subject to the requirements cited above:

Dustin Bemesderfer (FL)
Jason Burkholder (IN)
James Gray (OH)
Richard Hadlock (IL)
Matthew Honkanen (MN)
Larry Lang (TX)
Jesus Perez (IL)
Jonathan Ramirez (CA)
Brandon St. George (TX)
Yury Volkov (PA)
Aldale Williamson (DC)

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b), each exemption will be valid
for 2 years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person
fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the
exemption has

resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being
granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent
with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b).

Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-10700 Filed 5-18-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 61 (Thursday, March 29, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13539-13542]
[FR Doc No: 2018-06266]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82937; File No. SR-CTA/CQ-2018-01]

Consolidated Tape Association; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of the Twenty-Third Charges Amendment to the Second
Restatement of the CTA Plan and the Fourteenth Charges Amendment to the
Restated CQ Plan

March 23, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 608 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 5, 2018,\3\ the Consolidated Tape Association (``CTA'') Plan
participants (``Participants'') \4\ filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposal to amend the Second
Restatement of the CTA Plan and the Restated Consolidated Quotation
(``CQ'') Plan (``Plans'').\5\ The amendment represents the twenty-third
Charges Amendment to the CTA Plan and the fourteenth Charges Amendment
to the CQ Plan (``Amendments''). The Amendments seek to amend the text
of the Plans' fee schedule to adopt changes to the Broker-Dealer
Enterprise Maximum Monthly Charge (``Enterprise Cap'') and Per-Quote-
Packet Charges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \2\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \3\ See Letter from Emily Kasparov to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, dated March 1, 2018.
    \4\ The Participants are: Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc.; Cboe BZX
Exchange, Inc.; Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.;
Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.; Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Investors Exchange LLC; Nasdaq
BX, Inc.; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; The Nasdaq Stock Market
LLC; New York Stock Exchange LLC; NYSE Arca, Inc.; NYSE American
LLC; and NYSE National, Inc. (collectively, the ``Participants'').
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 10787 (May 10,
1974), 39 FR 17799 (May 20, 1974) (declaring the CTA Plan
effective); 15009 (July 28, 1978), 43 FR 34851 (August 7, 1978)
(temporarily authorizing the CQ Plan); and 16518 (January 22, 1980),
45 FR 6521 (January 28, 1980) (permanently authorizing the CQ Plan).
The most recent restatement of both Plans was in 1995. The CTA Plan,
pursuant to which markets collect and disseminate last sale price
information for non-NASDAQ listed securities, is a ``transaction
reporting plan'' under Rule 601 under the Act, 17 CFR 242.601, and a
``national market system plan'' under Rule 608 under the Act, 17 CFR
242.608. The CQ Plan, pursuant to which markets collect and
disseminate bid/ask quotation information for listed securities, is
a national market system plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Participants are proposing to increase the Enterprise Cap from
$686,400 to $1,260,000 for Network A and from $520,000 to $680,000 for
Network B. The Participants state that the Enterprise Cap was
established to provide incentives to entities to make market data
available to large Nonprofessional Subscriber bases. Due to what they
describe as ongoing industry consolidation, however, the Participants
are proposing to increase the Enterprise Cap in order to account for
the sudden and substantial increase of Nonprofessional Subscribers at
entities using the Enterprise Cap.
    To make the increase of the Enterprise Cap revenue neutral (from an
overall Plan perspective) and fee neutral (from an individual entity
\6\ perspective), the Participants are proposing to decrease the Per-
Quote-Packet Charges for those broker-dealers with 500,000 or more
Nonprofessional Subscribers. According to the Participants, the
increase in fees as a result of the increase of the Enterprise Cap will
be offset by a decrease in Per-Quote-Packet Charges for those entities
that would be most likely affected by the raising of the cap, i.e.,
those with a large Nonprofessional Subscriber base.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ As described below, the Plan does not require an entity that
is registered as a broker-dealer under the Act to pay more than the
Enterprise Cap for any month for the aggregate amount of (a) a
network's Device charges for devices used for its Internal
Distribution plus (b) that network's Device and Per-Quote-Packet
charges payable in respect of services that it provides to
Nonprofessional Subscribers that are brokerage account customers of
the broker-dealer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Rule 608(b)(3) under Regulation NMS,\7\ the
Participants designate the amendment as establishing or changing a fee
or other charge collected on their behalf in connection with access to,
or use of, the facilities contemplated by the Plans. As a result, the
amendment is effective upon filing with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 242.608(b)(3)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments from
interested persons on the proposed Amendments. Set forth in Sections I
and II is the statement of the purpose and summary of the Amendments,
along with the information required by Rules 608(a) and 601(a) under
the Act, prepared and submitted by the Participants to the Commission.

I. Rule 608(a)

A. Purpose of the Amendments

1. Background
Broker-Dealer Enterprise Maximum Monthly Charge
    The Plans require an entity that is registered as a broker-dealer
under the Act to pay no more than the Enterprise Cap for any month for
the aggregate amount of (a) a network's Device charges for devices used
for its Internal Distribution plus (b) that network's Device and Per-
Quote-Packet charges payable in respect of services that it provides to
Nonprofessional Subscribers that are brokerage account customers of the
broker-dealer. In 2013, the Participants set the amount of the
Enterprise Cap to $686,400 for Network A and $520,000 for Network B.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70010 (Jul. 19,
2013), 78 FR 44984 (Jul. 25, 2013) (``2013 Filing'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 2013 Filing, the Participants changed the mechanism for
increasing the Enterprise Cap. The Enterprise Cap was previously
increased based on the percentage increase in the annual composite
share volume for the preceding calendar year, subject to an annual
maximum increase of five percent. In 2013, the Participants permitted
such annual increases in the monthly Enterprise Cap as to which they
agreed by a majority vote, subject to a maximum increase in any
calendar year of four percent. At that time, the Participants believed
that this provision permitted an annual increase by a two-thirds vote
of the Participants without requiring a corresponding rule filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission. Nevertheless, the Participants
have not increased the Enterprise Cap since this change was adopted in
2013.\9\ This filing proposes to remove that provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ As described below, the Participants believe that this
provision should be deleted and that any changes to the Enterprise
Cap should be submitted to the Commission for review and public
comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Per Quote Packet Charges
    As an alternative to monthly Professional Subscriber and
Nonprofessional Subscriber fees, a vendor may respond to end-user
queries for quote and trade information and pay a fee for each such
response. The Participants first established the Per-Quote-Packet
Charges in 1991 as a pilot at $0.005 per query.\10\ In 1999, a pilot
implementing a three-tiered rate structure was introduced, which was
eventually replaced with a one-tier rate at $0.005 per query.\11\ In
2014, the Participants increased the fee to $0.0075 per query to offset
the revenue loss resulting from decreases in the Professional
Subscriber device fee.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 39235 (Oct. 14,
1997), 62 FR 54886 (Oct. 22, 1997).
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 41977 (Oct. 5,
1999), 64 FR 55503 (Oct. 13, 1999).
    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73278 (Oct. 1,
2014), 79 FR 60536 (Oct. 7, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Amendment to Enterprise Cap
    The Participants are proposing to increase the Enterprise Cap from
$686,400 to $1,260,000 for Network A and from $520,000 to $680,000 for
Network B. As a result of industry consolidation, the Nonprofessional
Subscriber base for entities subject to the cap may suddenly increase,
and where before two entities may have slightly benefited from the
Enterprise Cap, a combined entity could find a substantial decrease in
fees by using the Enterprise Cap. Consequently, the increase of the
Enterprise Cap is designed to maintain the status quo and should not,
in conjunction with the Per-Quote-Packet Charges change described
below, result in an increase of revenue to the Plans or fees for any
particular entity.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Participants note that a very small number of entities
take advantage of the Enterprise Cap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Participants are proposing to remove a provision
related to an annual increase of the Enterprise Cap after a two-thirds
vote of the Participants. In the 2013 Filing, the Participants amended
the mechanism by which the Enterprise Cap would increase, from an
automatic increase based on volume to an affirmative vote requirement
by the Participants.
    Since 2013, the Enterprise Cap has not been increased using this
mechanism, and the Participants believe that any future changes to the
Enterprise Cap should be submitted via a filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission and subject to public comment. Consequently, the
Participants are proposing to delete this particular provision.
3. Per-Quote-Packet Charges Change to Remain Revenue Neutral
    Because of the increase in the Enterprise Cap, there could be
broker-dealers looking to use the Enterprise Cap that, without a
corresponding offset, could face an increase in fees. To offset a
potential fee increase, the Participants are proposing a decrease in
the Per-Quote-Packet Charges where a broker-dealer has 500,000 or more
Nonprofessional Subscribers. For such entities, the Per-Quote-Packet
Charges would be decreased from $.0075 to $.0025. By implementing a
tiered structure for Per-Quote-Packet Charges, the proposal is designed
to provide an offset to those firms most likely affected by the
Enterprise Cap increase (i.e., those with a large Nonprofessional
Subscriber base).
    Additionally, the proposal will align Network A and Network B with
a similar tiered structure being proposed for Network C.

B. Governing or Constituent Documents

    Not applicable.

C. Implementation of the Amendments

    Pursuant to Rule 608(b)(3)(i) under Regulation NMS, the
Participants have designated the proposed amendment as establishing or
changing fees and are submitting the amendment for immediate
effectiveness.

D. Development and Implementation Phases

    See Item C above.

E. Analysis of Impact on Competition

    The proposed amendments do not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act. The proposed increase in the Enterprise Cap is designed to
account for industry consolidation.
    Without this adjustment, the Plans' revenue will suddenly decrease
due to a broker-dealer increasing its Nonprofessional Subscriber base
through a merger with another broker-dealer. As detailed further below,
while the Enterprise Cap is being increased, the Plans' revenue and
fees collected from affected entities will be maintained at their
current levels. Any potential fee increase for broker-dealers taking
advantage of the Enterprise Cap will be offset by a decrease in the
Per-Quote-Packet Charges for broker-dealers with large Nonprofessional
Subscriber bases. The combination of the Enterprise Cap increase and
the Per-Quote-Packet Charges decrease will ensure that the fee changes
proposed herein remain revenue neutral.
    The Participants therefore believe that the proposed fee changes
are carefully calibrated to maintain the status quo and, as a result,
do not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate.

F. Written Understanding or Agreements relating To Interpretation of,
or Participation in, Plan

    Not applicable.

G. Approval by Sponsors in Accordance With Plan

    Section XII (b)(iii) of the CTA Plan provides that ``[a]ny addition
of any

charge to . . . the charges set forth in Exhibit E . . . shall be
effected by an amendment to this CTA Plan . . . that is approved by
affirmative vote of not less than two-thirds of all of the then voting
members of CTA. Any such amendment shall be executed on behalf of each
Participant that appointed a voting member of CTA who approves such
amendment and shall be filed with the SEC.'' Further, Section
IX(b)(iii) of the CQ Plan provides that ``additions, deletions, or
modifications to any charges under this CQ Plan shall be effected by an
amendment . . . that is approved by affirmative vote of two-thirds of
all the members of the Operating Committee.''
    The Participants have executed this Amendment and represent not
less than two-thirds of all of the parties to the Plans. That satisfies
the Plans' Participant-approval requirements.

H. Description of Operation of Facility Contemplated by the Proposed
Amendments

    Not applicable.

I. Terms and Conditions of Access

    Not applicable.

J. Method of Determination and Imposition, and Amount of, Fees and
Charges

    The Participants are proposing to increase the Enterprise Cap by an
amount to ensure that industry consolidation would not result in a
sudden decrease in Plan revenue, thereby avoiding any single entity
from getting a disproportionate benefit from the Enterprise Cap. The
Participants propose to decrease the Per-Quote-Packet Charges for
broker-dealers with a large Nonprofessional Subscriber base. The amount
of the proposed decrease is specifically tailored to ensure that the
increase in fees as a result of raising the Enterprise Cap would be
offset and that the proposed amendment would remain revenue neutral.
    Because the Participants have data showing the current benefit of
the Enterprise Cap and the number of queries of those potentially
affected by the change in the Enterprise Cap, the Participants were
able to calibrate the Per-Quote-Packet Charges in order to make the
changes proposed herein revenue neutral. As previously stated, the
proposed change will not only maintain the status quo on an overall
Plan revenue basis, but also maintain the status quo with respect to
the fees charged to individual entities.
    The proposed fee changes were distributed to and discussed with
members of the Plans' Advisory Committee, and were discussed and voted
on during the General Session of the Operating Committee in the
presence of the Advisory Committee.

K. Method and Frequency of Processor Evaluation

    Not applicable.

L. Dispute Resolution

    Not applicable.

II. Rule 601(a)

A. Equity Securities for which Transaction Reports Shall be Required by
the Plan

    Not applicable.

B. Reporting Requirements

    Not applicable.

C. Manner of Collecting, Processing, Sequencing, Making Available and
Disseminating Last Sale Information

    Not applicable.

D. Manner of Consolidation

    Not applicable.

E. Standards and Methods Ensuring Promptness, Accuracy and Completeness
of Transaction Reports

    Not applicable.

F. Rules and Procedures Addressed to Fraudulent or Manipulative
Dissemination

    Not applicable.

G. Terms of Access to Transaction Reports

    Not applicable.

H. Identification of Marketplace of Execution

    Not applicable.

III. Solicitation of Comments

    The Commission seeks comment on the Amendments. In particular, the
Commission seeks comment on the following: (1) Is the anticipated
impact on revenue to the Plans consistent with the Participants'
representations; (2) is the anticipated impact on costs to consumers of
market data, including broker-dealers and their non-professional
customers, consistent with the Participants' representations; (3) is
there supporting data to illustrate that the proposed changes are
``revenue neutral'' as asserted by the Participants; (4) could the fee
changes have a disproportionate impact on particular data recipients;
(5) what, if any, supporting data could inform whether the changes
would maintain the status quo and therefore do not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate as asserted by the
Participants; and (6) whether the impact of potential industry
consolidation on the revenue of the Plans is consistent with the
representations of the Participants? Interested persons are invited to
submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing,
including whether the proposed Amendments are 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-CTA/CQ-2018-01 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-CTA/CQ-2018-01. 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 Amendments that are filed with the
Commission, and all written communications relating to the Amendments
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 on official business days between
the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the Amendments also
will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of
the CTA.
    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-CTA/CQ-2018-01 and should be
submitted on or before April 19, 2018.

    By the Commission.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-06266 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P