considered the fees historically paid by market participants for
connectivity to the pre-migration system, and also assessed the impact
on market participants to ensure that the proposed fees would not
create an undue financial burden on any market participants, including
smaller market participants. Indeed, the Exchange received no comments
from any TPH suggesting that it was unduly burdened by the proposed
changes described herein, which were first announced via Exchange
Notice nearly two months in advance of the migration (now over one year
ago),\115\ nor were any timely comment letters received by the
Commission by the comment period submission deadline of November 12,
2019. The Exchange again underscores the fact that no comment letters
were received in response to its Second, Third, Fifth or Sixth Proposed
Rule Change, and that no individual market participant has provided any
written comments specifically suggesting that the Exchange has failed
to provide sufficient information in the Original, Second, Third,
Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Proposed Rule Change to meets its burden to
demonstrate its proposed fees are consistent with the requirements of
the Exchange Act. As discussed, the three comment letters the Exchange
did receive on its Original Filing and the Fourth and Seventh Proposed
Rule Changes were all submitted by the same industry participant and
consisted of conclusory statements and factual inaccuracies. More
importantly, the Exchange received three positive comment letters from
members (which the Exchange believes is rare with respect to fees), all
of which expressed their support for the proposed fees; noting the
belief that the fees were reasonable and encouraging the Commission to
allow the fees to remain effective.\116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ See Exchange Notice ``Cboe Options Exchange Access and
Capacity Fee Schedule Changes Effective October 1, 2019 and November
1, 2019'' Reference ID C2019081900.
    \116\ See Letters from Steve Crutchfield, Head of Market
Structure, Chicago Trading Company (``CTC'') and William Ellington,
Managing Member/CEO, X-Change Financial Access (``XFA'') to Vanessa
Countryman, Secretary, Commission, dated August 27, 2020. See also
Letter from Lakeshore Securities to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary,
Commission, dated August 31, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the Exchange wishes to highlight that at least two
market participants have in fact expanded their connectivity footprint
since the implementation of the proposed fee changes. One of those
market participants was a TPH that had discussed terminating its
membership from the Exchange altogether prior to migration. However,
after that TPH reviewed the notice the Exchange issued describing the
proposed post-migration fees, the TPH relayed to the Exchange that it
would instead remain a member and add logical connectivity in light of
the cost savings it expected to realize due to the proposed changes.
The Exchange believes this further demonstrates competition within the
market for exchange connectivity, which as a result constrains fees the
Exchange may charge for that connectivity. Another TPH, that prior to
migration acted only as a proprietary trading firm, added the trading
function as a Market-Maker on the Exchange (which required the purchase
of additional trading permits and connectivity). The Exchange also
notes that since migration, one TPH terminated its membership with the
Exchange but retained its membership with 10 other SROs.\117\ The
Exchange believes the fact that only one TPH terminated in the past
eleven months but retained its memberships at other options exchanges
demonstrates the proposed fees are appropriate and reasonable and not
unduly burdensome. While the TPH that did terminate did not specify to
the Exchange why it ended its membership, if it had in fact determined
that the Exchange's proposed connectivity fees did not make business
sense for itself, for all the reasons discussed above, it was free to
leave the Exchange at no cost and retain its membership with other SROs
and/or pursue new memberships.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ Two other Trading Permit Holders also terminated their
respective memberships in the first quarter of 2020. The Exchange
notes, however, that one TPH consolidated its membership with an
affiliate and another TPH no longer appears to be a registered
broker-dealer. In the second quarter, another TPH terminated its
membership with the Exchange but similarly merged its business with
another TPH. In August 2020, a TPH terminated its membership with
the Exchange, along with all of its other SRO memberships as well.
Lastly, in September 2020, two TPHs terminated their membership with
the Exchange. One of those TPHs merged with another TPH and the
other terminated its memberships with other options exchanges at the
same time it terminated its membership with the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed connectivity structure and corresponding fees, like
the pre-migration connectivity structure and fees, continue to provide
market participants flexibility with respect to how to connect to the
Exchange based on each market participants' respective business needs.
For example, the amount and type of physical and logical ports are
determined by factors relevant and specific to each market participant,
including its business model, costs of connectivity, how its business
is segmented and allocated and volume of messages sent to the Exchange.
Moreover, the Exchange notes that it

does not have unlimited system capacity to support an unlimited number
of order and quote entry per second. Accordingly, the proposed
connectivity fees, and connectivity structure are designed to encourage
market participants to be efficient with their respective physical and
logical port usage. While the Exchange has no way of predicting with
certainty the amount or type of connections market participants will in
fact purchase, if any, the Exchange anticipates that like today, some
market participants will continue to decline to connect and participate
on the Exchange, some will participate on the Exchange via indirect
connectivity, some will only purchase one physical connection and/or
logical port connection, and others will purchase multiple connections.
    In sum, the Exchange believes the proposed fees are reasonable and
reflect a competitive environment, as the Exchange seeks to amend its
access fees in connection with the migration of its technology
platform, while still attracting market participants to continue to be,
or become, connected to the Exchange.
Physical Ports
    The Exchange believes increasing the fee for the new 10 Gb Physical
Port is reasonable because unlike, the current 10 Gb Network Access
Ports, the new Physical Ports provides a connection through a latency
equalized infrastructure with faster switches and also allows access to
both unicast order entry and multicast market data with a single
physical connection. As discussed above, legacy Network Access Ports do
not permit market participants to receive unicast and multicast
connectivity. As such, in order to receive both connectivity types pre-
migration, a market participant needed to purchase and maintain at
least two 10 Gb Network Access Ports. The proposed Physical Ports not
only provide latency equalization (i.e., eliminate latency advantages
between market participants based on location) as compared to the
legacy ports, but also alleviate the need to pay for two physical ports
as a result of needing unicast and multicast connectivity. Accordingly,
market participants who historically had to purchase two separate ports
for each of multicast and unicast activity, will be able to purchase
only one port, and consequently pay lower fees overall. For example,
pre-migration if a TPH had two 10 Gb legacy Network Access Ports, one
of which received unicast traffic and the other of which received
multicast traffic, that TPH would have been assessed $10,000 per month
($5,000 per port). Under the proposed rule change, using the new
Physical Ports, that TPH has the option of utilizing one single port,
instead of two ports, to receive both unicast and multicast traffic,
therefore paying only $7,000 per month for a port that provides both
connectivity types. The Exchange notes that pre-migration,
approximately 50% of TPHs maintained two or more 10 Gb Network Access
Ports. While the Exchange has no way of predicting with certainty the
amount or type of connections market participants will in fact purchase
post-migration, the Exchange anticipated approximately 50% of the TPHs
with two or more 10 Gb Network Access Ports to reduce the number of 10
Gb Physical Ports that they purchase and expected the remaining 50% of
TPHs to maintain their current 10 Gb Physical Ports, but reduce the
number of 1 Gb Physical Ports. Particularly, pre-migration, a number of
TPHs maintained two 10 Gb Network Access Ports to receive multicast
data and two 1 Gb Network Access Ports for order entry (unicast
connectivity). As the new 10 Gb Physical Ports are able to accommodate
unicast connectivity (order entry), TPHs may choose to eliminate their
1 Gb Network Access Ports and utilize the new 10 Gb Physical Ports for
both multicast and unicast connectivity. The Exchange notes that in
February 2020, approximately 78% of TPHs that maintained a 1 Gb Network
Access Port pre-migration, no longer maintained a 1 Gb Physical Port.
Additionally, as of February 2020, approximately 44% reduced the
quantity of 10 Gb Physical Ports they maintained as compared to pre-
migration.
    As discussed above, if a TPH deems a particular exchange as
charging excessive fees for connectivity, such market participants may
opt to terminate their connectivity arrangements with that exchange,
and adopt a possible range of alternative strategies, including routing
to the applicable exchange through another participant or market center
or taking that exchange's data indirectly. Accordingly, if the Exchange
charges excessive fees, it would stand to lose not only connectivity
revenues but also revenues associated with the execution of orders
routed to it, and, to the extent applicable, market data revenues. The
Exchange believes that this competitive dynamic imposes powerful
restraints on the ability of any exchange to charge unreasonable fees
for physical connectivity. The Exchange also notes that the proposal
represents an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other
charges as its fees for physical connectivity are reasonably
constrained by competitive alternatives, as discussed above. The
proposed amounts are in line with, and in some cases lower than, the
costs of physical connectivity at other Exchanges,\118\ including the
Cboe Affiliated Exchanges, which have the same connectivity
infrastructure the Exchange has migrated to and some of which also
offer exclusive products.\119\ The Exchange does not believe it is
unreasonable to assess fees that are in line with fees that have
already been established for the same physical ports used to connect to
the same connectivity infrastructure and common platform. The Exchange
believes the proposed Physical Port fees are equitable and not
unreasonably discriminatory as the connectivity pricing is associated
with relative usage of the various market participants (including
smaller participants) and the Exchange has not been presented with any
evidence to suggest its proposed fee changes would impose a barrier to
entry for participants, including smaller participants. In fact, as
noted above, the Exchange is unaware of any market participant that has
terminated direct connectivity solely as a result of the proposed fee
changes. The Exchange also believes increasing the fee for 10 Gb
Physical Ports and charging a higher fee as compared to the 1 Gb
Physical Port is equitable as the 1 Gb Physical Port is 1/10th the size
of the 10 Gb Physical Port and therefore does not offer access to many
of the products and services offered by the Exchange (e.g., ability to
receive certain market data products). Thus the value of the 1 Gb
alternative is lower than the value of the 10 Gb alternative, when
measured based on the type of Exchange access it offers. Moreover,
market participants that purchase 10 Gb Physical Ports utilize the most
bandwidth and therefore consume the most resources from the

network. As such, the Exchange believes the proposed fees for the 1 and
10 Gb Physical Ports, respectively are reasonably and appropriately
allocated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ See e.g., Nasdaq PHLX and ISE Rules, General Equity and
Options Rules, General 8. Phlx and ISE each charge a monthly fee of
$2,500 for each 1Gb connection, $10,000 for each 10Gb connection and
$15,000 for each 10Gb Ultra connection. See also Nasdaq Price List--
Trading Connectivity. Nasdaq charges a monthly fee of $7,500 for
each 10Gb direct connection to Nasdaq and $2,500 for each direct
connection that supports up to 1Gb. See also NYSE American Fee
Schedule, Section V.B, and Arca Fees and Charges, Co-Location Fees.
NYSE American and Arca each charge a monthly fee of $5,000 for each
1Gb circuit, $14,000 for each 10Gb circuit and $22,000 for each 10Gb
LX circuit.
    \119\ See e.g., Affiliated Exchange Fee Schedules, Physical
Connectivity Fees. For example, Cboe BZX, Cboe EDGX and C2 each
charge a monthly fee of $2,500 for each 1Gb connection and $7,500
for each 10Gb connection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Data Port Fees
    The Exchange believes assessing the data port fee per data source,
instead of per port, is reasonable because it may allow for market
participants to maintain more ports at a lower cost and applies
uniformly to all market participants. The Exchange believes the
proposed increase is reasonable because, as noted above, market
participants may pay lower fees as a result of charging per data source
and not per data port. Indeed, while the Exchange has no way of
predicting with certainty the impact of the proposed changes, the
Exchange had anticipated approximately 76% of the 51 market
participants who pay data port fees to pay the same or lower fees upon
implementation of the proposed change. As of December 2019, 46 market
participants \120\ pay the proposed data port fees, of which
approximately 78% market participants are paying the same or lower fees
in connection with the proposed change. Monthly savings for firms
paying lower fees range from $500 to $6,000 per month. The Exchange
also anticipated that 19% of TPHs who pay data port fees would pay a
modest increase of only $500 per month. In December 2019, approximately
22% market participants paid higher fees, with the majority of those
market participants paying a modest monthly increase of $500 and only 3
firms paying either $1,000 or $1,500 more per month. Additionally, as
discussed above, the Exchange's affiliate C2 has the same fee which is
also assessed at the proposed rate and assessed by data source instead
of per port. The proposed name change is also appropriate in light of
the Exchange's proposed changes and may alleviate potential confusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ The Exchange notes the reduction in market participants
that pay the data port fee is due to firm consolidations and
acquisitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Logical Connectivity
Port fees
    The Exchange believes it's reasonable to eliminate certain fees
associated with legacy options for connecting to the Exchange and to
replace them with fees associated with new options for connecting to
the Exchange that are similar to those offered at its Affiliated
Exchanges. In particular, the Exchange believes it's reasonable to no
longer assess fees for CMI and FIX Login IDs because the Login IDs were
retired and rendered obsolete upon migration and because the Exchange
is proposing to replace them with fees associated with the new logical
connectivity options. The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to
harmonize the Exchange's logical connectivity options and corresponding
connectivity fees now that the Exchange is on a common platform as its
Affiliated Exchanges. Additionally, the Exchange notes the proposed
fees are the same as, or in line with, the fees assessed on its
Affiliated Exchanges for similar connectivity.\121\ The proposed
logical connectivity fees are also equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the Exchange will apply the same fees to all
market participants that use the same respective connectivity options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ See Affiliated Exchange Fee Schedules, Logical Port Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed Logical Port fees are reasonable
as it is the same fee for Drop Ports and the first five BOE/FIX Ports
that is assessed for CMI and FIX Logins, which the Exchange is
eliminating in lieu of logical ports. Additionally, while the proposed
ports will be assessed the same monthly fees as current CMI/FIX Login
IDs, the proposed logical ports provide for significantly more message
traffic. Specifically, the proposed BOE/FIX Logical Ports will provide
for 3 times the amount of quoting \122\ capacity and approximately 165
times order entry capacity. Similarly, the Exchange believes the
proposed BOE Bulk Port fees are reasonable because while the fees are
higher than the CMI and FIX Login Id fees and the proposed Logical Port
fees, BOE Bulk Ports offer significantly more bandwidth capacity than
both CMI and FIX Login Ids and Logical Ports. Particularly, a single
BOE Bulk Port offers 45 times the amount of quoting bandwidth than CMI/
FIX Login Ids \123\ and 5 times the amount of quoting bandwidth than
Logical Ports will offer. Additionally, the Exchange believes that its
fees for logical connectivity are reasonable, equitable, and not
unfairly discriminatory as they are designed to ensure that firms that
use the most capacity pay for that capacity, rather than placing that
burden on market participants that have more modest needs. Although the
Exchange charges a ``per port'' fee for logical connectivity, it notes
that this fee is in effect a capacity fee as each FIX, BOE or BOE Bulk
port used for order/quote entry supports a specified capacity (i.e.,
messages per second) in the matching engine, and firms purchase
additional logical ports when they require more capacity due to their
business needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \122\ Based on the purchase of a single Market-Maker Trading
Permit or Bandwidth Packet.
    \123\ Based on the purchase of a single Market-Maker Trading
Permit or Bandwidth Packet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An obvious driver for a market participant's decision to purchase
multiple ports will be their desire to send or receive additional
levels of message traffic in some manner, either by increasing their
total amount of message capacity available, or by segregating order
flow for different trading desks and clients to avoid latency sensitive
applications from competing for a single thread of resources. For
example, a TPH may purchase one or more ports for its market making
business based on the amount of message traffic needed to support that
business, and then purchase separate ports for proprietary trading or
customer facing businesses so that those businesses have their own
distinct connection, allowing the firm to send multiple messages into
the Exchange's trading system in parallel rather than sequentially.
Some TPHs that provide direct market access to their customers may also
choose to purchase separate ports for different clients as a service
for latency sensitive customers that desire the lowest possible latency
to improve trading performance. Thus, while a smaller TPH that demands
more limited message traffic may connect through a service bureau or
other service provider, or may choose to purchase one or two logical
ports that are billed at a rate of $750 per month each, a larger market
participant with a substantial and diversified U.S. options business
may opt to purchase additional ports to support both the volume and
types of activity that they conduct on the Exchange. While the Exchange
has no way of predicting with certainty the amount or type of logical
ports market participants will in fact purchase post-migration, the
Exchange anticipated approximately 16% of TPHs to purchase one to two
logical ports, and approximately 22% of TPHs to not purchase any
logical ports. In December 2019, 13% of TPHs purchased one to two
logical ports and 27% have not purchased any logical ports. At the same
time, market participants that desire more total capacity due to their
business needs, or that wish to segregate order flow by purchasing
separate capacity allocations to reduce latency or for other
operational reasons, would be permitted to choose to purchase such
additional capacity at the same marginal cost. The Exchange believes
the proposal to assess an additional Logical and BOE Bulk port fee for
incremental usage per logical port is reasonable because the proposed

fees are modestly higher than the proposed Logical Port and BOE Bulk
fees and encourage users to mitigate message traffic as necessary. The
Exchange notes one of its Affiliated Exchanges has similar implied port
fees.\124\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ See e.g., Cboe C2 Options Exchange Fees Schedule, Logical
Connectivity Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, the Exchange believes that the proposed BOE/FIX Logical
Port and BOE Bulk Port fees are appropriate as these fees would ensure
that market participants continue to pay for the amount of capacity
that they request, and the market participants that pay the most are
the ones that demand the most resources from the Exchange. The Exchange
also believes that its logical connectivity fees are aligned with the
goals of the Commission in facilitating a competitive market for all
firms that trade on the Exchange and of ensuring that critical market
infrastructure has ``levels of capacity, integrity, resiliency,
availability, and security adequate to maintain their operational
capability and promote the maintenance of fair and orderly markets.''
\125\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \125\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73639 (November
19, 2014), 79 FR 72251 (December 5, 2014) (File No. S7-01-13)
(Regulation SCI Adopting Release).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes waiving the FIX/BOE Logical Port fee for one
FIX Logical Port used to access PULSe and Silexx (for FLEX Trading) is
reasonable because it will allow all TPHs using PULSe and Silexx to
avoid having to pay a fee that they would otherwise have to pay. The
waiver is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because TPHs using
PULSe are already subject to a monthly fee for the PULSe Workstation,
which the Exchange views as inclusive of fees to access the Exchange.
Moreover, while PULSe users today do not require a FIX/CMI Login Id,
post-migration, due to changes to the connectivity infrastructure,
PULSe users will be required to maintain a FIX Logical Port and as such
incur a fee they previously would not have been subject to. Similarly,
the Exchange believes that the waiver for Silexx (for FLEX trading)
will encourage TPHs to transact business using FLEX Options using the
new Silexx System and encourage trading of FLEX Options. Additionally,
the Exchange notes that it currently waives the Login Id fees for Login
IDs used to access the CFLEX system.
    The Exchange believes its proposed fee for Purge Ports is
reasonable as it is also in line with the amount assessed for purge
ports offered by its Affiliated Exchanges, as well as other
exchanges.\126\ Moreover, the Exchange believes that offering purge
port functionality at the Exchange level promotes robust risk
management across the industry, and thereby facilitates investor
protection. Some market participants, and, in particular, larger firms,
could build similar risk functionality on their trading systems that
permit the flexible cancellation of orders entered on the Exchange.
Offering Exchange level protections however, ensures that such
functionality is widely available to all firms, including smaller firms
that may otherwise not be willing to incur the costs and development
work necessary to support their own customized mass cancel
functionality. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in
which exchanges offer connectivity and related services as a means to
facilitate the trading activities of TPHs and other participants. As
the proposed Purge Ports provide voluntary risk management
functionality, excessive fees would simply serve to reduce demand for
this optional product. The Exchange also believes that the proposed
Purge Port fees are not unfairly discriminatory because they will apply
uniformly to all TPHs that choose to use dedicated Purge Ports. The
proposed Purge Ports are completely voluntary and, as they relate
solely to optional risk management functionality, no TPH is required or
under any regulatory obligation to utilize them. The Exchange believes
that adopting separate fees for these ports ensures that the associated
costs are borne exclusively by TPHs that determine to use them based on
their business needs, including Market-Makers or similarly situated
market participants. Similar to Purge Ports, Spin and GRP Ports are
optional products that provide an alternative means for market
participants to receive multicast data and request and receive a
retransmission of such data. As such excessive fees would simply serve
to reduce demand for these products, which TPHs are under no regulatory
obligation to utilize. All TPHs that voluntarily select these service
options (i.e., Purge Ports, Spin Ports or GRP Ports) will be charged
the same amount for the same respective services. All TPHs have the
option to select any connectivity option, and there is no
differentiation among TPHs with regard to the fees charged for the
services offered by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \126\ See Affiliated Exchange Fee Schedules, Logical Port Fees.
See also, Nasdaq ISE Pricing Schedule, Section 7(C). ISE charges a
fee of $1,100 per month for SQF Purge Ports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Access Credits
    The Exchange believes the proposal to adopt credits for BOE Bulk
Ports is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
it provides an opportunity for TPHs to pay lower fees for logical
connectivity. The Exchange notes that the proposed credits are in lieu
of the current credits that Market-Makers are eligible to receive today
for Trading Permits fees. Although only Market-Makers may receive the
proposed BOE Bulk Port credits, Market-Makers are valuable market
participants that provide liquidity in the marketplace and incur costs
that other market participants do not incur. For example, Market-Makers
have a number of obligations, including quoting obligations and fees
associated with appointments that other market participants do not
have. The Exchange also believes that the proposals provide incremental
incentives for TPHs to strive for the higher tier levels, which provide
increasingly higher benefits for satisfying increasingly more stringent
criteria, including criteria to provide more liquidity to the Exchange.
The Exchange believes the value of the proposed credits is commensurate
with the difficulty to achieve the corresponding tier thresholds of
each program.
    First, the Exchange believes the proposed BOE Bulk Port fee credits
provided under AVP will incentivize the routing of orders to the
Exchange by TPHs that have both Market-Maker and agency operations, as
well as incent Market-Makers to continue to provide critical liquidity
notwithstanding the costs incurred with being a Market-Maker. More
specifically, in the options industry, many options orders are routed
by consolidators, which are firms that have both order router and
Market-Maker operations. The Exchange is aware not only of the
importance of providing credits on the order routing side in order to
encourage the submission of orders, but also of the operations costs on
the Market-Maker side. The Exchange believes the proposed change to AVP
continues to allow the Exchange to provide relief to the Market-Maker
side via the credits, albeit credits on BOE Bulk Port fees instead of
Trading Permit fees. Additionally, the proposed credits may incentivize
and attract more volume and liquidity to the Exchange, which will
benefit all Exchange participants through increased opportunities to
trade as well as enhancing price discovery. While the Exchange has no
way of

predicting with certainty how many and which TPHs will satisfy the
required criteria to receive the credits, the Exchange had anticipated
approximately two TPHs (out of approximately 5 TPHs that are eligible
for AVP) to reach VIP Tiers 4 or 5 and consequently earn the BOE Bulk
Port fee credits for their respective Market-Maker affiliate. For the
month of October 2019, two TPHs received access credits under Tier 5
and no TPHs received credits under Tier 4. The Exchange notes that it
believes its reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to
no longer provide access credits for Market-Makers whose affiliates
achieve VIP Tiers 2 or 3 as the Exchange has adopted another
opportunity for all Market-Makers, not just Market-Makers that are part
of a consolidator, to receive credits on BOE Bulk Port fees (i.e.,
credits available via the proposed Market-Maker Access Credit Program).
More specifically, limiting the credits under AVP to the top two tiers
enables the Exchange to provide further credits under the new Market-
Maker Access Credit Program. Furthermore, the Exchange notes that it is
not required to provide any credits at any tier level.
    The Exchange believes the proposed BOE Bulk Port fee credits
available for TPHs that reach certain Performance Tiers under the
Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale Adjustment Table is reasonable as the
credits provide for reduced connectivity costs for those Market-Makers
that reach the required thresholds. The Exchange believe it's
reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to provide
credits to those Market-Makers that primarily provide and post
liquidity to the Exchange, as the Exchange wants to continue to
encourage Market-Makers with significant Make Rates to continue to
participate on the Exchange and add liquidity. Greater liquidity
benefits all market participants by providing more trading
opportunities and tighter spreads.
    Moreover, the Exchange notes that Market-Makers with a high Make
Rate percentage generally require higher amounts of capacity than other
Market-Makers. Particularly, Market-Makers with high Make Rates are
generally streaming significantly more quotes than those with lower
Make Rates. As such, Market-Makers with high Make Rates may incur more
costs than other Market-Makers as they may need to purchase multiple
BOE Bulk Ports in order to accommodate their capacity needs. The
Exchange believes the proposed credits for BOE Bulk Ports encourages
Market-Makers to continue to provide liquidity for the Exchange,
notwithstanding the costs incurred by purchasing multiple ports.
Particularly, the proposal is intended to mitigate the costs incurred
by traditional Market-Makers that focus on adding liquidity to the
Exchange (as opposed to those that provide and take, or just take).
While the Exchange cannot predict with certainty which Market-Makers
will reach Performance Tiers 4 and 5 each month, based on historical
performance it anticipated approximately 10 Market-Makers would achieve
Tiers 4 or 5. In October 2019, 12 Market-Makers achieved Tiers 4 or 5.
Lastly, the Exchange notes that it is common practice among options
exchanges to differentiate fees for adding liquidity and fees for
removing liquidity.\127\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \127\ See e.g., MIAX Options Fees Schedule, Section 1(a), Market
Maker Transaction Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bandwidth Packets and CMI CAS Server Fees
    The Exchange believes it's reasonable to eliminate Bandwidth Packet
fees and the CMI CAS Server fee because TPHs will not pay fees for
these connectivity options and because Bandwidth Packets and CAS
Servers have been retired and rendered obsolete as part of the
migration. The Exchange believes that even though it will be
discontinuing Bandwidth Packets, the proposed incremental pricing for
Logical Ports and BOE Bulk Ports will continue to encourage users to
mitigate message traffic. The proposed change is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because it will apply uniformly to all TPHs.
Access Fees
    The Exchange believes the restructuring of its Trading Permits is
reasonable in light of the changes to the Exchange's connectivity
infrastructure in connection with the migration and the resulting
separation of bandwidth allowance, logins and appointment costs from
each Trading Permit. The Exchange also believes that it is reasonable
to harmonize the Exchange's Trading Permit structure and corresponding
connectivity options to more closely align with the structures offered
at its Affiliated Exchanges once the Exchange is on a common platform
as its Affiliated Exchanges.\128\ The proposed Trading Permit structure
and corresponding fees are also in line with the structure and fees
provided by other exchanges. The proposed Trading Permit fees are also
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will
apply the same fees to all market participants that use the same type
and number of Trading Permits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \128\ For example, the Exchange's affiliate, C2, similarly
provides for Trading Permits that are not tied to connectivity, and
similar physical and logical port options at similar pricings. See
Cboe C2 Options Exchange Fees Schedule. Physical connectivity and
logical connectivity are also not tied to any type of permits on the
Exchange's other options exchange affiliates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to electronic Trading Permits, the Exchange notes that
TPHs previously requested multiple Trading Permits because of
bandwidth, login or appointment cost needs. As described above, in
connection with migration, bandwidth, logins and appointment costs are
no longer tied to Trading Permits or Bandwidth Packets and as such, the
need to hold multiple permits and/or Bandwidth Packets is obsolete. As
such, the Exchange believes the structure to require only one of each
type of applicable electronic Trading Permit is appropriate. Moreover,
the Exchange believes offering separate marketing making permits for
off-floor and on-floor Market-Makers provides for a cleaner, more
streamlined approach to trading permits and corresponding fees. Other
exchanges similarly provide separate and distinct fees for Market-
Makers that operate on-floor vs off-floor and their corresponding fees
are similar to those proposed by the Exchange.\129\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \129\ See e.g., PHLX Section 8A, Permit and Registration Fees.
See also, BOX Options Fee Schedule, Section IX Participant Fees;
NYSE American Options Fees Schedule, Section III(A) Monthly ATP Fees
and NYSE Arca Options Fees and Charges, OTP Trading Participant
Rights. For similar Trading Floor Permits for Floor Market Makers,
Nasdaq PHLX charges $6,000; BOX charges up to $5,500 for 3
registered permits in addition to a $1,500 Participant Fee, NYSE
Arca charges up to $6,000; and NYSE American charges up to $8,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed fee for its MM EAP Trading
Permits is reasonable as it is the same fee it assesses today for
Market-Maker Trading Permits (i.e., $5,000 per month per permit).
Additionally, the proposed fee is in line with, and in some cases even
lower than, the amounts assessed for similar access fees at other
exchanges, including its affiliate C2.\130\ The Exchange believes the
proposed EAP fee is also reasonable, and in line with the fees assessed
by other Exchanges for non-Market-Maker electronic access.\131\ The
Exchange notes that while the Trading Permit fee is increasing, TPHs
overall cost to

access the Exchange may be reduced in light of the fact that a TPH no
longer must purchase multiple Trading Permits, Bandwidth Packets and
Login Ids in order to receive sufficient bandwidth and logins to meet
their respective business needs. To illustrate the value of the new
connectivity infrastructure, the Exchange notes that the cost that
would be incurred by a TPH today in order to receive the same amount of
order capacity that will be provided by a single Logical Port post-
migration (i.e., 5,000 orders per second), is approximately 98% higher
than the cost for the same capacity post-migration. The following
examples further demonstrate potential cost savings/value added for an
EAP holder with modest capacity needs and an EAP holder with larger
capacity needs:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \130\ See e.g., Cboe C2 Options Exchange Fees Schedule. See
also, NYSE Arca Options Fees and Charges, General Options and
Trading Permit (OTP) Fees, which assesses up to $6,000 per Market
Maker OTP and NYSE American Options Fee Schedule, Section III.
Monthly ATP Fees, which assess up to $8,000 per Market Maker ATP.
See also, PHLX Section 8A, Permit and Registration Fees, which
assesses up to $4,000 per Market Maker Permit.
    \131\ See e.g., PHLX Section 8A, Permit and Registration Fees,
which assesses up to $4,000 per Permit for all member and member
organizations other than Floor Specialists and Market Makers.

       TPH That Holds 1 EAP, No Bandwidth Packets and 1 CMI Login
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Current fee     Post-migration fee
                                       structure           structure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EAP.............................  $1,600............  $3,000.
CMI Login/Logical Port..........  $750..............  $750.
Bandwidth Packets...............  0.................  N/A.
Total Bandwidth Available.......  30 orders/sec.....  5,000 orders/sec.
Total Cost......................  $2,350............  $3,750.
Total Cost per message..........  $78.33/order/sec..  $0.75/order/sec.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       TPH That Holds 1 EAP, 4 Bandwidth Packets and 15 CMI Logins
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Current fee     Post-migration fee
                                       structure           structure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EAP.............................  $1,600............  $3,000.
CMI Login/Logical Port..........  $11,250 ([email protected])..  $750.
Bandwidth Packets...............  $6,400 ([email protected]$1,600).  N/A.
Total Bandwidth Available.......  150 orders/sec....  5,000 orders/sec.
Total Cost......................  $19,250...........  $3,750.
Total Cost per message..........  $128.33/order/sec.  $0.75/order/sec.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposal to adopt a new Clearing TPH
Permit is reasonable because it offers TPHs that only clear
transactions of TPHs a discount. Particularly, Clearing TPHs that also
submit orders electronically to the Exchange would purchase the
proposed EAP at $3,000 per permit. The Exchange believe it's reasonable
to provide a discount to Clearing TPHs that only clear transactions and
do not otherwise submit electronic orders to the Exchange. The Exchange
notes that another exchange similarly charges a separate fee for
clearing firms.\132\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \132\ See e.g., NYSE Arca Options Fees and Charges, General
Options and Trading Permit (OTP) Fees and NYSE American Options Fee
Schedule, Section III. Monthly ATP Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed fee structure for on-floor
Market-Makers is reasonable as the fees are in line with those offered
at other Exchanges.\133\ The Exchange believes that the proposed fee
for MM Floor Permits as compared to MM EAPs is reasonable because it is
only modestly higher than MM EAPs and Floor MMs don't have other costs
that MM EAP holders have, such as MM EAP Appointment fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \133\ See e.g., PHLX Section 8A, Permit and Registration Fees,
which assesses $6,000 per permit for Floor Specialists and Market
Makers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes its proposed fees for Floor Broker Permits
are reasonable because the fees are similar to, and in some cases lower
than, the fees the Exchange currently assesses for such permits.
Specifically, based on the number of Trading Permits TPHs held upon
migration, 60% of TPHs that hold Floor Broker Trading Permits will pay
lower Trading Permit fees. Particularly, any Floor Broker holding ten
or less Floor Broker Trading Permits will pay lower fees under the
proposed tiers as compared to what they pay today. While the remaining
40% of TPHs holding Floor Broker Trading Permits (who each hold between
12-21 Floor Broker Trading Permits) will pay higher fees, the Exchange
notes the monthly increase is de minimis, ranging from an increase of
0.6%-2.72%.\134\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \134\ The Floor Brokers whose fees are increasing have each
committed to a minimum number of permits and therefore currently
receive the rates set forth in the current Floor Broker TP Sliding
Scale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed ADV Discount is reasonable
because it provides an opportunity for Floor Brokers to pay lower FB
Trading Permit fees, similar to the current rebate program offered to
Floor Brokers. The Exchange notes that while the new ADV Discount
program includes only customer volume (``C'' origin code) as compared
to Customer and Professional Customer/Voluntary Professional, the
amount of Professional Customer/Voluntary Professional volume was de
minimis and the Exchange does not believe the absence of such volume
will have a significant impact.\135\ Additionally, the Exchange notes
that while the ADV requirements under the proposed ADV Discount program
are higher than are required under the current rebate program, the
proposed ADV Discount counts volume from all products towards the
thresholds as compared to the current rebate program which excludes
volume from Underlying Symbol List A (except RLG, RLV, RUI, and UKXM),
DJX, XSP, and subcabinet trades. Moreover, the ADV Discount is designed
to encourage the execution of orders in all classes via open outcry,
which may increase volume, which would benefit all market participants
(including Floor Brokers who do not hit the ADV thresholds) trading via
open outcry (and indeed, this increased volume could make it possible
for some Floor Brokers to hit the ADV thresholds). The Exchange
believes the proposed discounts are equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because all Floor Brokers are eligible. While the
Exchange has no way of predicting with certainty how many and which
TPHs will satisfy the various thresholds under the ADV Discount, the
Exchange anticipated approximately 3 Floor Brokers to receive a rebate
under the program. In December 2019, 2 Floor Brokers received a rebate
under the program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \135\ Furthermore, post-migration the Exchange will not have
Voluntary Professionals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes its proposed MM EAP Appointment fees are
reasonable in light of the Exchange's elimination of appointment costs
tied to Trading Permits. Other exchanges also

offer a similar structure with respect to fees for appointment
classes.\136\ Additionally, the proposed MM EAP Appointment fee
structure results in approximately 36% electronic MMs paying lower fees
for trading permit and appointment costs. For example, in order to have
the ability to make electronic markets in every class on the Exchange,
a Market-Maker would need 1 Market-Maker Trading Permit and 37
Appointment Units post-migration. Under, the current pricing structure,
in order for a Market-Maker to quote the entire universe of available
classes, a Market-Maker would need 33 Appointment Credits, thus
necessitating 33 Market-Maker Trading Permits. With respect to fees for
Trading Permits and Appointment Unit Fees, under the proposed pricing
structure, the cost for a TPH wishing to quote the entire universe of
available classes is approximately 29% less (if they are not eligible
for the MM TP Sliding Scale) or approximately 2% less (if they are
eligible for the MM TP Sliding Scale). To further demonstrate the
potential cost savings/value added, the Exchange is providing the
following examples comparing current Market-Maker connectivity and
access fees to projected connectivity and access fees for different
scenarios. The Exchange notes that the below examples not only compare
Trading Permit and Appointment Unit costs, but also the cost incurred
for logical connectivity and bandwidth. Particularly, the first example
demonstrates the total minimum cost that would be incurred today in
order for a Market-Maker to have the same amount of capacity as a
Market-Maker post-migration that would have only 1 MM EAP and 1 Logical
Port (i.e., 15,000 quotes/3 sec). The Exchange is also providing
examples that demonstrate the costs of (i) a Market-Maker with small
capacity needs and appointment unit of 1.0 and (ii) a Market-Maker with
large capacity needs and appointment cost/unit of 30.0:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \136\ See e.g., PHLX Section 8. Membership Fees, B, Streaming
Quote Trader (``SQT'') Fees and C. Remote Market Maker Organization
(RMO) Fee.
    \137\ The maximum quoting bandwidth that may be applied to a
single Login Id is 80,000 quotes/3 sec.
    \138\ For simplicity of the comparison, this assumes no
appointments in SPX, VIX, RUT, XEO or OEX (which are not included in
the TP Sliding Scale).
    \139\ Given the bandwidth limit per Login Id of 80,000 quotes/3
sec, example assumes Market-Maker purchases minimum amount of Login
IDs to accommodate 300,000 quotes/3 sec.

       Market-Maker That Needs Capacity of 15,000/Quotes/3 Seconds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Current fee     Post-migration fee
                                       structure           structure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MM Permit/MM EAP................  $5,000............  $5,000.
Appointment Unit Cost...........  N/A (1 appointment  $0 (1 appointment
                                   cost).              unit).
CMI Login/Logical Port..........  $750 \137\........  $750.
Bandwidth Packets...............  $5,500 ([email protected]$2,750).  N/A.
Total Bandwidth Available.......  15,000 quotes/3     15,000 quotes/3
                                   sec.                sec.
Total Cost......................  $11,250...........  $5,750.
Total Cost per message allowed..  $0.75/quote/3 sec.  $0.38/quote/3 sec.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Market Maker That Needs Capacity of No More Than 5,000 Quotes/3 Secs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Current fee     Post-migration fee
                                       structure           structure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MM Permit/MM EAP................  $5,000............  $5,000.
Appointment Unit Cost...........  N/A (1 appointment  $0 (1 appointment
                                   cost).              unit).
CMI Login/Logical Port..........  $750..............  $750.
Bandwidth Packets...............  0.................  N/A.
Total Bandwidth Available.......  5,000 quotes/3 sec  15,000 quotes/3
                                                       sec.
Total Cost......................  $5,750............  $5,750.
Total Cost per message allowed..  $1.15/quote/3 sec.  $0.38/quote/3 sec.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Market-Maker That Needs 30 Appointment Units and Capacity of 300,000
                              Quotes/3 Sec
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Current fee     Post-migration fee
                                       structure           structure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MM Permits/MM EAP...............  $105,000 (30 MM     $5,000.
                                   Permits assumes
                                   eligible for MM
                                   TP Sliding Scale)
                                   \138\.
Appointment Units Cost..........  N/A (30             $95,500 (30
                                   appointment         appointment
                                   costs).             units).
CMI Logins/BOE Bulk Port........  $3,000 ([email protected]$750)     $3,000 (2 BOE
                                   \139\.              [email protected]$1,500).
Bandwidth Packets...............  $82,500 ([email protected]$2750)  N/A.
Total Bandwidth Available.......  300,000 quotes/3    * 450,000 quotes/3
                                   sec.                sec.
Total Cost......................  $190,500..........  $103,500.
Total Cost per message allowed..  $0.63/quotes/3 sec  $0.23/quote/3 sec.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Possible performance degradation at 15,000 messages per second.

    The Exchange believes its proposal to provide separate fees for
Tier Appointments for MM EAPs and MM Floor Permits as the Exchange will
be issuing separate Trading Permits for on-floor and off-floor market
making as discussed above. The proposal to eliminate the volume
threshold for the electronic SPX Tier Appointment fee is reasonable as
no TPHs in the past several months have electronically traded more than
1 SPX contract or less than 100 SPX contracts per month and therefore
will not be negatively impacted by the proposed change, and because it
aligns the electronic SPX Tier Appointment with the floor SPX Tier
Appointment, which has no volume

threshold. The Exchange believes the proposal to increase the
electronic volume thresholds for VIX and RUT are reasonable as those
that do not regularly trade VIX or RUT in open-outcry will continue to
not be assessed the fee. In fact, any TPH that executes more than 100
contracts but less than 1,000 in the respective classes will no longer
have to pay the proposed Tier Appointment fee. As noted above, the
Exchange is not proposing to change the amounts assessed for each Tier
Appointment Fee. The proposed change is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it will apply uniformly to all TPHs.
Trading Permit Holder Regulatory Fee
    The Exchange believes it's reasonable to eliminate the Trading
Permit Holder Regulatory fee because TPHs will not pay this fee and
because the Exchange is restructuring its Trading Permit structure. The
Exchange notes that although it will less closely be covering the costs
of regulating all TPHs and performing its regulatory responsibilities,
it still has sufficient funds to do so. The proposed change is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply
uniformly to all TPHs.
    The Exchange believes corresponding changes to eliminate obsolete
language in connection with the proposed changes described above and to
relocate and reorganize its fees in connection with the proposed
changes maintain clarity in the Fees Schedule and alleviate potential
confusion, thereby removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in
general, protecting investors and the public interest.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
    With respect to intra-market competition, the Exchange does not
believe that the proposed rule change would place certain market
participants at the Exchange at a relative disadvantage compared to
other market participants or affect the ability of such market
participants to compete. As stated above, the Exchange does not believe
its proposed pricing will impose a barrier to entry to smaller
participants and notes that its proposed connectivity pricing is
associated with relative usage of the various market participants. For
example, market participants with modest capacity needs can buy the
less expensive 1 Gb Physical Port and utilize only one Logical Port.
Moreover, the pricing for 1 Gb Physical Ports and FIX/BOE Logical Ports
are no different than are assessed today (i.e., $1,500 and $750 per
port, respectively), yet the capacity and access associated with each
is greatly increasing. While pricing may be increased for larger
capacity physical and logical ports, such options provide far more
capacity and are purchased by those that consume more resources from
the network. Accordingly, the proposed connectivity fees do not favor
certain categories of market participants in a manner that would impose
a burden on competition; rather, the allocation reflects the network
resources consumed by the various size of market participants--lowest
bandwidth consuming members pay the least, and highest bandwidth
consuming members pays the most, particularly since higher bandwidth
consumption translates to higher costs to the Exchange.
    The Exchange also does not believe that the proposed rule change
will result in any burden on inter-market competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As
discussed in the Statutory Basis section above, options market
participants are not forced to connect to (or purchase market data
from) all options exchanges, as shown by the number of TPHs at Cboe and
shown by the fact that there are varying number of members across each
of Cboe's Affiliated Exchanges. The Exchange operates in a highly
competitive environment, and as discussed above, its ability to price
access and connectivity is constrained by competition among exchanges
and third parties. As discussed, there are other options markets of
which market participants may connect to trade options. There is also a
possible range of alternative strategies, including routing to the
exchange through another participant or market center or accessing the
Exchange indirectly. For example, there are 15 other U.S. options
exchanges, which the Exchange must consider in its pricing discipline
in order to compete for market participants. In this competitive
environment, market participants are free to choose which competing
exchange or reseller to use to satisfy their business needs. As a
result, the Exchange believes this proposed rule change permits fair
competition among national securities exchanges. Accordingly, the
Exchange does not believe its proposed fee change imposes any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \140\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \141\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \140\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \141\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2020-105 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2020-105. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements

with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the
Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2020-105, and should be submitted
on or before December 1, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\142\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \142\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-24884 Filed 11-9-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 13 (Monday, January 23, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7824-7825]
[FR Doc No: 2017-01422]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0369; FRL-9958-67-OW]

Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request;
National Estuary Program (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an
information collection request (ICR), ``National Estuary Program
(Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No. 1500.08, OMB Control No. 2040-0138) to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Before doing so, EPA is
soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed
information collection as described below. This is a proposed extension
of the ICR, which is currently approved through June 30, 2017. An
Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before March 24, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2006-0369, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vince Bacalan, Oceans and Coastal
Protection Division, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, (Mail
Code 4504T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
202-566-1336; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of
the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA
will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate.
The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and
approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice
to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to
submit additional comments to OMB.
    Abstract: The National Estuary Program (NEP) involves collecting
information from the state or local agency or nongovernmental
organizations that receive funds under Sec. 320 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA). The regulation requiring this information is found at 40 CFR
part 35.
    Prospective grant recipients seek funding to develop or oversee and
coordinate implementation of Comprehensive Conservation Management
Plans (CCMPs) for estuaries of national significance. In order to
receive funds, grantees must submit an annual workplan to EPA which are
used to track performance of each of the 28 estuary programs currently
in the NEP. EPA provides funding to NEPs to support long-term
implementation of CCMPs if such programs pass a program evaluation
process. The primary purpose of the program evaluation process is to
help EPA determine whether the 28 programs included in the National
Estuary Program (NEP) are making adequate progress implementing their
CCMPs and therefore merit continued funding under Sec. 320 of the Clean
Water Act. EPA also requests that each of the 28 NEPs receiving Sec.
320 funds report information that can be used in the GPRA reporting
process. This reporting is done on an annual basis and is used to show
environmental results that are being achieved within the overall
National Estuary Program. This information is ultimately submitted to
Congress along with GPRA information from other EPA programs.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Entities potentially affected by
this action are those state or local agencies or nongovernmental
organizations in the National Estuary Program (NEP) who receive grants
under Section 320 of the Clean Water Act.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Required to obtain or retain a
benefit (Section 320 of the Clean Water Act).
    Estimated number of respondents: 28 (total).
    Frequency of response: Annual.
    Total estimated burden: 5,460 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $247,338 (per year), includes $0 annualized
capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in Estimates: There will likely be an increase in the total
estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by
OMB. This increase is due to program evaluations taking place in the
next three years, compared to only two years in the currently approved
ICR. Note that these numbers will be updated in the final FR Notice.

    Dated: January 12, 2017.
Marcus Zobrist,
Acting Director, Oceans and Coastal Protection Division.
[FR Doc. 2017-01422 Filed 1-19-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 249 (Monday, December 31, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67775-67777]
[FR Doc No: 2018-28389]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84935; File No. SR-NYSE-2018-64]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Chapter 9 of the NYSE Listed Company Manual Relating to Fees for
Business Development Companies

December 21, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on December 20, 2018, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''
or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Chapter 9 of the NYSE Listed Company
Manual (the ``Manual'') to provide that business development companies
will be subject to the same fee schedule as domestic operating
companies and no longer treated as closed-end funds for fee purposes.
The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    Section 902.04 of the Manual sets forth listing fees applicable to
all listed closed-end funds. Along with all other closed-end funds,
these fees are applied to any closed-end fund that elects to be taxed
as a business development company (``BDC'') and is listed under Section
102.04B of the Manual.
    The purpose and operation of a business development company is very
different from that of a non-BDC closed-end fund. A non-BDC closed-end
fund is a vehicle for the passive investment in securities and the role
of its management is limited to choosing when to buy and sell
securities in the fund's portfolio. By contrast, a condition to
obtaining and retaining business development company status is that the
business development company must make available management assistance
to the companies in which it has made investments. As such, in the
Exchange's opinion, the purpose and operation of a business development
company is therefore more analogous to that of an

operating company than to a non-BDC closed-end fund.
    In light of the Exchange's opinion that BDCs function more like
operating companies than they do like other closed-end funds, the
Exchange believes it would be more consistent to subject them to the
same fee requirements as are applied to domestic operating companies
than to continue to apply to them the fees applicable to closed-end
funds.\4\ Consequently, the Exchange proposes to amend Sections 902.02,
902.03 and 903.04 of the Manual to state that BDCs will not be subject
to the closed-end fund fee schedule in Section 902.04, but rather, that
for all purposes in Chapter 9, BDCs listed under Section 102.04B will
be treated the same as domestic operating companies (including the fees
applicable to domestic operating companies set forth in Section 902.03)
and will not be subject to the fees for closed-end funds as set forth
in Section 902.04.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ All listed BDCs are domestic companies, as only domestic
entities can register under the Investment Company Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under Section 902.04, a BDC is charged initial listing fees when it
first lists a class of common stock, or first lists a class of
preferred stock in a case where common stock is not already listed,
according to a tiered schedule. Under this tiered schedule, a BDC pays
$20,000 (for up to and including 10 million shares), $30,000 (for over
10 million up to and including 20 million shares) or $40,000 (for over
20 million shares). By comparison, under the operating company fee
schedule, a BDC will pay listing fees the first time it lists a class
of common shares at a rate of $0.004 per share. The first time that an
issuer lists a class of common shares, the issuer is also subject to a
one-time special charge of $50,000, in addition to fees calculated
according to the Listing Fee schedule.\5\ The minimum and maximum
listing fees applicable the first time an issuer lists a class of
common shares under the operating company fee schedule are $150,000 and
$295,000, respectively, which amounts include the special charge of
$50,000. In light of the minimum payment of $150,000, newly-listed BDCs
will in all instances be subject to higher initial listing fees under
the amended fee schedule than under the closed-end fund schedule as
currently in effect. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to bill
BDCs under the operating company initial listing fee schedule rather
than the closed-end fund initial listing fee schedule because: (i) In
the Exchange's opinion, BDCs function more like operating companies
than like other closed-end funds; and (ii) BDCs are generally subject
to the same corporate governance requirements as operating companies,
so the Exchange expends regulatory resources in determining the initial
listing qualification of a BDC that are comparable to the effort
involved in listing an operating company and significantly greater than
in the case of a closed-end fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A BDC will also be charged $0.004 per share:
    At the time it first lists, an issuer lists one or more classes
of preferred stock or warrants, whether or not common shares are
also listed at that time;
    Once listed, an issuer lists a new class of preferred stock or
warrants.
    These types of listings are not subject to the special charge or
to the minimum or maximum Listing Fees applicable to an initial
listing of common shares.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under Section 902.04, BDCs are currently subject to annual fees at
a rate of $0.001025 per share, subject to a $25,000 minimum fee. Other
than a fund family discount for which BDCs are not typically qualified
(as they are not generally part of a family of at least three listed
funds), Section 902.04 does not include a limit on an issuer's annual
fee obligations. By comparison, under the operating company fee
schedule, BDCs will be charged $0.0011 per share for common shares,
preferred shares and warrants, subject to a $68,000 minimum for the
primary class of common shares or primary class of preferred stock (if
there is no class of common shares listed), a $20,000 minimum for any
additional class of common shares, and a $5,000 minimum for any class
of warrants or preferred shares. In addition to these minimum payments,
BDCs will benefit from the $500,000 cap imposed on annual fees and
listing fees set forth in Section 902.02. As a consequence of the
higher minimum annual fee requirements and per share rates applicable
to operating companies, BDCs with smaller numbers of shares outstanding
will generally pay somewhat higher fees as a result of the proposed
rule change. The Exchange believes this is reasonable in light of the
fact that BDCs are subject to the same corporate governance
requirements as operating companies and require the Exchange to expend
comparable levels of regulatory resources. However, the application of
the $500,000 fee cap may result in certain larger BDCs paying less in
annual fees than would be the case under the closed-end fund schedule,
as the closed-end fund fee schedule does not include a cap on annual
fees. The Exchange believes this fee limitation is reasonable due to
the economies of scale involved in dealing with large issuers.
    The Exchange does not anticipate any reduction in revenues
associated with the proposed amendments and does not expect them to
have any effect on its ability to appropriately fund its regulatory
program.
    The proposed rule change will take effect as of January 1, 2019.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\6\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(4) \7\ of the Act, in particular, in that it
is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges. The Exchange also believes that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in that
it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest
and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes it is reasonable to bill BDCs under the
operating company initial listing fee schedule rather than the closed-
end fund initial listing fee schedule because: (i) In the Exchange's
opinion, BDCs function more like operating companies than like other
closed-end funds; and (ii) BDCs are generally subject to the same
corporate governance requirements as operating companies, so the
Exchange expends regulatory resources in determining the initial
listing qualification of a BDC that are comparable to the effort
involved in listing an operating company and significantly greater than
in the case of a closed-end fund.
    The Exchange believes that it is not unfairly discriminatory and
represents an equitable allocation of reasonable fees to charge BDCs
the same fees as domestic operating companies rather than charge them
the closed-end fund fee schedule, as the Exchange believes that the
purpose and operation of a BDC are more analogous to those of an
operating company than to a non-BDC closed end fund and it is therefore
more consistent to charge BDCs the same fees as are paid by domestic
operating companies.
    As a consequence of the higher minimum annual fee requirements and
per share rates applicable to operating

companies, BDCs with smaller numbers of shares outstanding will
generally pay somewhat higher fees as a result of the proposed rule
change. The Exchange believes this is reasonable in light of the fact
that BDCs are subject to the same corporate governance requirements as
operating companies and require the Exchange to expend comparable
levels of regulatory resources. However, the application of the
$500,000 fee cap may result in certain larger BDCs paying less in
annual fees than would be the case under the closed-end fund schedule,
as the closed-end fund fee schedule does not include a cap on annual
fees. The Exchange believes this fee limitation is reasonable due to
the economies of scale involved in dealing with large issuers.
    The Exchange does not anticipate any reduction in revenues
associated with the proposed amendments and does not expect them to
have any effect on its ability to appropriately fund its regulatory
program.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is
designed to ensure that the fees charged by the Exchange accurately
reflect the services provided and benefits realized by listed
companies. The market for listing services is extremely competitive.
Each listing exchange has a different fee schedule that applies to
issuers seeking to list securities on its exchange. Issuers have the
option to list their securities on these alternative venues based on
the fees charged and the value provided by each listing. Because
issuers have a choice to list their securities on a different national
securities exchange, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed
fee changes impose a burden on competition.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \9\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-
4 \10\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \11\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2018-64 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2018-64. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2018-64 and should be submitted on
or before January 22, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-28389 Filed 12-28-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 141 (Tuesday, July 25, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 47886]
[FR Doc No: 2023-15639]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2023-N-0155]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Quantitative Research
on Front of Package Labeling on Packaged Foods; Reopening of the
Comment Period

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS).

ACTION: Notice; reopening of the comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is reopening the
comment period for the notice entitled ``Agency Information Collection
Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review;
Comment Request; Quantitative Research on Front of Package Labeling on
Packaged Foods,'' published in the Federal Register of June 15, 2023,
to allow interested parties additional time to submit comments. We are
taking this action due to technical difficulties experienced on the
final two days of the comment period that may have prevented some
interested parties from submitting comments.

DATES: FDA is reopening the comment period on the notice published on
June 15, 2023 (88 FR 39257). Submit written comments (including
recommendations) on the collection of information by 11:59 p.m. on
Wednesday, July 26, 2023.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be submitted to https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRA/icrPublicCommentRequest?ref_nbr=202306-0910-004. You may also find this particular information collection at
https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain by following these
instructions: Under the header ``Currently under Review Select Agency''
use the drop down menu to select ``Department of Health and Human
Services'' or by using the search function. The title of this
information collection is ``Quantitative Research on Front of Package
Labeling on Packaged Foods.'' Also include the FDA docket number found
in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: JonnaLynn Capezzuto, Office of
Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-
12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of June 15, 2023 (88
FR 39257), FDA announced that a proposed collection of information had
been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review and
clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Interested parties
were originally given until July 17, 2023, to submit comments
(including recommendations) on the information collection.
    However, on July 16 and 17, 2023, technical difficulties may have
prevented some stakeholders from submitting electronic comments.
Therefore, we are reopening the comment period to allow interested
parties additional time to submit comments. The reopened comment period
provides an opportunity for stakeholders who may have been impacted by
the technical difficulties.

    Dated: July 19, 2023.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-15639 Filed 7-24-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 158 (Monday, August 17, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 49285]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20154]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75659; File No. SR-NYSE-2015-27]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule
Change Amending the Eighth Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of
the Exchange To Establish a Regulatory Oversight Committee as a
Committee of the Board of Directors of the Exchange and Make Certain
Conforming Amendments to Exchange Rules

August 11, 2015.
    On June 12, 2015, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ a
proposed rule change to amend the Eighth Amended and Restated Operating
Agreement of the Exchange to establish a Regulatory Oversight Committee
as a Committee of the Board of Directors of the Exchange and make
certain conforming amendments to Exchange Rules. The proposed rule
change was published for comment in the Federal Register on June 30,
2015.\4\ The Commission has received no comment letters on the proposed
rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75288 (June 24,
2015), 80 FR 37316.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \5\ provides that, within 45 days of
the publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
Commission is extending this 45-day time period. The Commission finds
that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to
take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time
to consider the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\6\ designates September 28, 2015, as the date by which the
Commission shall either approve or disapprove or institute proceedings
to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change (File
Number SR-NYSE-2015-27).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-20154 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


D 49 Appendix D 8. Supplementary Data for Richards and Beitinger ( 1995)

Acclimation Temperature 5

C 12

C 22

C 32

C Replicate 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 Sample size 30 36 30 36 36 30 33 29 pH 8.2 8.3 7.8 8.2 8.4 8.5 8.2 8.4 8.3 8.4 8.1 8.5 8.4 8.5 8.4 8.5 Hardness ( mg/ l CaCO3) 164 180 152 166 152 168 148 170 164 174 162 172 164 168 162 172 Alkalinity ( mg/ l CaCO3) 125 140 130 140 130 140 130 140 140 145 140 145 135 140 135 145 Weights of minnows ( g) 0.62 3.23 0.42 2.64 0.56 2.38 0.30 1.93 0.66 1.15 0.13 1.55 0.26 1.36 0.23 1.32 Lengths of minnows ( cm) 3.3 5.5 3.2 5.2 3.2 4.9 2.8 5.1 1.9 4.3 2.4 4.6 3.0 4.8 3.3 4.8


MEMORANDUM

Date:		May 16, 2019

From: 		Paula Hirtz, EPA/OAR/OAQPS/SPPD/MMG

To:	NESHAP for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0684

Subject:   	Incorporation by Reference of Dockets EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0005 and A-98-41

Dockets EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0005 and A-98-41 are dockets that were formerly
established for actions associated with the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category
and contain information that is relevant to the current rulemaking. Therefore, dockets
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0014 and A-97-51 are incorporated by reference into docket
EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0684.


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 241 (Monday, December 18, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 87466]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27848]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, December 21, 2023.

PLACE: The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the
Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners,
the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend
the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the
matters also may be present.
    In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting
changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date,
and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website
at https://www.sec.gov.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has
certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10),
permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
    The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the
following topics:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
    Resolution of litigation claims; and
    Other matters relating to examinations and enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of
adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information; please
contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202)
551-5400.

(Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b.)

    Dated: December 14, 2023.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-27848 Filed 12-14-23; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 13 (Friday, January 18, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 4143]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00979]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER13-752-000]

Energy Storage Holdings, 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 Energy Storage Holdings, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, 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 February 4, 2013.
    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
14 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(s) are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site 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_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 14, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-00979 Filed 1-17-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P