[Federal Register: June 15, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 114)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 33738-33740]
[DOCID:fr15jn10-26]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0562; Directorate Identifier 2009-NE-29-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211-524 Series
and RB211 Trent 500, 700, and 800 Series Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    During manufacture of a number of HP Compressor Stage 1 and 2
discs with axial dovetail slots, anomalies at the disc post corners
have been found. Fatigue crack initiation and subsequent crack
propagation at the disc post may result in release of two blades and
the disc post. This may potentially be beyond the containment
capabilities of the engine casings. Thus, these anomalies present at
the disc posts constitute a potentially unsafe condition.

    We are proposing this AD to detect cracks in the high-pressure
compressor (HPC) Stage 1 and 2 disc posts, which could result in
failure of the disc post and HPC blades, release of uncontained engine
debris, and damage to the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 30, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Contact Rolls-Royce plc, P.O. Box 31, Derby, DE24 8BJ, United
Kingdom; phone: 011 44 1332 242424, fax: 011 44 1332 249936; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for the service information identified in
this proposed AD.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
the same as the Mail address provided in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Lawrence, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12
New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2010-0562;
Directorate Identifier 2009-NE-29-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact
with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search
function of the Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any
of our dockets, including, if provided, the name of the individual who
sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy
Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65
FR 19477-78).

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2009-0073R1, dated April 8, 2009, (referred to
after this as ``the MCAI'') to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    During manufacture of a number of HP Compressor Stage 1 and 2
discs with axial dovetail slots, anomalies at the disc post corners
have been found. Fatigue crack initiation and subsequent crack
propagation at the disc post may result in release of two blades and
the disc post. This may potentially be beyond the containment
capabilities of the engine casings. Thus, these anomalies present at
the disc posts constitute a potentially unsafe condition.
    For the reasons described above, this AD requires repetitive
inspections of the axial dovetail slots and follow-on corrective
action, depending on findings.

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Rolls-Royce plc has issued Alert Service Bulletin RB.211-72-AF964,
Revision 1, dated June 6, 2008. The actions described in this service
information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in
the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of the
United Kingdom, and is approved for operation in the United States.
Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the United Kingdom, they have
notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all information provided by EASA, and determined the unsafe
condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of
the same type design.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 371 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 20 work-hours per product to comply with this
proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. No parts
would be required per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the
cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $630,700.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more

detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Rolls-Royce plc (RR): Docket No. FAA-2010-0562; Directorate
Identifier 2009-NE-29-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by July 30, 2010.

Affected Airworthiness Directives (ADs)

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to RR model RB211-524G2-T-19, -524G3-T-19, -
524H-T-36, and -524H2-T-19; and RB211 Trent 553-61, 553A2-61, 556-
61, 556A2-61, 556B-61 556B2-61, 560-61, 560A2-61; RB211 Trent 768-
60, 772-60, 772B-60; and RB211 Trent 875-17, 877-17, 884-17, 884B-
17, 892-17, 892B-17, and 895-17 turbofan engines that have a high-
pressure (HP) compressor stage 1 to 4 rotor disc with a part number
(P/N) listed in Table 1 of this AD. These engines are installed on,
but not limited to, Boeing 747, 767, and 777 series airplanes and
Airbus A330 and A340 series airplanes.

 Table 1--Affected HP Compressor Stage 1 to 4 Rotor Disc P/Ns by Engine
                                  Model
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            HP compressor stage 1 to 4
              Engine model                        rotor disc P/N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) RB211-524G2-T-19, -524G3-T-19,       FK20195, FK25502, or FW23711.
 [dash]524H-T-36, and -524H2-T-19.
(2) RB211 Trent 553-61, 553A2-61, 556-   FK30524.
 61, 556A2-61, 556B-61, 556B2-61, 560-
 61, and 560A2-61.
(3) RB211 Trent 768-60, 772-60, and      FK22745, FK24031, FK26185,
 772B-60..                                FK23313, FK25502, FK32129,
                                          FW20195, FW20196, FW20197,
                                          FW20638, or FW23711.
(4) RB211 Trent 875-17, 877-17, 884-17,  FK24009, FK26167, FK32580,
 884B-17, 892[dash]17, 892B-17, and 895-  FW11590, or FW61622.
 17.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reason

    (d) This AD results from reports that:

    ``During manufacture of a number of HP Compressor Stage 1 and 2
discs with axial dovetail slots, anomalies at the disc post corners
have been found. Fatigue crack initiation and subsequent crack
propagation at the disc post may result in release of two blades and
the disc post. This may potentially be beyond the containment
capabilities of the engine casings. Thus, these anomalies present at
the disc posts constitute a potentially unsafe condition.''

    We are issuing this AD to detect cracks in the high-pressure
compressor (HPC) Stage 1 and 2 disc posts, which could result in
failure of the disc post and HPC blades, release of uncontained
engine debris, and damage to the airplane.

Actions and Compliance

    (e) Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) Perform a fluorescent penetrant inspection of the HP
compressor stage 1 to 4 rotor discs at the first shop visit after
accumulating 1000 cycles since new on the stage 1 to 4 rotor disks
or at the next shop visit after the effective date of this AD which
ever occurs later. Use paragraph 3.E.(1) through 3.E.(10)(i) of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Rolls-Royce Alert Service Bulletin
(ASB) RB.211-72-AF964, Revision 1, dated June 6, 2008 to do the
inspections.
    (2) Thereafter at every engine shop visit, perform the
inspection specified by paragraph (e)(1) of this AD.

Definitions

    (f) For the purpose of this AD, an ``engine shop visit'' is the
induction of an engine into the shop for maintenance involving the
separation of pairs of major mating engine flanges, except that the
separation of engine flanges solely for the purposes of
transportation without subsequent engine maintenance does not
constitute an engine shop visit.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs
for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2009-0073R1,
dated April 8, 2009, and RR ASB RB.211-72-AF964, Revision 1, dated
June 6, 2008, for related information. Contact Rolls-Royce plc, P.O.
Box 31, Derby, DE24 8BJ, United Kingdom; phone: 011 44 1332 242424,
fax: 011 44 1332 249936; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for a
copy of this service information.
    (i) Contact James Lawrence, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (781) 238-
7199, for more information about this AD.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on June 7, 2010.
Peter A. White,
Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-14318 Filed 6-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 133 (Friday, July 10, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 41637]
[FR Doc No: 2020-14762]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

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

Extension:
    Rule 13e-3 (Schedule 13E-3) SEC File No. 270-001, OMB Control
No. 3235-0007

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Rule 13e-3 (17 CFR 240.13e-3) and Schedule 13E-3 (17 CFR 240.13e-
100)--Rule 13e-3 prescribes the filing, disclosure and dissemination
requirements in connection with a going private transaction by an
issuer or an affiliate. Schedule 13E-3 provides shareholders and the
marketplace with material information concerning a going private
transaction. The information collected permits verification of
compliance with securities laws requirements and ensures the public
availability and dissemination of the collected information. We
estimate that Schedule 13E-3 is filed by approximately 77 issuers
annually and it takes approximately 137.42 hours per response. We
estimate that 25% of the 137.42 hours per response (34.36 hours) is
prepared by the filer for a total annual reporting burden of 2,646
hours (34.36 hours per response x 77 responses).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    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 control number.
    Please direct your written comment to David Bottom, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Cynthia
Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: July 2, 2020.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-14762 Filed 7-9-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 148 (Wednesday, August 1, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37541-37544]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16418]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83712; File No. SR-DTC-2018-004]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Make Clarifying Changes and Updates to the DTC Underwriting Service
Guide

July 26, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on July 20, 2018, The Depository Trust Company (``DTC'') 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 clearing agency. DTC filed the proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4)
thereunder.\4\ The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change of DTC \5\ consists of modifications to
the DTC Underwriting Service Guide (``Underwriting Guide'') \6\ to (i)
promote consistency with respect to processes and requirements
described in other Procedures that are related to those set forth in
the Underwriting Guide, (ii) make clarifying and technical changes and
(iii) provide enhanced readability and transparency for users of DTC's
underwriting service (``Underwriting Service''), as described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Capitalized terms not defined herein are defined in the
Rules, By-Laws and Organization Certificate of DTC (the ``Rules''),
available at www.dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/legal/rules/
dtc_rules.pdf, and the DTC Operational Arrangements for Securities
to Become and Remain Eligible for DTC Services (``OA''), available
at http://www.dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/legal/issue-
eligibility/eligibility/operational-arrangements.pdf.
    \6\ Available at http://www.dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/
legal/service-guides/Underwriting-Service-Guide.pdf. The
Underwriting Guide and the OA constitute Procedures of DTC. Pursuant
to the Rules, the term ``Procedures'' means the Procedures, service
guides, and regulations of DTC adopted pursuant to Rule 27, as
amended from time to time. See Rule 1, Section 1, supra note 5.
DTC's Procedures are filed with the Commission. They are binding on
DTC and each Participant in the same manner as they are bound by the
Rules. See Rule 27, supra note 5. The OA is also binding on each
Issuer and Agent of an Eligible Security. See OA at 5, supra note 5.
DTC also maintains service guides that constitute Procedures
relating to other services it offers, including the ``Canadian-Link
Service Guide,'' ``Custody Service Guide'' (defined below as
``Custody Guide''), ``Deposits Service Guide,'' ``Distributions
Service Guide,'' ``Redemptions Service Guide,'' ``Reorganizations
Service Guide'' and ``Settlement Service Guide.'' Available at
http://www.dtcc.com/legal/rules-and-procedures?subsidiary=DTC&pgs=1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

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

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The proposed rule change consists of proposed modifications to the
Underwriting Guide to (i) promote consistency with respect to processes
and requirements described in other Procedures that are related to
those set forth in the Underwriting Guide, (ii) make clarifying and
technical changes and (iii) provide enhanced readability and
transparency for users of DTC's Underwriting Service, as described
below.
Background
    Eligible Securities \7\ may be introduced into DTC as new issuances
(``New Issues'') through the Underwriting Service, in connection with a
Participant, or a correspondent working though a Participant's Account,
submitting an eligibility request.\8\ In addition to the process for
New Issues, there are separate eligibility processes for (i) older
issues (``Older Issues''), i.e., those already available in the market
but not previously made eligible for deposit at DTC \9\ and (ii)
Eligible Securities in

the MMI Program.\10\ Other issues of Securities may be added through
corporate actions with respect to existing Eligible Securities,
including events such as name changes, mergers and spinoffs, which are
also reviewed for continuing eligibility.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Generally, Eligible Securities must have been issued in a
transaction: (i) Registered with the Commission pursuant to the
Securities Act; (ii) exempt from registration pursuant to a
Securities Act exemption without transfer or ownership restrictions;
or (iii) pursuant to Rule 144A, 17 CFR 230.144A, or Regulation S, 17
CFR 230.901-230.905, under the Securities Act. See OA, supra note 5
at 2-3.
    \8\ See OA, supra note 5 at 1-2.
    \9\ Id.
    \10\ Id. at 3.
    \11\ Id. at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Underwriting Service also supports other DTC functions and
services relating to the underwriting function, including the IPO
Tracking system,\12\ eligibility processing for the DTC custody service
(``Custody Service''),\13\ and the security holder tracking service
(``Security Holder Tracking Service'').\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The IPO Tracking system allows a Participant that is the
lead underwriter of an issue to track certain Deliveries of equity
Securities during the period known as the underwriting stabilization
period (``Stabilization Period''). See Underwriting Guide, supra
note 6 at 3. The Stabilization Period is the duration of time
immediately after the Closing of an issue during which the lead
manager of an underwriting may purchase Securities in the open
market in order to stop a decline in the price of the Securities.
Id. at 5.
    \13\ See Custody Service Guide (``Custody Guide''), available at
http://www.dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/legal/service-guides/
Custody.pdf, at 17-18. In 2016, DTC's Custody Service Procedures
were revised pursuant to a rule change (``Custody Rule Filing'')
that amended the text of the Custody Guide with respect to making
Securities eligible for the Custody Service. See Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 34-79252 (November 7, 2016), 81 FR 79543 (November
14, 2016) (SR-DTC-2016-011). As described more fully below, the
proposed change would conform the Custody Service section of the
Underwriting Guide for consistency to the provisions set forth in
the Custody Rule Filing.
    \14\ The Security Holder Tracking Service facilitates the
ability of an issuer or a third party administrator designated by
the issuer to track the number of beneficial holders of an issue.
See Underwriting Guide, supra note 6 at 22-23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would make modifications to the
Underwriting Guide to (i) promote consistency with respect to processes
and requirements described in other Procedures that are related to
those set forth in the Underwriting Guide, specifically the OA \15\ and
the Custody Guide,\16\ (ii) make clarifying and technical changes and
(iii) provide enhanced readability and transparency for users of DTC's
Underwriting Service, as described in the sections below. These would
include (1) the modification of applicable text of the Underwriting
Guide relating to (a) the section currently titled ``Introduction,''
(b) a section on the closing of an initial issue (``Closing''), (c) MMI
Securities, (d) New Issue Eligibility, (e) Older Issues, (f) the
Custody Service and (g) packaging inquires; (2) technical changes; and
(3) the deletion of a section titled ``Processing Inquiries,'' as
described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Supra note 5.
    \16\ Supra note 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Changes to the Underwriting Guide
Introduction/Overview Section
    The text of the Introduction section of the Underwriting Guide
contains four subsections, titled, respectively, ``Overview,'' ``About
Underwriting,'' ``Preparing to Use the Products,'' and ``Understanding
Relevant Dates.'' Pursuant to the proposed rule change, to enhance
readability and improve the overall flow of this section, the (i) title
of the section would be changed from ``Introduction'' to ``Overview,''
and (ii) subsection titles mentioned above would be deleted and the
four subsections would be consolidated into one section under the new
``Overview'' title.
    In addition, the text of the consolidated section would be revised
for enhanced clarity of the description of the Underwriting Service and
overall readability for Participants.
    References to the DTC Participant Terminal System (``PTS'') and
other systems that Participants may use in connection with the
Underwriting Service would be deleted from this section, because, as
proposed and discussed below, other sections of the Underwriting Guide
would include information on systems applicable to the aspect of the
Underwriting Service covered by the respective sections, obviating the
necessity of including such systems-related information in the
Overview.
    Also, because DTC's Securities eligibility Procedures are primarily
contained in the OA, a cross-reference to, and a brief description of,
the OA would be added under the Overview section to promote a more
comprehensive understanding by readers with respect to the DTC
requirements to make Securities eligible for DTC services. Also, to
reduce repetition between the Underwriting Guide and the OA, (i) a
description of eligibility criteria for Securities would be deleted
from this section of the Underwriting Guide and (ii) a table of
requirements and relevant dates included in the Understanding Relevant
Dates subsection would be deleted and, as discussed below, would be
replaced with a cross-reference in the Closing section to the
requirements and dates as set forth in Exhibit B \17\ of the OA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See OA, supra note 5 at 60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Closing
    In order to provide for enhanced clarity, readability and flow of
the text in the Underwriting Guide with respect to Closing processing,
the proposed rule change would (i) revise text describing the function
of the DTC Closing area and (ii) consolidate the Closing section into
one section from two subsections that are titled ``About the Product''
and ``How the Product Works,'' respectively, and eliminate the
respective titles of the subsections. The proposed rule change would
also update information for Participants to contact the DTC Closing
desk.
    Also, as mentioned above, to reduce repetition of the content of
the Underwriting Guide versus the OA, a table of requirements and
relevant dates included in the Understanding Relevant Dates subsection
of the Introduction to the Underwriting Guide would be deleted and
would be replaced with a cross-reference to these requirements and
dates as set forth in Exhibit B \18\ of the OA. The cross-reference
would be positioned at the end of the Closing section as the referenced
information in the OA includes key dates that must be met in relation
to the closing date for an issue. In this regard, the proposed rule
change would also remove a reference in the Closing section to
deadlines for notifications that must be made to DTC with respect to
the processing of the distribution of Securities on closing date,
because the applicable timeframes are covered within the Exhibit B to
the OA, cited above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

MMI Program
    In order to provide enhanced clarity and readability in the
Underwriting Guide with respect to Procedures for processing
eligibility requests for the MMI Program, the proposed rule change
would (i) revise the text of the description of the MMI Program and its
eligibility process, (ii) revise information relating to systems used
to access MMI Program eligibility services and include a reference to
DTC's web-based underwriting application, (iii) remove a descriptive
sentence relating to functionality for issuances and deliveries by an
Issuing and Paying Agent (``IPA'') in the MMI Program, because it is
not relevant to the eligibility process covered by the Underwriting
Guide, but rather to issuances and deliveries of MMI Securities that
are conducted through DTC's settlement service in accordance with the
Rules \19\ and the Settlement Service Guide,\20\ and (iv) update a

reference relating to documentation that must be submitted in
connection with an MMI Program eligibility request, to remove an
outdated reference to an ``Issuer Program Eligibility Form'' signed by
the IPA, and instead add a list of required program-level details which
would be submitted in place of the form in an online format through the
MMI Program web-based application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Rule 9(A), Rule 9(B) and Rule 9(C), supra note 5.
    \20\ See Settlement Service Guide, available at http://
www.dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/legal/service-guides/
Settlement.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Issue Eligibility
    The provisions governing DTC's Securities eligibility processes for
New Issues are primarily contained in the Rules and the OA; however the
Underwriting Guide does contain text intended to provide information
that enhances transparency for Participants regarding applicable
Procedures.
    In order to provide enhanced clarity in the Underwriting Guide with
respect to Procedures for processing eligibility requests for New
Issues and promote enhanced consistency of the content of the
Underwriting Guide with the provisions of the OA, the proposed rule
change would (i) eliminate details in the text describing the New Issue
eligibility Procedures and requirements that are repetitive or
inconsistent with text contained in the OA, including with respect to
(a) the documentation requirements for eligibility requests and (b)
types of issues that require additional documentation or special
processing, (ii) replace outdated references to the DTC website with a
link to the OA for Procedures relating to eligibility and related
requirements, and (iii) update references with respect to systems used
for access to New Issue-related services to (a) delete references to
PTS and PTS functions and (b) add a reference to UW Source, because, in
accordance with the OA, UW Source is the system that Participants are
required to use to access eligibility services.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See OA, supra note 5 at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Older Issue Eligibility
    As mentioned above, the provisions governing DTC's Securities
eligibility processes for Older Issues are primarily contained in the
Rules and the OA; however the Underwriting Guide also contains
information in this regard.
    In order to provide consistency of the content of the Underwriting
Guide with the provisions of the OA, the proposed rule change would
rename the section relating to Older Issues from ``Older Issue
Eligibility'' to ``Secondary Market (Older Issue) Eligibility'' for
clarity and to reflect that Older Issues are issues that are on the
secondary market when they are made eligible at DTC (as opposed to New
Issues that are the subject of initial offerings), and insert a link to
the OA for Procedures relating to eligibility and related requirements.
Custody Service
    In order to provide enhanced clarity and transparency in the
Underwriting Guide with respect to Procedures for processing
eligibility requests for the Custody Service, the proposed rule change
would (i) change the Custody Service section from being a subsection of
the Older Issue Eligibility section to its own section of the
Underwriting Guide, because the Custody Service, while administered by
the same area within DTC that administers eligibility processing for
Older Issues and New Issues, is a separate function with different
eligibility requirements,\22\ (ii) update the text for enhanced
readability and consistency of content, including with respect to
systems requirements, with applicable Procedures set forth in the
Custody Guide,\23\ (iii) add a link to the Custody Guide for cross-
reference purposes, and (iv) add a link to the DTCC website that
provides additional information regarding the Custody Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Compare Custody Guide, supra note 13 at 11-16 (describing
the Custody Service function and eligibility requirements), with OA,
supra note 5 at 1-9 (describing DTC's eligibility requirements for
Securities to be made eligible for DTC's book-entry services,
including New Issues and Older Issues).
    \23\ See Custody Guide, supra note 13 at 15-16. In 2016, DTC's
Custody Service Procedures were revised pursuant to the Custody Rule
Filing, which amended the applicable text of the Custody Guide. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-79252 (November 7, 2016), 81
FR 79543 (November 14, 2016) (SR-DTC-2016-011). The proposed change
would conform the Custody Service section of the Underwriting Guide
for consistency to the provisions set forth in the Custody Rule
Filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Packaging Inquiries
    The proposed rule change would modify the text of the section
titled ``Packaging Inquiries'' (i) for readability, (ii) to eliminate
content that is repetitive of related content in the OA section named
``Possession and Inspection,'' \24\ (iii) to add a link to the OA for
additional information and (iv) to provide an updated link to the DTC
form of letter of securities possession, which must be executed by a
lead underwriter in order for DTC to process a distribution of an issue
by book-entry on closing date if a Security certificate has not been
provided to DTC within required timeframes.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See OA, supra note 5 at 15.
    \25\ See Underwriting Guide, supra note 6 at 18-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Processing Inquiries
    The proposed rule change would remove the section titled
``Processing Inquiries'' from the Underwriting Guide. This section
contains information relating to internal processes for data entry and
billing information that is not necessary to be included in a
Procedure. In addition, this section refers to special forms for the
processing of eligibility of retail certificates of deposit, unit
investment trusts and municipal and corporate products, which forms are
obsolete because eligibility requests for all Security types, other
than Securities in the MMI Program, must be submitted through UW
Source.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See OA, supra note 5 at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other Proposed Changes
    The proposed rule change would make technical changes to (i) add to
the front of the Underwriting Guide a title page with DTC's name and
the title ``Underwriting Service Guide,'' (ii) update (a) the address
of DTC's internet site and (b) the copyright date of the Underwriting
Guide, (iii) delete outdated contact information within the ``Important
Legal Information'' included at the beginning of the Underwriting Guide
and (iv) add a link to a user guide relating to the IPO Tracking system
that is referenced in the ``IPO Tracking System'' section of the
Underwriting Guide.
2. Statutory Basis
    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \27\ requires that the rules of the
clearing agency be designed, inter alia, to promote the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions. DTC
believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with this
provision of the Act because by amending the text of the Underwriting
Guide to (i) promote consistency with respect to processes and
requirements described in other Procedures that are related to those
set forth in the Underwriting Guide, specifically the OA and Custody
Guide, (ii) make clarifying changes, (iii) provide enhanced readability
and transparency for users of DTC's Underwriting Service, and (iv) make
other technical changes, the proposed rule change would provide
Participants with an enhanced understanding with respect to the DTC
Procedures relating to making Securities eligible for DTC services, as
described above. Therefore, by providing Participants with enhanced
understanding of DTC eligibility requirements and processing in this
regard, and therefore facilitating their ability to request that
Securities be made eligible for DTC services, DTC believes that the
proposed rule change

would promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    DTC does not believe that the proposed rule change would have any
impact on competition. The proposed rule change would merely clarify
and provide enhanced transparency with respect to the DTC Underwriting
Service by amending the text of the Underwriting Guide (i) for enhanced
readability, transparency and flow of content, (ii) to update (a)
details on existing processes and (b) contact information, (iii) for
enhanced consistency with respect to processes and requirements
described in other Procedures that are related to those set forth in
the Underwriting Guide, specifically the OA and Custody Guide and (iv)
to make other technical changes, as described above, which amendments
would not significantly affect the rights and obligations of users of
DTC's services, and would not disproportionally impact any users.

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    DTC has not received or solicited any written comments relating to
this proposal. DTC will notify the Commission of any written comments
received by DTC.

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 \28\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\29\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \29\ 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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-DTC-2018-004 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-DTC-2018-004. 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 DTC and on DTCC's website
(http://dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings.aspx). 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-DTC-2018-004 and should be submitted on
or before August 22, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-16418 Filed 7-31-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 136 (Tuesday, July 16, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33939-33941]
[FR Doc No: 2019-15005]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0026; FRL 9993-96]

Statutory Requirements for Substantiation of Confidential
Business Information (CBI) Claims Under the Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: On January 19, 2017, EPA announced an interpretation of
section 14 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Under this
interpretation, non-exempt confidential business information (CBI)
claims must be substantiated at the time the information claimed as CBI
is submitted to EPA, and non-exempt CBI claims submitted without a
substantiation are considered deficient. To facilitate compliance with
the change in interpretation, EPA announced it would undertake a non-
statutorily required

practice of sending a notice of deficiency to an affected business that
submitted a non-exempt CBI claim without a substantiation, providing an
opportunity to correct the deficiency. The Agency also sent out notices
of deficiency in instances where there were other procedural flaws in
the submission, namely where the required CBI certification statement
was not provided, or no generic name was provided when specific
chemical identity was claimed as CBI. EPA's extensive outreach on this
interpretation over the past two years has been effective. As such, EPA
is announcing it is revising its policy and that it will cease sending
these non-statutorily required notices of deficiency to businesses who
submit procedurally flawed CBI claims. This action makes more efficient
EPA's implementation of the TSCA section 14(g) requirement to review
within 90 days of receipt all CBI claims for chemical identity, with
limited exceptions, as well as to review a representative subset of at
least 25% of other non-exempt claims.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For general information contact: Colby Lintner, Regulatory
Coordinator, Environmental Assistance Division (7408M), Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 554-1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For technical information contact: Scott M. Sherlock, Attorney
Advisor, Environmental Assistance Division, Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 564-8257; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
DATES: This action is effective on August 15, 2019.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This announcement is directed to the public in general. It may be
of particular interest to businesses that manufacture (defined by
statute to include import) and/or process chemicals covered by TSCA (15
U.S.C. 2601 et seq.). This may include businesses identified by the
North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes 325 and
32411. Because this action is directed to the general public and other
entities also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to
describe all of the specific entities that may be interested in this
action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    1. Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under
docket identification number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0026. All documents in
the docket are listed in the docket index available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, will be available publicly only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials may be found electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPPT
Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) at
Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC.
The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the OPPT Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Docket visitors
are required to show photographic identification, pass through a metal
detector, and sign the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are processed
through an X-ray machine and subject to search. Visitors will be
provided an EPA/DC badge that must be visible at all times in the
building and returned upon departure.
    2. Other related information. For information about EPA's programs
to evaluate new and existing chemicals and their potential risks and
the amended TSCA, go to https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/frank-r-lautenberg-chemical-safety-21st-century-act.

II. What action is the Agency taking?

    On June 22, 2016, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the
21st Century Act, which amended TSCA, was signed into law. The amended
TSCA provides new requirements relating to the assertion,
substantiation, and review of CBI claims. On January 19, 2017, EPA
published an interpretation of TSCA section 14(c)(3), indicating that
the provision requires substantiation of all TSCA CBI claims at the
time the information claimed as CBI is submitted to EPA, except for
claims for information that are exempt from substantiation requirements
by virtue of TSCA section 14(c)(2), (82 FR 6522, FRL-9958-34). This
statutory interpretation was announced as effective within two months.
    To give time for submitters to adjust to the new requirements, EPA
announced that it would send a notice of deficiency to an affected
business that submitted non-exempt CBI claims without substantiation on
or after March 20, 2017, providing 30 days to submit the required
substantiation. EPA also indicated on its website that it would send
out notices of deficiency when there were other procedural flaws
related to the CBI claims in a submission, including a failure to
provide either a certification statement as required under TSCA section
14(c)(1)(B) and (c)(5), or a generic name required under TSCA section
14(c)(1)(C) when specific chemical identity is claimed as confidential.
If the procedural flaws were not addressed within 30 days of receipt of
the notice, then the CBI claims would be considered withdrawn and the
information could be made public with no further notice.
    Since the publication of the announcement the EPA has engaged in a
variety of communications and outreach activities to educate the
interested public on the interpretation. The EPA has facilitated or
participated in webinars, and meetings with members of the public. EPA
has also engaged via telephone with TSCA submitters, trade groups, and
others on the requirements of TSCA section 14. EPA has also updated its
web pages on CBI, to provide detailed guidance to facilitate compliance
with the new requirements of TSCA. EPA has notified interested persons
of the web page updates via listserv communications. The communications
and outreach have been effective: Since the March 21, 2017 effective
date of the interpretation, EPA has sent out 984 notices of deficiency,
the vast majority which relate to submissions received before March 21,
2017. Only 97 notices have been generated, to date, that related to
filings directed to EPA after March 21, 2017.
    Over two years have passed since the announcement of the section
14(c)(3) interpretation, so the interpretation is no longer new, and
companies have had ample notice of the requirements. Therefore, EPA is
phasing out the practice of sending notices of deficiency. This action
makes more efficient EPA's implementation of the TSCA section 14(g)
requirement to review within 90 days of receipt all CBI claims for
chemical identity, with limited exceptions, as well as to review

a representative subset of at least 25% of other non-exempt claims.

III. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    TSCA section 14(c)(3), 15 U.S.C. 2613(c)(3), requires an affected
business to substantiate all TSCA CBI claims at the time the affected
business asserts the claim to EPA, except for information subject to
TSCA section 14(c)(2).
    TSCA section 14(c)(1)(a) requires an affected business to assert a
claim for protection from disclosure concurrent with submission of the
information in accordance with existing or future EPA rules.
    TSCA imposes no requirement to provide notices of deficiency to
affected businesses. EPA chose to do so to facilitate compliance with
the statutory requirement.

IV. Implementation

    Beginning on August 15, 2019, EPA will no longer send out notices
of deficiency in instances where submissions containing non-exempt
information claimed as CBI do not include substantiation for all such
claims, and where the CBI claims have other procedural flaws such as a
missing certification statement or, in the case of specific chemical
identity CBI claims, a missing generic name. Instead, the Agency will
provide written notice to affected business submitters that those CBI
claims are invalid, and the underlying information is treated as not
subject to a confidentiality claim, and therefore subject to disclosure
without further notice.
    This action is consistent with the Agency's overall efforts to be
more efficient in the implementation of TSCA section 14 requirements.
EPA will continue to assist submitters with compliance with TSCA
section 14(c)(3) and has revised its web pages at https://www.epa.gov/tsca-cbi to include additional information on this policy, the
substantiation questions from 40 CFR 2.204(e), suggested substantiation
templates, substantiation exemptions and how the substantiations should
be directed to the Agency.

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

    Dated: July 10, 2019.
Alexandra Dapolito Dunn,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2019-15005 Filed 7-15-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 165 (Tuesday, August 25, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52343-52346]
[FR Doc No: 2020-18649]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-10013-70-Region 4]

Order Denying Petition To Set Aside Consent Agreement and
Proposed Final Order

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of order denying petition to set aside consent agreement
and proposed final order.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations and the
Clean Water Act (``CWA or ``Act''), notice is hereby given that an
Order Denying Petition to Set Aside Consent Agreement and Proposed
Final Order has been issued in the matter styled as In the Matter of
Jerry O'Bryan, Curdsville, Kentucky, Docket No. CWA-04-2018-5501(b).
This document serves to notify the public of the denial of the Petition
to Set Aside Consent Agreement and Proposed Final Order filed in the
matter and explain the reasons for such denial.

ADDRESSES: To access and review documents filed in the matter that is
the subject of this document, please visit: https://yosemite.epa.gov/oa/rhc/epaadmin.nsf/07a828025febe17885257562006fff58/4a9eaf5114545a51852584b700740a38!OpenDocument.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia Bullock, Regional Hearing
Clerk, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Legal Authority

    Section 404 of CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1344(f)(2), requires a permit for
``any discharge of dredged or fill material into navigable waters
incidental to any activity having as its purpose bringing an area of
the navigable waters into a use to which it was not previously subject,
where the flow or circulation of navigable waters may be impaired or
the reach of such waters be reduced. . . .'' Section 301(a) of the CWA,
33 U.S.C. 1311, provides that, ``the discharge of any pollutant into
waters of the United States . . . except as in compliance with sections
301 . . . and 1344 shall be unlawful. Sections 309(g)(1) and (g)(2) of
the CWA empower the Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA,''
``Complainant'' or ``Agency'') to assess a Class 1 or Class 2 civil
administrative penalty against any person found to have violated
section 1311 . . . of the CWA or [who] has violated any permit
limitation or condition implementing any such sections in a permit . .
. issued under Section 1344.
    Before issuing an order assessing a Class I civil penalty under
Section 309(g) of the CWA, the EPA is required by the Act and
``Consolidated Rules of Practice Governing the Administrative
Assessment of Civil Penalties and the Revocation/Termination or
Suspension of Permits'' (Consolidated Rules) to provide public notice
of and reasonable opportunity to comment on the proposed issuance of
such order. (33 U.S.C. 1319(g)(4)(A); 40 CFR 22.45(b)).
    Any person who comments on the proposed assessment of a Class I
civil penalty under 33 U.S.C. 1319(g)(4)(B) is entitled to receive
notice of any hearing held under this Section and at such hearing is
entitled to a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to present
evidence. (33 U.S.C. 1319(g)(4)(B); 40 CFR 22.45(c)). If no hearing is
held before issuance of an order assessing a Class I civil penalty
under 33 U.S.C. 1319(g)(4)(C) of the CWA, such as where the
administrative penalty action in question is settled pursuant to a
consent agreement and final order (CAFO), any person who commented on
the proposed assessment may petition to set aside the order on the
basis that material evidence was not considered and request a hearing
be held on the penalty. (33 U.S.C. 1319(g)(4)(C); 40 CFR
22.45(c)(4)(ii)).
    The CWA requires that if the evidence presented by the Petitioner
in support of the petition is material and was not considered in the
issuance of the order, the Administrator shall immediately set aside
such order and provide a hearing in accordance with Section
309(g)(4)(C) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1319(g)(4)(C). On the other hand, if
the Administrator denies a hearing, the Administrator shall provide to
the petitioner, and publish in the Federal Register notice of and
reasons for such denial. Id.
    Pursuant to Section 309 of the CWA, the authority to decide
petitions by commenters to set aside final orders entered without a
hearing and provide copies and/or notice of the decision has been
delegated to Regional Administrators in administrative penalty actions
brought by regional offices of EPA. (See EPA Administrator's Delegation
of Authority 2-51). The Region 4 Administrator has delegated authority
to decide such petitions to the Regional Judicial Officer. (See Region
4 Delegation of Authority 2-51, Class I Administrative Penalty Action).
The Consolidated Rules require that where a commenter petitions to set
aside a CAFO in an administrative penalty action brought by a regional
office of the EPA, the Regional Administrator shall assign a Petition
Officer to consider and rule on the petition. (40 CFR
22.45(c)(4)(iii)). Upon review of the petition and any response filed
by the Complainant, the Petition Officer shall then make written
findings as to: (A) The extent to which the petition states an issue
relevant and material to the issuance of the consent agreement and
proposed final order; (B) whether the complainant adequately considered
and responded to the petition; and (C) whether resolution of the
proceeding by the parties is appropriate without a hearing. (40 CFR
22.45(c)(4)(v)).
    If the Petition Officer finds that a hearing is appropriate, the
Presiding Officer shall order that the consent agreement and proposed
final order be set aside and establish a schedule for a hearing. (40
CFR 22.45(c)(4)(vi)). Conversely, if the Petition Officer finds that
resolution of the proceeding without a hearing is appropriate, the
Petition Officer shall issue an order denying the petition and stating
reasons

for the denial. (40 CFR 22.45(c)(4)(vii)). The Petition Officer shall
then file the order with the Regional Hearing Clerk, serve copies of
the order on the parties and the commenter, and provide public notice
of the order. Id.

II. Procedural Background

    On or about May 10, 2018, the Director of the Water Division of EPA
Region 4 and Jerry O'Bryan (Respondent) executed an Administrative
Compliance Order on Consent (AOC) in the matter styled, In the Matter
of Jerry O'Bryan Curdsville, Kentucky, Docket No. CWA-04-2018-5755. The
AOC pertained to discharge of dredged and/or fill material using earth
moving equipment by Respondent that resulted in the conversion of
wetlands to agricultural land in or around June 2016. Respondent's
discharge activities impacted approximately 2.1 acres of wetlands
adjacent to the Green River, a traditionally navigable water of the
United States, and approximately 800 linear feet of an unnamed
tributary to the Green River. During the discharge, Respondent did not
have a permit under section 404 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1344, that
authorized Respondent to perform such activities. Section 301 of the
CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1311, makes it unlawful for any person to discharge
pollutants into waters of the United States without proper permit
authorization, including Section 404 of the CWA. Accordingly, the AOC
determined Respondent's activities of discharging pollutants into
navigable waters without a permit violated Section 301 of the CWA, 33
U.S.C. 1311.
    Under the authority of Section 309(a) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C.
1319(a), the EPA ordered, and Respondent agreed and consented to
restore the impacted wetlands in accordance with a signed restoration
plan prepared by the United States Department of Agriculture/Natural
Resource Conservation Service on March 2, 2017. Respondent also agreed
to comply with timelines concerning the construction start date,
construction completion date, and inspection date of the restored site.
    Thereafter, the EPA and Respondent agreed to resolve Respondent's
liability for federal civil penalties associated with Respondent's
unauthorized discharge of dredged and/or fill material in the proposed
CAFO, titled Docket No.: CWA-04-2018-5501(b). The CAFO sought to
simultaneously commence and conclude an administrative penalty action
under section 309(g)(2)(A) of the CWA. Under the terms of the CAFO,
Respondent admitted the jurisdictional allegations set forth in the
CAFO, but neither admitted nor denied the factual allegations and
alleged violations. Respondent waived his right to a hearing or to
otherwise contest the CAFO, and agreed to pay a civil penalty in the
amount of $3346 and perform a Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP)
to resolve the alleged CWA Section 404 violations. The SEP entails the
conversion of approximately 281.9 acres of farmland located adjacent to
the Green River from conventional farming practices to a soil health
management farming system.
    On May 30, 2018, EPA provided public notice of its intent to file
the proposed CAFO and accept public comments thereon. The EPA received
six timely filled comment letters during the public comment period. All
commenters opposed issuance of the proposed CAFO. The Community Against
Pig Pollution and Disease, Inc. (CAPPAD or Petitioner) was one of six
commenters. Complainant subsequently prepared a Summary of and Response
to Public Comments (Response to Comments), which indicated the EPA
would proceed with the proposed CAFO without amendment. The EPA mailed
the Response to Comments together with a copy of the proposed CAFO to
CAPPAD and other commenters on or about August 20, 2019. Complainant
subsequently corrected a ministerial error in Paragraph 35 of the CAFO,
and mailed replacement pages to CAPPAD and the other commenters on
August 23, 2019. CAPPAD received the documents on August 27, 2019.
CAPPAD timely filed a Petition seeking to set aside the proposed CAFO
on or about September 17, 2019.
    The EPA Region 4 Administrator received the Petition on September
24, 2019. Pursuant to 40 CFR 22.45(c)(4)(iii), Complainant considered
the issues raised in the Petition and decided not to withdraw the CAFO.
On October 24, 2019, the Region 4 Administrator assigned the
undersigned as Petition Officer to preside over this matter. (40 CFR
Sec.  22.45 (c)(4)(iii)). The Region 4 Administrator directed
Complainant to provide a copy of the CAFO and file a written response
to the Petition with the Petition Officer within 30 days of the
assignment. (40 CFR 22.45(c)(iv)).
    Complainant filed its Response to the Petition to Set Aside Consent
Agreement and Proposed Final Order (Response to Petition) on November
19, 2019, with the Regional Hearing Clerk and served copies on
Respondent and Petitioner. Complainant's filing with the Regional
Hearing Clerk was erroneous since 40 CFR 22.45(c)(4)(iv) states, ``A
copy of the response shall be provided to the parties and to the
commenter, but not to the Regional Hearing Clerk or Presiding
Officer.'' The Regional Hearing Clerk accepted the Response to
Petition, but did not forward the file to the Petition Officer. On
December 3, 2019, the Petition Officer inquired by email whether
Complainant filed a response to the Petition. Complainant realized the
erroneous filing with the Regional Hearing Clerk and sought to correct
the matter by filing a ``Memorandum In Support of Motion For Leave To
File Response to Petition Under 40 CFR 22.45(c)(4)(iv).'' On December
9, 2019, the Petition Officer granted the motion finding that no harm
resulted to Petitioner since the Complainant timely served the Response
to Petition on the Petitioner and Respondent. Additionally, the
Regional Hearing Clerk accepted and retained the file but did not
forward the file to the Petition Officer.

III. Denial of Petitioner's Petition

    On July 24, 2020, the undersigned filed an ``Order Denying the
Petition to Set Aside Consent Agreement and Proposed Final Order''
(Order) with the Regional Hearing Clerk (RHC), who served copies of the
Order and enclosures on the Parties. On July 28, 2020, the undersigned
filed a Corrected Order with the RHC for the purpose of correcting the
title on page 21 to read ``Petition Officer.'' The undersigned also
corrected numbers for topical headings on pages 17 and 18 to state,
``5'' and ``6'', rather than ``6'' and ``7''. In this Order, the
undersigned denied the Petition without need for a hearing on the basis
that Petitioner had failed to present any relevant and material
evidence that had not been adequately considered and addressed by
Complainant.
    The Petitioner raised several issues in its Comments and Petition
regarding Respondent's animal feeding operations (AFOs) in Curdsville,
Kentucky. The undersigned categorized these issues into six headings as
addressed below. First, Petitioner argued Respondent owns and operates
concentrated animal feeding operations (AFOs) in violation of
environmental laws, and argued the Kentucky Department of Water (KDOW)
refused to verify hog counts, and collect water and soil samples.
Specifically, Petitioner argued Respondent owns and operates large
concentrated AFOs that discharge into waters of the United States.
Petitioner also argued Respondent's operations meet the definition of
large concentrated AFOs as stated in the Kentucky Administrative
Regulation (KAR) 401 KAR 5.002 and 40 CFR 122.23(b)(2). Petitioner
asserted

Respondent's farms at Doby/Bumblebee, Iron Maiden and Hardy discharged
E. Coli with readings in excess of 4,4870 CFU/100 ml per sample into
the Green River, and such readings violate the Ambient Water Rule.
Petitioner opined KDOW should rescind the Kentucky No Discharge
Operating Permits (KNDOPs) initially issued Respondent, and replace
these permits with Kentucky Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(KPDES) permits. Petitioner also asserted that it provided information
concerning the number of hogs on Respondent's farms, readings from
water samples, and other unlawful activities committed by Respondent to
KDOW. However, Petitioner contends KDOW has refused to verify the
number of hogs, collect its own samples, and otherwise enforce
compliance with the CWA.
    The undersigned determined that Complainant considered and
addressed issues raised by Petitioner in its Response to Comments and
Response to Petition. The undersigned found that issues raised
regarding Respondent's AFOs at properties other than the Simpson McKay
farm, and activities allegedly committed by Respondent in violation of
Section 402 of the CWA are not relevant or material to allegations
raised in the proposed CAFO. The undersigned further found that
Complainant addressed Petitioner's claims that KDOW did not exercise
proper oversight of Respondent's operations. For instance, Complainant
explained that the Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection
(KDEP) has authority to issue KNDOPs and KPDES permits, and described
conditions appropriate for issuance of such permits. The undersigned
concluded that Petitioner did not meet its burden of demonstrating that
matters concerning Respondent's AFOs and KDOW's alleged lack of
oversight of Respondent's operations are material and relevant evidence
that Complainant had not considered in agreeing to the CAFO. Thus, this
claim was denied.
    Second, Petitioner argued in its Petition that Respondent's AFOs
lack necessary wastewater treatment facilities. In both its Comments
and Petition, Petitioner asserted Respondent added barns and hogs to
his AFOs, exceeding what was authorized in initial permits issued by
KDOW. Petitioner further asserted Respondent did not increase the
volume of lagoons that would service the additional barns and hogs,
resulting in Respondent spraying excess effluent. Petitioner stated in
its Petition that Respondent does not have wastewater treatment plants
for his large AFOs and described the sites as, ``a large hole in the
ground, not lined, not regulated or tested, and [not having] ground
water monitoring wells at five locations.'' (Petitioner's Petition, p.
2). The undersigned found that Complainant considered and addressed
this issue and related allegations. Complainant explained that KDEP has
authority to administer the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System program, and thus KDEP issues KNDOPs for nondischarging AFOs and
issues KPDES permits for AFOs that discharge into waters of the United
States.\1\ Complainant referred issues raised by Petitioner and
commenters to KDEP and reported action taken by this agency. (Response
to Comments, p.<PHONE_NUMBER>33). Additionally, Complainant argued in its
Response to Petition that the lack of wastewater treatment facilities
at Respondent's AFOs is not related to allegations set forth in the
proposed CAFO, and therefore is not material or relevant evidence. The
undersigned concluded this issue, which concerns Respondent's
management of AFOs, did not constitute relevant and material evidence
that Complainant had not considered in agreeing to the proposed CAFO.
Thus, this claim was denied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This authority is pursuant to National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Memorandum of Agreement Between the Commonwealth
of Kentucky and United States Environmental Protection Agency region
4 (March 10, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, Petitioner argued in its Comments and Response that
Respondent constructed a dam on Hardy Farm that floods a landowner's
adjacent property during heavy rainfall. Petitioner opined this
construction was a clear violation of the CWA. Petitioner stated KDOW
inspected the construction, and in the inspection report, merely
suggested that Respondent obtain a stream construction permit.
Dissatisfied with KDOW, Petitioner referred the matter to the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE). In the Petition, Petitioner referred to
this construction as ``the Hardy Sow Farm Black Water illegal bypass''
and stated water samples collected in 2018 from the lagoon revealed E.
coli counts greater than 173,300 C.F.U./100 ML sample and ammonia
nitrogen concentration greater than 950 mg/L. See Petitioner's Comment,
p.<PHONE_NUMBER>76. In Complainant's Response to Comments and Response to
Petition, Complainant explained that the proposed CAFO only resolves
allegations against Respondent for the unauthorized discharge of
dredged and/or fill material at the Simpson/McKay farm in or about June
2016 in violation of Section 404 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1344. (Response
to Comments, p. 000127). Complainant also explained the role of USACE
as the lead enforcement agency for unpermitted discharges, and referred
Petitioner's allegations to USACE. Id. In its Response to Petition,
Complainant emphasized that allegations pertaining to Hardy Farm, which
is not the Farm identified in the CAFO, are not relevant or material to
allegations raised in the proposed CAFO. The undersigned determined, as
argued by Complainant, that allegations raised concerning the dam at
Hardy Farm does not constitute relevant and material evidence, and that
Complainant thoroughly addressed allegations raised by Petitioner. The
undersigned also determined that Petitioner did not offer any evidence
that refutes, or casts doubt on evidence and assertions presented by
Complainant. Therefore, this claim was denied.
    Fourth, Petitioner argued Respondent's AFOs have adversely impacted
the community. Specifically, Petitioner stated their property values
have declined because of contaminated water and depleted air quality
caused by Respondent's activities. Petitioner further stated that
``taxpayers have footed the bills for highway repair due to hog trucks
wrecking and hog trucks spilling manure onto highways.'' (Petitioner's
Petition, p. 000176). The undersigned found that the Petitioner had not
demonstrated that the alleged adverse impact upon the community was
caused or related to Respondent's unauthorized discharge of dredged
and/or fill material at the Simpson/McKay Farm, as alleged in the
proposed CAFO. Thus, this issue does not constitute relevant and
material evidence. The undersigned also found that Complainant
considered and responded to this issue. Therefore, this claim was
denied.
    Fifth, Petitioner recommended that several conditions be added to
the proposed CAFO and that the penalty be enhanced to deter Respondent
from engaging in similar behavior in the future. (Petitioner's Comments
p. 000052). As an example, Petitioner recommended that EPA exercise
oversight of Respondent's operations after the SEP is completed and
that EPA conduct unannounced inspections and review permits issued by
KDOW at five farms owned and operated by Respondent. The undersigned
determined that Complainant adequately considered and responded to
Petitioner's recommendations, and explained its actions were consistent
with Agency policies, statutes and

regulations. Specifically, Complainant explained that its actions were
consistent with or mandated by the EPA Clean Water Act Section 404
Settlement Penalty Policy and EPA Supplemental Environmental Projects
Policy. Complainant further explained that actions taken by EPA were in
accordance with applicable regulations and statutes. The undersigned,
therefore, denied Petitioner's recommendations to modify the proposed
CAFO.
    Sixth, Petitioner requested a hearing, arguing the proposed
settlement and penalty are inadequate. At such hearing, Petitioner
proposed presenting evidence of Respondent's prior infractions,
Respondent's behavior as a habitual violator, and demonstrate that a
severe penalty is warranted. The undersigned determined that the
Consolidated Rules and Section 309(g)(4)(C) of the CWA do not provide
for a hearing of this nature. Rather, evidence would be presented for
the purpose of determining whether Complainant met its burden of
proving that Respondent committed the violations as alleged in the CAFO
and that the penalty is appropriate based on applicable law and policy.
The undersigned noted that Petitioner did not offer material or
relevant evidence, either documentary or testimonial, that it would
present at such hearing. The undersigned further noted that Petitioner
did not offer any evidence or arguments in its Comments or Petition
that had not adequately been addressed by Complainant. For these
reasons, the undersigned found that resolution of the proceeding by the
Parties without a hearing would be appropriate.
    The undersigned therefore issued the Order Denying Petition to Set
Aside Consent Agreement and Proposed Final Order.

    Dated: August 19, 2020.
Robin Allen,
Petition Officer, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2020-18649 Filed 8-24-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 95 (Thursday, May 16, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22203-22205]
[FR Doc No: 2019-10123]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85825; File No. SR-CboeBZX-2019-039]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
the Fee Schedule Applicable to the BZX Equities Trading Platform (``BZX
Equities'') as It Relates to Pricing for the Use of the TRIM Routing
Strategy

May 10, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on May 1, 2019, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'' or ``BZX'') 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 Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'' or the ``Exchange'') is filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') a
proposed rule change to amend the fee schedule applicable to the BZX
equities trading platform (``BZX Equities'') as it relates to pricing
for the use of the TRIM routing strategy. The text of the proposed rule
change is attached as Exhibit 5. [sic]
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/regulation/rule_filings/bzx/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the BZX
Equities fee schedule to change the pricing applicable to orders routed
using the TRIM routing strategy in connection with planned changes to
the System routing table.\3\ TRIM is a routing strategy offered by the
Exchange that is used to target certain low cost venues by routing to
those venues after accessing available liquidity on the BZX Book. In
February 2019, New York Stock Exchange (``NYSE'') was removed from the
System routing table as a low cost protected market center, and NYSE
American LLC (``NYSE American'') and NYSE National, Inc. (``NYSE
National'') were added as a low cost protected market centers.
Therefore, pursuant to Rule 11.13(b)(3), the Exchange has determined to
modify the System routing table such that TRIM no longer routes to
NYSE, and has decided to add NYSE American and NYSE National as a low
cost venues under the TRIM routing strategy. These changes to the TRIM
routing strategy are scheduled to be introduced on May 1, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``System routing table'' refers to the proprietary
process for determining the specific trading venues to which the
System routes orders and the order in which it routes them. See Rule
11.13(b)(3). The Exchange reserves the right to maintain a different
System routing table for different routing options and to modify the
System routing table at any time without notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, orders routed to NYSE using the TRIM routing strategy
are assessed a fee of $0.00280 per share.\4\ Orders routed using the
TRIM routing strategy to BYX are provided a rebate of $0.00150 per
share,\5\ to EDGA are provided a rebate of $0.00240 per share,\6\ and
to BX and provided a rebate of $0.00100 per share.\7\ Also, orders
currently routed to NYSE American using the SLIM strategy are assessed
a fee of $0.0002 and yield fee code MX, and orders routed to NYSE
National using the SLIM routing strategy are provided a rebate of
$0.00200 and yield fee code NX. The Exchange proposes a number of
changes to these fees in

connection with the changes to the routing table for TRIM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Cboe BZX U.S. Equities Exchange Fee Schedule, fee code
D.
    \5\ See Cboe BZX U.S. Equities Exchange Fee Schedule, fee code
BY.
    \6\ See Cboe BZX U.S. Equities Exchange Fee Schedule, fee code
BJ.
    \7\ See Cboe BZX U.S. Equities Exchange Fee Schedule, fee code
TV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In recognition of the fact that NYSE American and NYSE National can
be accessed at a low cost today, the Exchange proposes to provide a fee
and rebates to orders routed to these exchanges using the TRIM routing
strategy, respectively. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to add TRIM
to the list of routing strategies that yield fee codes MX and NX, which
relate to orders routed to NYSE American and NYSE National,
respectively. As proposed, orders routed using the TRIM routing
strategy would be assessed a fee of $0.00020 per share if executed on
NYSE American (yielding an MX fee code). If executed on NYSE National
(yielding an NX fee code), those orders using the TRIM routing strategy
would be provided a rebate of $0.00200 per share in securities priced
at or above $1.00, and no charge or rebate would be applied for
securities priced below $1.00. The fee and rebates are consistent with
the fee and rebates currently offered for orders routed to NYSE
American and NYSE National using a similar low cost routing strategy,
SLIM, which yield fee codes MX and NX, respectively.
    In addition to this, the Exchange notes that orders routed to BYX
using the TRIM or SLIM routing strategy \8\ are provided rebates that
are applicable to eligible orders in all securities. BYX, however, does
not provide rebates to orders that remove liquidity in securities
priced below $1.00, and instead charges a fee.\9\ As such, the Exchange
proposes to amend the pricing for orders routed to BYX pursuant to fee
code BY, such that no charge or rebate would be provided in securities
priced below $1.00 (i.e., the Exchange proposes to append footnote 11
to fee code BY in the Fees Codes and Associated Fees table).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See supra note 5. The Exchange also notes that it is
simultaneously proposing to discontinue the use of the TRIM2 routing
strategy, effective May 1, 2019, which is currently provided as a
routing strategy that yields fee code BY.
    \9\ Orders that remove liquidity on BYX in securities prices
below $1.00 are charged a fee of equal to 0.10% of the total dollar
value. See Cboe BYX U.S. Equities Exchange Fee Schedule, Standard
Rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, since NYSE is no longer included as a low cost protected
market center, the Exchange proposes to eliminate special pricing for
orders routed to NYSE using the TRIM routing strategy under fee code D.
Such orders would now pay the default routing fee for orders routed
using this routing strategy.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Pursuant to proposed fee codes MX and NX, as well as fee
codes BY, BJ and TV. See supra notes 5-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6 of the Act,\11\ in general, and furthers the
requirements of Section 6(b)(4),\12\ in particular, as 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.
The Exchange believes the proposed routing fee changes are appropriate
as they reflect changes to the System routing table used to determine
the order in which venues are accessed using the TRIM routing strategy.
As stated, TRIM specifically targets certain equities exchanges that
provide low cost executions or rebates to liquidity removing orders,
and routes to those venues after trading with the BZX Book. The
Exchange believes that the proposed changes reflect the intent of
Members when they submit routable order flow to the Exchange using the
TRIM routing strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable and equitable to assess
the proposed fee on orders routed to NYSE American and proposed rebate
on orders routed to NYSE National using the TRIM routing strategy. As
mentioned previously, the Exchange recently added these two exchanges
to its list of low cost protected market centers, and wishes to provide
the benefit of the rebate or lower fee provided by those markets to BZX
Members using the TRIM routing strategy. The Exchange currently offers
such incentives when routing to those markets using another low cost
routing strategy, SLIM. As is the case for orders routed via the SLIM
routing strategy to NYSE American or NYSE National, the Exchange
believes the proposed fees and rebates applicable to the TRIM routing
strategy to these venues generally reflect the current transaction fees
and rebates available for accessing liquidity on those markets.\13\ The
Exchange believes that these changes may increase interest in the
Exchange's TRIM routing strategy, in particular, by passing on better
pricing to BZX members that choose to enter such orders on the
Exchange, thereby encouraging additional order flow to be entered to
the BZX Book. In addition to this, the Exchange believes that is
reasonable and equitable to eliminate special pricing for orders routed
to NYSE using TRIM under fee code D, as NYSE is no longer included as a
low cost protected market center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ NYSE American currently charges a fee for removing
liquidity that is $0.00020 per share in securities priced at or
above $1.00, and 0.25% of the total dollar value of the transaction
in securities priced below $1.00. See NYSE American Equities Price
List, I. Transaction Fees.
    NYSE National currently provides a rebate of $0.00200 per share
in securities priced at or above $1.00 for members that achieve
their taking tier. See NYSE National Schedule of Fees and Rebates,
I. Transaction Fees, B. Tiered Rates. Orders that remove liquidity
in securities below $1.00 are executed without charge or rebate. See
NYSE National, Schedule of Fees and Rebates, I. Transaction Fees, A.
General Rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that it is reasonable and equitable to
provide free executions, rather than rebates, for orders routed to BYX
using the TRIM or SLIM routing strategies \14\ in securities priced
below $1.00. Although BYX generally provides rebates to orders that
remove liquidity, those rebates are limited to securities priced at or
above $1.00.\15\ For orders that remove liquidity in securities priced
below $1.00, BYX instead charges a fee.\16\ With the proposed change to
the routing fees, the Exchange would recoup some, but not all, of the
cost associated with routing orders in lower priced securities to BYX
on behalf of Members that use the TRIM or SLIM routing strategies.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See supra note 8.
    \15\ See supra note 9.
    \16\ Id.
    \17\ See supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes are
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as the proposed fees and
rebates would apply equally to all Members that use the Exchange to
route orders using the associated routing strategy. The proposed fees
are designed to reflect the fees charged and rebates offered by certain
away trading centers that are accessed by Exchange routing strategies,
and are being made in conjunction with changes to the System routing
table designed to provide Members with low cost executions for their
routable order flow. Furthermore, if Members do not favor the proposed
pricing, they can send their routable orders directly to away markets
instead of using routing functionality provided by the Exchange.
Routing through the Exchange is voluntary, and the Exchange operates in
a competitive environment where market participants can readily direct
order flow to competing venues or providers of routing services if they
deem fee levels to be excessive.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. The
proposed routing fee changes are designed to reflect changes being made
to the System routing table used to determine where to send certain
routable orders, and generally provide better pricing to Members for
orders routed to low cost protected market centers using the Exchange's
routing strategies. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct their order flow
to competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must
continually review, and consider adjusting, its fees and rebates to
remain competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described
above, the Exchange believes that the proposed fee changes reflect this
competitive environment.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \18\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \19\
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \19\ 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-CboeBZX-2019-039 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-CboeBZX-2019-039. 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-CboeBZX-2019-039 and should be submitted
on or before June 6, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-10123 Filed 5-15-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P