[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 204 (Friday, October 21, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 72724-72729]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25301]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0308; FRL-9954-18-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Virginia; Removal of Stage II Gasoline Vapor Recovery Requirements for
Gasoline Dispensing Facilities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to approve revisions to the Commonwealth of Virginia's
state implementation plan (SIP). The revision serves to remove
requirements for vapor recovery equipment (also referred to as Stage II
vapor recovery, or simply as Stage II) from subject gasoline stations
in areas of Virginia that were formerly required to install and operate
Stage II under the prior approved SIP. In 2012, EPA determined that
new, gasoline-powered vehicles equipped with onboard vapor recovery
systems (beginning with those manufactured in model year 1998) were in
widespread use and have, in great part, supplanted emission reductions
formerly controlled via Stage II vapor recovery on gasoline dispensers
at service stations. In two prior rulemakings, EPA has already approved
Virginia's demonstrations showing that the emission benefits generated
by Stage II vapor recovery have been fully offset, without impacting
the affected Virginia areas' ability to attain and maintain any
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). Virginia amended its
existing rules to remove Stage II as a required measure by January 2017
and added decommissioning procedures for stations electing to opt out
of the program. EPA is approving this SIP revision to amend the
Virginia Stage II vapor recovery program in accordance with the
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This rule is effective on December 20, 2016 without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by November 21,
2016. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform
the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2016-0308 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow
the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Rehn,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Stage II vapor recovery is a means of capturing volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) emitted as vapors displaced from a vehicle's gas tank
during refueling operations, via vapor controls equipped on a gasoline
pump at a gasoline dispensing facility (GDF). Stage II vapor recovery
uses special refueling nozzles and coaxial hoses on the gasoline
dispenser to capture these vapors that might otherwise be emitted to
the atmosphere during vehicle

fueling. These gasoline vapors contain toxic air emissions and serve as
precursors to the formation of ground-level ozone--an ambient air
pollutant regulated under the CAA. Under section 182(b)(3) of the CAA,
areas classified as moderate or worse ozone nonattainment were required
to adopt a Stage II vapor recovery program. Areas in the Ozone
Transport Region (OTR) were required under section 184(a) and (b)(2) to
adopt Stage II, or a comparable measure that could achieve similar
emission reductions.
    Virginia has three areas that have approved Stage II SIPs meeting
Stage II requirements under the 1990 amendments to the CAA. The
Richmond area was designated as moderate nonattainment under the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS, and again under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On July 26,
1996, Virginia submitted a request to redesignate the Richmond area to
attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA's approval of this request
was published in the November 17, 1997 Federal Register (62 FR 61237).
On September 26, 2006, Virginia requested redesignation of the Richmond
area to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA approved that
redesignation request in the June 1, 2007 Federal Register (72 FR
30485). However, Virginia's plans for maintenance of the respective
NAAQS relied upon the emissions reductions from Stage II as a means to
ensure continued maintenance of the ozone NAAQS. Although the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS was revoked June 15, 2005, EPA's implementation rule for
the 1997 ozone NAAQS retained Stage II as a required measure to prevent
backsliding under the NAAQS.
    The Virginia portion of the Washington, DC-MD-VA ozone
nonattainment area (hereafter referred to as the Washington area) was
subject to Stage II not only because of its designation as
nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS, but also because this area lies in a
CAA-established OTR. The area was designated serious nonattainment
under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, both
the Northern Virginia area and the neighboring Fredericksburg area were
designated as moderate nonattainment. On November 13, 2002, EPA
reclassified the Virginia portion of the Washington, DC-MD-VA area as
severe nonattainment under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. 67 FR 68805.
Virginia subsequently submitted and EPA approved attainment plans for
the 1-hour and 1997 8-hour NAAQS for the Washington area, and approved
a redesignation and maintenance plan for the Fredericksburg area.
Although the 1-hour ozone NAAQS was revoked effective June 2005, EPA's
implementation rule for the 1997 ozone NAAQS retained Stage II-related
requirements under CAA section 182(b)(3) for certain areas. Therefore,
Stage II continued to apply in the Washington, DC nonattainment area as
an anti-backsliding measure (for the revoked 1-hour ozone NAAQS) and in
the Fredericksburg area as a maintenance measure (under the 1997 ozone
NAAQS) pending EPA determination that onboard refueling vapor recovery
(ORVR) was in widespread use and Virginia could demonstrate that Stage
II was no longer a necessary component of its air quality plans.
    Virginia adopted Stage II regulations in the November 2, 1992
edition of the Virginia Register of Regulations (Vol. 9, Issue 3)
effective January 1, 1993. Stage II applicability was limited to the to
the Northern Virginia volatile organic compound (VOC) Emission Control
Area (comprised of Arlington, Alexandria, Fairfax, Loudon, Prince
William and Stafford Counties, plus the cities of Alexandria, Fairfax,
Falls Church, Manassas, and Stafford) and to the Richmond VOC Emission
Control Area (comprised of the Counties of Charles City, Chesterfield,
Hanover, and Henrico, plus the cities of Colonial Heights, Hopewell,
and Richmond). Virginia submitted its Stage II regulation to EPA as a
SIP revision on November 5, 1992. EPA approved Virginia's Stage II SIP
revision on June 23, 1993 (59 FR 32353).
    ORVR is an emissions control system equipped on new, gasoline-
powered vehicles (beginning with model year 1998 vehicles) for the
purpose of capturing refueling gasoline vapors before they escape the
vehicle gas tank and to store them in an underhood canister for later
engine combustion. Section 202(a)(6) of the CAA directed that Stage II
requirements under 182(b)(3) would no longer apply to moderate ozone
nonattainment areas upon promulgation of standards for ORVR systems as
part of the emission control system on newly manufactured vehicles.
Section 202(a)(6) further directs that Stage II requirements no longer
apply to ozone nonattainment areas designated serious or worse upon
EPA's determination that ORVR technology is in ``widespread use.'' EPA
issued its widespread use determination on May 16, 2012 (77 FR 28772),
indicating that ORVR was in widespread use throughout the U.S. vehicle
fleet, and that at that time ORVR vehicles were essentially equal to
and would soon surpass the emissions reductions achieved by Stage II
alone.
    Virginia has examined whether Stage II vapor recovery continues to
be necessary for ozone control purposes, given the prevalence of ORVR-
equipped gasoline-powered vehicles and the redundancy between ORVR and
Stage II systems in reducing gasoline tank displacement emissions
associated with refueling. Additionally, Virginia has analyzed the
interference effect between certain Stage II systems and ORVR systems.
As a result, Virginia determined that Stage II vapor recovery is no
longer necessary as a control measure to address ambient ozone in the
Washington, Fredericksburg, and Richmond areas.
    On November 12, 2013 and March 18, 2014, Virginia submitted SIP
revisions to EPA that evaluate and address the emissions impacts to
each of those affected areas associated with removal of the Stage II
program. These plans serve to amend the ozone maintenance plan for the
Richmond area and the attainment plan for the Washington area to
demonstrate that removal of the Stage II programs will not interfere
with those areas' ability to attain and maintain any NAAQS. On May 26,
2015 (80 FR 29959), EPA approved the Commonwealth's March 18, 2014 SIP
revision amending the approved ozone attainment plan for the Virginia
portion of Washington nonattainment area and the approved ozone
maintenance plan for the Fredericksburg area to remove the Stage II
program. On August 11, 2014, EPA approved Virginia's November 12, 2013
SIP revision amending the approved ozone maintenance plan SIP for the
Richmond area to remove the Stage II program.

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    On October 15, 2015, the Commonwealth of Virginia submitted a
formal revision to remove the requirements for Stage II vapor recovery
controls in Virginia ozone nonattainment areas from the approved
Virginia SIP (Revision C14). This October 2015 SIP revision contains
the amended Stage II vapor recovery regulatory provisions of Virginia
Rule 4-37, entitled ``Emission Standards for Volatile Organic Compounds
from Petroleum Liquid Storage and Transfer Operations.'' The October
2015 SIP revision includes Virginia's regulatory amendments listed at
9VAC5-20 and 9VAC5-40 that were adopted by Virginia in June of 2014,
and published in the Virginia Register of Regulations on June 15, 2015.
The purpose of the Commonwealth's 2015 SIP revision

submittal is to remove Stage II vapor recovery requirements applicable
in covered areas in Virginia from the Commonwealth's rule provisions
governing petroleum liquid storage and transfer operations. Under
Virginia's amended Rule 4-37, gasoline stations in the Washington and
Fredericksburg areas were no longer required to employ Stage II systems
as of January 2014, and Richmond area stations will no longer be
required to employ Stage II vapor recovery systems as of January 2017.
Virginia's amendment to Rule 4-37 also requires facilities electing to
decommission Stage II to meet established decommissioning procedures
and those electing to continue to operate Stage II to continue to
properly operate and maintain their Stage II systems.
    As described in the Background section of this action, EPA has
already approved Virginia's SIP revisions submitted on November 12,
2013 and March 18, 2014 demonstrating that removal of Stage II as a
control measure from the SIP will not interfere with the Washington,
Fredericksburg, and Richmond areas' ability to attain and maintain any
applicable NAAQS.
    Virginia's Department of Environmental Quality (VA DEQ) examined
whether Stage II vapor recovery is necessary for ozone control
purposes, and determined this program is no longer beneficial to air
quality of the Commonwealth, given EPA's widespread use determination
for ORVR equipment in new vehicles manufactured since 1998 and the
inherent redundancies between Stage II vapor recovery equipment and
vehicle-based ORVR systems, as well as the known incompatibilities
between certain types of Stage II vapor recovery equipment and vehicle-
based, ORVR systems.
    EPA has evaluated the regulatory amendments adopted by Virginia to
its Rule 4-37 to rescind Stage II vapor recovery requirements for new
and existing stations, to adopt decommissioning procedures and
requirements for GDFs electing to no longer operate existing Stage II
systems, and to require the continued operation and maintenance of
Stage II equipment for stations that elect to continue participation in
the program. Virginia's regulatory changes meet EPA guidance and the
related requirements of sections 182 and 202 of the CAA with respect to
the applicability of Stage II requirements after EPA's issuance of its
widespread use policy of ORVR determination in 2012, as described in
the Background section of this document. Virginia has properly analyzed
the impact of removal of the Stage II program in adherence with EPA's
``Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control Programs from
State Implementation Plans and Assessing Comparable Measures,'' dated
August 7, 2012 (EPA-457/B-12-001), including applicability of Stage II
or comparable measures in the OTR, per section 184 of the CAA. As
previously found by EPA, Virginia has demonstrated that removal of the
Stage II requirement does not interfere with any affected area's
ability to attain or maintain a NAAQS, under section 110(l) of the CAA.
    For further information on Virginia's analysis of the impacts of
removal of the Stage II programs in the Washington and Fredericksburg
areas, please refer to EPA's May 26, 2015 approval of the SIP
demonstration applicable to those areas. See 80 FR 29959. For further
information with respect to Virginia's analysis of the removal of Stage
II in the Richmond area, please refer to EPA's August 11, 2014 approval
of the Commonwealth's demonstration applicable to Richmond. See 79 FR
4671.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving Virginia's revision to its SIP to include revised
Stage II vapor recovery provisions to remove the requirement for
Virginia area GDFs to operate Stage II in areas formerly subject to
Stage II under CAA sections 182 and 184, and to add provisions setting
requirements for GDFs opting to decommission existing Stage II systems.
As described previously, EPA previously approved two earlier, related
Virginia SIP revisions demonstrating that Virginia's Stage II-affected
areas (i.e., the Virginia portion of Washington, DC, Fredericksburg,
and Richmond ozone nonattainment areas) will not be adversely affected
by the removal of the Stage II vapor recovery requirement. EPA is
publishing this rule without prior proposal because EPA views this as a
noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment.
    However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's Federal
Register, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the
proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are filed.
This rule will be effective on December 20, 2016 without further notice
unless EPA receives adverse comment by November 21, 2016. If EPA
receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take
effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment
period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so
at this time.

IV. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the
Commonwealth of Virginia

    In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to
certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit)
``privilege'' for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a
regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden
of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking
disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's
legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty
waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity
discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation
and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes
prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's
Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-
1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and
information about the content of those documents that are the product
of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not
extend to documents or information that: (1) Are generated or developed
before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2)
are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) demonstrate a
clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or
environment; or (4) are required by law.
    On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the
Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the
Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec.  10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege
to documents and information ``required by law,'' including documents
and information ``required by federal law to maintain program
delegation, authorization or approval,'' since Virginia must ``enforce
federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less
stringent than their federal counterparts . . . .'' The opinion
concludes that ``[r]egarding Sec.  10.1-1198, therefore, documents or
other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of
these programs could not be privileged because such documents and
information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required
by federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or
approval.''

Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that ``[t]o
the extent consistent with requirements imposed by federal law,'' any
person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a state agency
regarding a violation of an environmental statute, regulation, permit,
or administrative order is granted immunity from administrative or
civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12, 1998 opinion states
that the quoted language renders this statute inapplicable to
enforcement of any federally authorized programs, since ``no immunity
could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal penalties
because granting such immunity would not be consistent with federal
law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.''
    Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and
Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its
program consistent with the federal requirements. In any event, because
EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law
can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on federal
enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under
the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to
enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan,
independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen
enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by
this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Virginia's
amendments to Article 37 of 9VAC5-40, relating also to amendments to
Virginia's general provisions at 9VAC5-20-21, reflecting the addition
of a new source of documents incorporated by reference, effective on
July 20, 2015. Additionally, Virginia amended its Rule 4-37 governing
petroleum liquid and transfer operations applicable to existing
stationary sources. Specifically, Virginia modified requirements for
the Commonwealth's Stage II vapor recovery program in 9-VAC5-5220 and
9VAC5-5270, effective July 20, 2015. These materials have been approved
by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by
EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110
and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of
EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director
of the Federal Register in the next update of the SIP compilation.\1\
EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally
available through www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region III
Office (please contact the person identified in the ``For Further
Information Contact'' section of this preamble for more information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land as
defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151 or in any other area where EPA or an Indian
tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by December 20, 2016. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking action. This action to amend Virginia's approved Stage II

vapor recovery SIP to amend the Commonwealth's requirements for the
Stage II vapor recovery program may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 29, 2016.
Shawn M. Garvin,
Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart VV--Virginia

0
2. Amend Sec.  52.2420:
0
 a. In the table in paragraph (c) by revising the entry ``5-40-5220''
and adding in numerical order an entry for ``5-40-5270'': and
0
b. In the table in paragraph (e) by revising an entry ``Documents
Incorporated by Reference (9 VAC 5-20-21, Section B.)'' and adding
``Documents Incorporated by Reference (9 VAC 5-20-21, Section E.15.)''
at the end of the table.
    The revised and added text reads as follows:

Sec.  52.2420  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Virginia Regulations and Statutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Explanation
         State citation               Title/Subject            State       EPA Approval date      [former SIP
                                                          effective date                           citation]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            9 VAC 5, Chapter 40 Existing Stationary Sources[Part IV]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Part II Emissions Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Article 37 Emission Standards for Petroleum Liquid Storage and Transfer Operations (Rule 4-37)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5-40-5220......................  Standard for Volatile        07/30/2015  10/21/2016 [Insert  ..................
                                  Organic Compounds.                       Federal Register
                                                                           Citation].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5-40-5270......................  Standard for Toxic           07/30/2015  10/21/2016 [Insert  ..................
                                  Pollutants.                              Federal Register
                                                                           Citation].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Name of non-regulatory SIP     Applicable geographic        State                              Additional
            revision                       area           submittal date   EPA Approval date      explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Documents Incorporated by        Northern Virginia             10/1/2015  10/21/2016 [Insert  State effective
 Reference (9 VAC 5-20-21,        (Metropolitan                            Federal Register    date is 7/30/15.
 Section B.).                     Washington) Ozone                        Citation].
                                  Nonattainment Area,
                                  Fredericksburg Ozone
                                  Maintenance Area,
                                  Richmond-Petersburg
                                  Ozone Maintenance Area.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Documents Incorporated by        Northern Virginia             10/1/2015  10/21/2016 [Insert  State effective
 Reference (9 VAC 5-20-21,        (Metropolitan                            Federal Register    date is 7/30/15.
 Section E.15.).                  Washington) Ozone                        Citation].
                                  Nonattainment Area,
                                  Fredericksburg Ozone
                                  Maintenance Area,
                                  Richmond-Petersburg
                                  Ozone Maintenance Area.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-25301 Filed 10-20-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 82 (Friday, April 28, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26369-26370]
[FR Doc No: 2023-08983]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-97364; File No. SR-CboeBZX-2023-013]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule
Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Adopt Listing Rules To
Require Companies Listed on the Exchange To Develop, Implement, and
Disclose a Written Compensation Recovery Policy To Comply With Rule
10D-1 Under the Exchange Act and Make Other Related Changes

April 24, 2023.
    On February 24, 2023, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BZX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule to adopt listing rules to require companies listed on the
Exchange to develop, implement, and disclose a written compensation
recovery policy to comply with Rule 10D-1 under the Exchange Act. On
March 3, 2023, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule
change, which replaced and superseded the proposed rule change as
originally filed. The proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment
No. 1, was published for comment in the Federal Register on March 15,
2023.\3\ The Commission has received no comments on the proposal, as
modified by Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 97099 (March 9,
2023), 88 FR 16051.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day after publication of the notice for this proposed rule change
is April 29, 2023. The Commission is extending this 45-day time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Commission finds it 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, as modified by
Amendment No. 1. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to section
19(b)(2) of the Act,\5\ designates June 13, 2023, as the date by which
the Commission shall either approve or disapprove, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1 (File No. SR-CboeBZX-2023-013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-08983 Filed 4-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 159 (Wednesday, August 17, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54873-54877]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19581]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78550; File No. SR-IEX-2016-09]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Investors Exchange LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Related to
Transaction and Regulatory Fees

August 11, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act''),\2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that, on August 5, 2016, the Investors Exchange LLC (``IEX'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been 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

    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\4\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\5\
Investors Exchange LLC (``IEX'' or ``Exchange'') is filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule
change to (i) adopt transaction fees applicable to Members \6\ of the
Exchange pursuant to IEX Rule 15.110(a) and (c) (``Fee Schedule''), and
(ii) adopt regulatory fees related to the Central Registration
Depository (``CRD system''), which will be collected by the Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'') pursuant to IEX Rule
15.110(a). The Exchange proposes to implement the rule change effective
with its exchange launch. The text of the proposed rule change is
available at the Exchange's Web site at www.iextrading.com, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \5\ 17 CRF [sic] 240.19b-4.
    \6\ See, IEX Rule 1.160(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 these statement [sic] may be examined
at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory
organization has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C
below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
Transaction Fees
    The Exchange proposes to implement a fee schedule applicable to use
of the Exchange commencing on the date it begins operating as a
national securities exchange. The Exchange currently intends to
commence operations as a national securities exchange on or about
August 19, 2016. IEX proposes to implement the Fee Schedule described
herein, which will be applicable to transactions executed in all
trading sessions, effective with its exchange launch.
(A) Displayed Match Fee
    The Exchange does not propose to charge any fee to Members for
executions on IEX that include resting interest with displayed priority
(i.e., an order or portion of a reserve order that is booked and ranked
with display priority on the Order Book either as the IEX best bid or
best offer (``BBO'') or at a worse price on the Order Book) for both
the liquidity adding and liquidity removing order.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ This pricing is referred to by the Exchange as ``Displayed
Match Fee'' on the proposed Fee Schedule with a Fee Code of `L' to
be provided by the Exchange on execution reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Non-Displayed Match Fee
    The Exchange proposes to charge $0.0009 per share (or 0.30% of the
total dollar value of the transaction for securities priced below
$1.00) to Members for executions on IEX that include resting interest
with non-displayed priority (i.e., an order or portion of a reserve
order that is booked and ranked with non-display priority on the Order
Book either at the NBBO midpoint or at a worse price on the Order Book)
for both the liquidity adding and liquidity removing order,\8\ with the
exception of executions on the Exchange where the adding and removing
order originated from the same Exchange Member and displayable orders
removing non-displayed liquidity upon entry, each as described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ This pricing is referred to by the Exchange as ``Non-
Displayed Match Fee'' on the proposed Fee Schedule with a Fee Code
of `I' to be provided by the Exchange on execution reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Exchange does not propose to
charge any fee to Members for executions on IEX that involve taking
resting interest with non-displayed priority where (a) the liquidity
removing order was displayable (i.e., the order would have booked and
displayed if posted to the Order Book) and (b) on a monthly basis, at
least 90% of the liquidity removing Member's aggregate executions of
displayable orders added liquidity during such calendar month. However,
in such transactions, the non-displayed liquidity adding interest will
be subject to the Non-Displayed Match Fee described above.
(C) Internalization Fee
    The Exchange does not propose to charge any fee to Members for
executions on IEX when the adding and removing order originated from
the same Exchange Member.\9\ Orders from different market participant
identifiers of the same broker dealer, with the same Central
Registration Depository registration number, would be treated as
originating from the same Exchange Member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ This pricing is referred to by the Exchange as
``Internalization Fee'' on the proposed Fee Schedule with a Fee Code
of `S' to be provided by the Exchange on execution reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(D) Routing Charges
    The Exchange proposes to pass the fee or rebate from an away
trading center to the Member and charge a fee of $0.0001 per share for
all routing options offered by the Exchange. All charges for routing
are applicable only in the event that an

order is executed on an away trading center.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Exchange will provide the Fee Code from away market
centers on execution reports of routed transactions. In the proposed
Fee Schedule, the Fee Code of ``Alpha'' is used to indicate this
behavior.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(E) Other Fees
    The Exchange does not propose to charge fees for membership,
connectivity port fees, or market data.
Regulatory Fees
    IEX is proposing to adopt certain regulatory fees under Rule
15.110(a) related to the CRD system, which are collected by FINRA.\11\
As proposed, FINRA will collect and retain certain regulatory fees via
the CRD system for the registration of persons associated with an
Exchange Members [sic] that are not also FINRA members. The CRD system
fees are use-based and there is no distinction in the cost incurred by
FINRA if the user is a FINRA member or a member of an exchange but not
a FINRA member. Accordingly, IEX is proposing to adopt the fees under
IEX Rule 15.110(a) to mirror those assessed by FINRA pursuant to
Section (4) of Schedule A to the FINRA By-Laws. As proposed, the fees
are as follows: \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The CRD system is the central licensing and registration
system for the U.S. securities industry. The CRD system enables
individuals and firms seeking registration with multiple states and
self-regulatory organizations to do so by submitting a single form,
fingerprint card and a combined payment of fees to FINRA. Through
the CRD system, FINRA maintains the qualification, employment and
disciplinary histories of registered associated persons of broker
dealers.
    \12\ The Exchange has only adopted the CRD system fees charged
by FINRA to Non-FINRA Members when such fees are applicable. In this
regard, certain FINRA CRD system fees and requirements are specific
to FINRA members, but do not apply to IEX Members that are not also
FINRA members. IEX Members that are also FINRA members are charged
CRD system fees according to Section (4) of Schedule A to the FINRA
By-Laws.

    (1) $100 for each initial Form U4 filed for the registration of
a representative or principal;
    (2) $110 for the additional processing of each initial or
amended Form U4, Form U5 or Form BD that includes the initial
reporting, amendment, or certification of one or more disclosure
events or proceedings;
    (3) $45 annual for each of the Member's registered
representatives and principals for system processing;
    (4) $15 for processing and posting to the CRD system each set of
fingerprint cards submitted electronically by the Member, plus a
pass-through of any other charge imposed by the United States
Department of Justice for processing each set of fingerprints;
    (5) $30 for processing and posting to the CRD system each set of
fingerprint cards submitted in non-electronic format by the Member,
plus a pass-through of any other charge imposed by the United States
Department of Justice for processing each set of fingerprints; and
    (6) $30 for processing and posting to the CRD system each set of
fingerprint results and identifying information that has been
processed through a self-regulatory organization other than FINRA.

2. Statutory Basis
Transaction Fees
    IEX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 6(b) \13\ of the Act in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections [sic] 6(b)(4) \14\ of the Act, in particular, in
that it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its Members and other
persons using its facilities. Additionally, IEX believes that the
proposed fees are consistent with the investor protection objectives of
Section 6(b)(5) \15\ of the Act in particular in that they are designed
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to a free and open market and national market system, and
in general to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed Fee Schedule set forth herein is designed to minimize
incentives for trading and order routing decisions based solely on
rebates that could create conflicts of interest by skewing economic
incentives related to such decisions. In addition, by not offering
rebates, IEX has simplified its order type offering to avoid order
types designed to assure receipt of a rebate.\16\ By contrast, as
proposed, IEX will charge relatively low fees for all executed shares,
and which will be significantly lower than many other exchange fees
charged for removing (or taking) liquidity.\17\ Moreover, IEX believes
that adders of liquidity can be incentivized to rest shares by offering
a market model and order types designed to protect their interests as
opposed to the payment of a rebate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ In an address on equity market structure on June 5, 2014,
Chair Mary Jo White called upon the exchanges to conduct a
comprehensive review of their order types and how they operate, as
well as to ``consider appropriate rule changes to help clarify the
nature of their order types and how they interact with each other,
and how they support fair, orderly, and efficient markets.'' (See,
speech by Chair Mary Jo White at Sandler O'Neill & Partners, L.P.
Global Exchange and Brokerage Conference, New York, N.Y., available
at http://www.sec.gov/News/Speech/Detail/Speech/1370542004312)
    \17\ For example, the New York Stock Exchange trading fee
schedule on its public Web site reflects fees to ``take'' liquidity
ranging from $0.0024-$0.00275 depending on the type of market
participant, order and execution (See, https://www.nyse.com/markets/nyse/trading-info/fees). The Nasdaq Stock Market (``Nasdaq'')
trading fee schedule on its public Web site reflects fees to
``remove'' liquidity ranging from $0.0030 per share for shares
executed at or above $1.00 or 0.30% of total dollar volume for
shares executed below $1.00 (See, http://nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=PriceListTrading2). BATS BZX Exchange (``BZX) trading
fee schedule on its public Web site reflects fees for ``removing''
liquidity ranging from $0.0030 for shares executed at or above $1.00
or 0.30% of total dollar volume for shares executed below $1.00,
subject to certain limited exceptions for orders trading in the
opening, IPO or halt auctions BZX listed securities (See, https://www.batstrading.com/support/fee_schedule/bzx/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IEX believes that it is appropriate, reasonable and consistent with
the Act, to charge the $0.0009 per share Non-Displayed Match Fee,
because it is within the transaction fee range charged by other
exchanges.\18\ IEX also believes that it is appropriate, reasonable and
consistent with the Act, not to charge a fee for transactions that
include execution of an order with displayed priority on the Order
Book. This fee structure is designed to incentivize Members to send IEX
aggressively priced displayable orders, thereby contributing to price
discovery and consistent with the overall goal of enhancing market
quality. IEX believes that not charging a fee for both the liquidity
adder and remover is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
it is designed to facilitate execution of, and enhance trading
opportunities for, displayable orders, thereby further incentivizing
entry of displayed orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange believes that it is appropriate, and
consistent with the Act, to not charge a fee to Members with respect to
displayable orders that remove non-displayed liquidity upon entry so
long as at least 90% of the Member's aggregate executed shares of
displayable orders added liquidity during the month in question. This
flexibility is designed to address limited inadvertent liquidity
removal for Exchange Members who are largely adding displayed
liquidity. Under these circumstances, the Member generally intends to
add displayed liquidity on IEX, and the Exchange therefore believes
that it is appropriate to provide a fee incentive to such order,
subject to the 90% limitation described herein, to further encourage
aggressively priced displayed orders. The Exchange also believes that
it is appropriate, reasonable and consistent with the Act, to charge
the $0.0009 per share Non-Displayed Match Fee to Members for the
resting, non-displayed order that matches with the displayable order
under such circumstances because the reduced fee for Members entering
displayable orders removing non-displayed liquidity is a narrowly drawn
incentive to address unintended

consequences. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that it is appropriate
to charge the $0.0009 per share Non-Displayed Match Fee for such
orders. The Exchange also notes that most other national securities
exchanges charge different fees to members for adding and removing
liquidity, and that this aspect of IEX's proposed Fee Schedule does not
raise any new or novel issues that have not previously been considered
by the Commission in connection with the fees of other national
securities exchanges.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See, for example https://www.nyse.com/markets/nyse/trading-info/fees, http://nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=PriceListTrading2,
and https://www.batstrading.com/support/fee_schedule/bzx/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to internalized trades, the proposal to charge no fee
is designed to incentivize Members (and their customers) to send orders
to IEX that may otherwise be internalized off exchange. As broker
operated ATSs and internalization mechanisms have proliferated to
account for nearly 40% of trading volume,\20\ natural investor trading
interest has become increasingly dispersed across these venues, while
the overall trading volume on regulated exchanges has declined.\21\ IEX
believes that one of the factors driving broker decisions to trade away
from regulated exchanges has been exchange access fees. Accordingly,
this fee structure is designed with the goal to increase resultant
order interaction on IEX. In this regard, IEX believes that increased
liquidity on IEX would have several benefits to investors in securities
traded on IEX. First, it would increase opportunities for investors'
orders to interact directly, thereby concurrently reducing the need for
unnecessary intermediation and the associated implicit costs, including
potential information leakage and gaming. Second, to the extent
Exchange Members post more displayed orders on IEX, price discovery
would be enhanced drawing more natural trading interest to the public
markets which would deepen liquidity and dampen the impact of shocks
from liquidity demand. Third, orders executed on IEX rather than being
internalized on broker-operated platforms, will have the benefit of
exchange transparency, regulation, and oversight. Additionally, because
IEX prices orders based on direct market data feeds of protected
markets,\22\ the quality of executions on IEX may be enhanced compared
to orders that are internalized on certain broker-operated platforms
that price orders based on SIP market data feeds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See, for example, BATS Market Volume Summary for June 14,
2016 available at http://batstrading.com/market_summary/.
    \21\ See, for example a speech by former Commissioner Luis A.
Aguilar on May 11, 2015 entitled ``U.S. Equity Market Structure:
Making Our Markets Work Better for Investors'' (available at http://www.sec.gov/news/statement/us-equity-market-structure.html#_ednref1), and speech by Commission Chair Mary Jo
White on June 5, 2014 entitled ``Enhancing our Equity Market
Structure'' (available at http://www.sec.gov/News/Speech/Detail/Speech/1370542004312#_ednref17).
    \22\ See IEX Rule 11.410(a)(2)-(4), which describes IEX's use of
proprietary market data feeds and those of the Securities
Information Processors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is important to note that orders entered by the same broker
(that by their terms could be executable against each other) are not
guaranteed to be matched against each other, and each order is
individually at market risk for execution against contra-side orders
from other Members. Moreover, Members sending orders eligible for this
fee structure are subject to all existing IEX and FINRA rules
applicable to customer orders, including without limitation those
pertaining to wash sales, best execution, and customer priority. (See
for example, Chapter 10 of the IEX Rules and FINRA Rules 5210, 5310 and
5320).
    Moreover, IEX believes that there are precedents for exchanges to
charge fees that distinguish between different types of members to
incentivize certain types of members. These fee structures may
discriminate in favor of certain types of members but not in an
unfairly discriminatory manner in violation of the Act. In this regard,
most other exchanges offer reduced fees to members that reach certain
volume based tiers. Such fee structures, while nominally available to
all members, are targeted to incentivize larger members with enough
volume to reach the volume-based tiers. For example, the NYSE fee
schedule provides rebates of up to $0.0022 per share for members
generally that provide greater than 1.10% of consolidated average
trading volume compared to no rebate for firms that do not reach
specified volume tiers. And NYSE floor brokers, which have no unique
obligations to the market, receive higher rebates at certain volume
levels, as well as lower take fees, compared to NYSE member firms
generally.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See, https://www.nyse.com/markets/nyse/trading-info/fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the IEX fee structure is designed to incentivize Members
to send orders to a regulated exchange and enable IEX to compete more
effectively with internalizers and dark pools that provide internalized
matching. Notwithstanding that IEX will not pay for order flow, the
Exchange believes that some Members may nonetheless choose to direct
order flow to IEX as a regulated exchange in order to benefit from
real-time reporting and regulatory oversight, and that not charging a
fee will help IEX to compete for such order flow. The Exchange does not
believe that this fee incentive is unfairly discriminatory because it
is available to any IEX Member, consistent with applicable FINRA and
IEX rules, and potentially benefits all members because the fee
incentive may result in increased order flow and liquidity in IEX. As
noted above, internalization on IEX is not guaranteed, and the
additional order flow that does not internalize is available to trade
by all Members, and would enhance price discovery if such order flow
results in more displayed orders.
    Trading on the IEX alternative trading system (``ATS'') directly
supports the Exchange's contention that the proposed pricing structure
will provide benefits to Members generally and is not unfairly
discriminatory. IEX has offered comparable pricing on its ATS. Between
January 1, 2016 and June 30, 2016, internalized transactions occurred
across 66 of 145 ATS subscribers with a range of business models (e.g.,
full service, agency, and retail broker-dealers).\24\ During the period
January 1, 2016 through June 30, 2016, approximately 454 million shares
internalized on the IEX ATS. For those transactions on the IEX ATS that
included self-matched volume, the liquidity removing orders also
executed against approximately 63 million resting shares of other
subscribers.\25\ Thus, IEX does not believe that the internalization
fee incentive has had an unfairly discriminatory impact in practice,
since internalized transactions occurred across a large number of
different types of subscribers, providing collateral liquidity benefits
to other subscribers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Between January 1, 2016 and June 30, 2016, only 2.97
percent of overall subscribers' volume was from internalized
transactions.
    \25\ During the same period, there were also approximately 578
million unexecuted shares from the incoming orders that self-
matched.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange believes that its proposed fee codes, to
be provided on execution and routing reports, will provide transparency
and predictability to Members as to applicable transaction fees. In
this regard, IEX notes that Members will be able to maintain a tally of
executions of displayable orders eligible for no fee for taking non-
displayed liquidity by calculating, on a monthly basis, whether the
proportion of their executed displayable orders that added liquidity is
90% or more of their total monthly volume of executed displayable
orders. Using IEX execution reports, Members

can calculate whether the sum of executions with Fee Code L and a Last
Liquidity Indicator (FIX tag 851) of `1' (Added Liquidity), divided by
the sum of executions with Fee Code L is at least 90%.
    In summary, IEX believes that the proposed fee structure for
internalized transactions is reasonable, fair and equitable, and not an
unfairly discriminatory allocation of fees because it will provide all
Members with incentives not to avoid sending orders to IEX that will
contribute to enhanced liquidity and price discovery on a regulated
exchange. While not all Members necessarily will have the ability to
directly benefit from the proposed fee structure for internalized
transactions, as noted above internalization is not guaranteed so IEX
believes that Members generally may indirectly benefit from an increase
in order flow that does not internalize on IEX, as has been the case on
the ATS.
    With respect to orders routed to other exchanges, the proposal to
pass through fees charged by such other away trading centers for
executed shares plus charge a fee of $0.0001 payable to IEX is a
reasonable, fair and equitable, and not an unfairly discriminatory
allocation of fees because the fee is applicable to all Members in an
equivalent manner. The $0.0001 fee payable to IEX is not inconsistent
with the fees charged by other exchanges for routed orders, since many
of their routing fees are variable based on the fees and rebates
charged by such other venues.\26\ Accordingly, the IEX proposed
approach raises no new or novel issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See, for example, Nasdaq Stock Market Rule 7018(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described more fully below in the Exchange's statement regarding
the burden on competition, the Exchange believes that it is subject to
significant competitive forces, and that its proposed fee structure is
an appropriate effort to address such forces.
    IEX also believes that not charging a fee for membership,
connectivity or market data is reasonable because it may incentivize
broker-dealers to become members of the Exchange and to therefore
direct order flow to IEX. As a new exchange, IEX will operate in a
highly competitive environment, and not charging fees for such services
and access is designed to enable it to compete effectively.
    In conclusion, the Exchange also submits that its proposed fee
structure satisfies the requirements of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of
the Act for the reasons discussed above in that it does not permit
unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers,
and is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system. For the foregoing reasons, the
Exchange believes that its simplified fee structure is consistent with
the Act, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to a free and open market
and national market system and in general to protect investors and the
public interest.
Regulatory Fees
    IEX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 6(b) \27\ of the Act in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(4) \28\ of the Act, in particular, in that
it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable fees and other
charges among its members, and does not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, brokers and dealers. All similarly situated Members
are subject to the same fee structure, and every Member firm must use
the CRD system for registration and disclosure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed fees are reasonable because they are identical to
those adopted by FINRA for use of the CRD system for disclosure and the
registration of associated persons of FINRA members.\29\ As FINRA noted
in its filing adopting its existing fees, it believes the fees are
reasonable based on the increased costs associated with operating and
maintaining the CRD system, and listed a number of enhancements made to
the CRD system since the last fee increase, including: (1)
Incorporation of various uniform registration form changes; (2)
electronic fingerprint processing; (3) Web EFTTM, which
allows subscribing firms to submit batch filings to the CRD system; (4)
increases in the number and types of reports available through the CRD
system; and (5) significant changes to BrokerCheck, including making
BrokerCheck easier to use and expanding the amount of information made
available through the system.\30\ These increased costs are similarly
borne by FINRA when a member of IEX that is not a member of FINRA uses
the CRD system, so the fees collected for such use should mirror the
fees assessed on FINRA members, as is proposed by IEX. FINRA further
noted its belief that the proposed fees are reasonable because they
help to ensure the integrity of the information in the CRD system,
which is important because the Commission, FINRA, other self-regulatory
organizations and state securities regulators use the CRD system to
make licensing and registration decisions, among other things.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67247 (June 25,
2012), 77 FR 38866 (June 29, 2012) (SR-FINRA-2012-30).
    \30\ See supra, note 27 [sic], at 77 FR 38866, 38868.
    \31\ See supra [sic], at 77 FR 38866, 38868.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed fees, like FINRA's
fees, are consistent with an equitable allocation of fees because the
fees will apply equally to all individuals and members required to
report information to the CRD system. Thus, those members that register
more individuals or submit more filings through the CRD system will
generally pay more in fees than those members that use the CRD system
to a lesser extent. In addition, the proposed fees, like FINRA's fees,
are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they will result
in the same regulatory fees being charged to all IEX Members required
to report information to the CRD system and for services performed by
FINRA, regardless of whether or not such Member is a FINRA member.

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

    IEX does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe
that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the Exchange believes that the
proposed pricing structure will increase competition and hopefully draw
additional volume to the Exchange. The Exchange will operate in a
highly competitive market in which market participants can readily
favor competing venues if fee schedules at other venues are viewed as
more favorable. As a new exchange, IEX expects to face intense
competition from existing exchanges and other non-exchange venues that
provide markets for equities trading. Consequently, the Exchange
believes that the degree to which IEX fees could impose any burden on
competition is extremely limited, and does not believe that such fees
would burden competition of Members or competing venues in a manner
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because, while
different fees are assessed in some circumstances, these different fees
are not based on the type of Member entering the orders that match but
on the type of order entered and all Members can submit any type of
order. Further, the proposed fees are intended to encourage market
participants to bring increased volume to the Exchange, which benefits
all market participants.
Regulatory Fees
    IEX does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically, the Exchange
believes that the proposed fees will result in the same regulatory fees
being charged to all Members required to report information to the CRD
system and for services performed by FINRA, regardless of whether or
not such Members are FINRA members.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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 \32\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \33\
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \33\ 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-IEX-2016-09 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-IEX-2016-09. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of 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; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-IEX-2016-09, and should be
submitted on or before September 7, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\34\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-19581 Filed 8-16-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 48 (Wednesday, March 12, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14025-14026]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05324]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

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

    Docket Numbers: ER14-500-002.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: NYISO Compliance filing--ICAP DCR to be effective 1/
28/2014.
    Filed Date: 2/24/14.
    Accession Number: 20140224-5131.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/17/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1356-000.
    Applicants: Otter Tail Power Company.
    Description: Notice of Termination of Construction Management
Agreement to be effective 4/25/2014.
    Filed Date: 2/24/14.
    Accession Number: 20140224-5141.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/17/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1357-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Integrated Marketplace Attachment X, Article 5A
Revisions to be effective 5/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 2/24/14.
    Accession Number: 20140224-5177.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/17/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1358-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Original Service Agreement Nos. 3483 & 3484; Queue No.
W3-032A to be effective 1/23/2014.
    Filed Date: 2/24/14.
    Accession Number: 20140224-5216.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/17/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1359-000.
    Applicants: NYSEG Solutions, LLC.
    Description: Normal notice of succession to be effective 12/31/
2013.
    Filed Date: 2/25/14.
    Accession Number: 20140225-5004.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/18/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1360-000.
    Applicants: Energetix DE, LLC.
    Description: Normal notice of succession to be effective 12/31/
2013.
    Filed Date: 2/25/14.
    Accession Number: 20140225-5005.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/18/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1361-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Notice of Termination of a Service Agreement for
Wholesale Distribution Service for the City and County of San
Francisco, Service Agreement No. 26 under PG&E's FERC Electric Tariff
Volume No. 4 of Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Filed Date: 2/25/14.
    Accession Number: 20140225-5022.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/18/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1362-000.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Arizona Public Service Company Cancellation of Rate
Schedule No. 239.
    Filed Date: 2/25/14.
    Accession Number: 20140225-5037.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/18/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1363-000.
    Applicants: Kendall Green Energy LLC.
    Description: Kendall Green Notice of Succession to be effective 1/
31/2014.
    Filed Date: 2/25/14.
    Accession Number: 20140225-5039.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/18/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1364-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: LGIA with Oro Verde Solar 1, L.P. and Oro Verde Solar
2, L.P. to be effective 2/26/2014.
    Filed Date: 2/25/14.
    Accession Number: 20140225-5054.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/18/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1365-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Progress, Inc.

    Description: PEMC Amendment to RS 172 to be effective 2/25/2014.
    Filed Date: 2/25/14.
    Accession Number: 20140225-5061.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/18/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1366-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Notice of Cancellation of LGIA with Green Borders
Geothermal, LLC to be effective 1/9/2014.
    Filed Date: 2/25/14.
    Accession Number: 20140225-5062.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/18/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1367-000.
    Applicants: City of Dover, Delaware.
    Description: Petition of CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE for Limited Waiver
of the PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Open Access Transmission Tariff and
Request for Action by March 20, 2014.
    Filed Date: 2/25/14.
    Accession Number: 20140225-5105.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/18/14.

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

    Docket Numbers: ES14-27-000.
    Applicants: International Transmission Company.
    Description: Supplement to January 31, 2014 Application pursuant to
Section 204 of the Federal Power Act of International Transmission
Company for authorization to issue debt securities.
    Filed Date: 2/24/14.
    Accession Number: 20140224-5089.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/6/14.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 25, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-05324 Filed 3-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P