UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES, AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES PC Code: 106901 DP BARCODE: D279761 MEMORANDUM January 3, 2002 SUBJECT: Asulam: Revised Tier I Drinking Water EECs for Use in the Human Health Risk Assessment.

TO: Jose Morales Catherine Eiden Health Effects Division ( 7509C)

FROM: Norman Birchfield ERB4/ EFED ( 7507C)

THRU: Dirk Young Betsy Behl, Chief ERB4/ EFED ( 7507C)

This memo is a revision to the previous Tier I estimated environmental concentrations ( EECs) for asulam in surface water and in ground water for use in the human health risk assessments ( memo from Dirk Young to T. Truesdale January 23, 2001, DP Barcode D272000). This revision is required to 1) Update surface water modeling using the FIRST reservoir model 2) Provide an upper bound estimate for EECs on degradates in surface and ground water 3) Estimate longer term ground water concentrations The EECs are summarized in Table 1. EFED used FIRST to calculate the surface water EECs and used a prospective groundwater study to estimate the groundwater EEC.

For the surface water assessment, the application rate for sugarcane was used, which represents the highest labeled rate for any crop. A summary of the model input parameters is given in Table 2. All parameters for asulam were taken according to standard EFED practice. Since no data is available on degradates FIRST modeling assumed immediate conversion upon application to very persistent and mobile degradates. The FIRST output file is located in Attachment 1.

For estimated groundwater exposure, the highest observed concentration in the prospective groundwater ( PGW) study for turf ( MRID 42224701) was used. Three PGW studies ( Florida turf, Louisiana sugarcane, and Florida sugarcane) were previously reviewed in a 1994 memo ( 1). In the study associated with asulam use on Florida turf, asulam and the sulfanilamide were detected in shallow wells at a combined concentration of 59 ppb. The average concentration of combined residues over the 14 month sampling period was 14.0 ppb. The above values are not corrected for incomplete recovery. The average spike recoveries for asulam and the sulfanilamide degradate were 39.4% and 38.3%, respectively. After correcting for recovery the values are 154 ppb ( peak) and 37 ppb ( 14 month average). The recommended EEC for groundwater is 154 ppb based on the peak value ( Table 1). The low spike recoveries indicate problems with the analytical method. The site and conditions monitored compensates somewhat for the uncertainty in the analytical method. The monitoring scenario is a highly vulnerable situation with sandy soil and shallow ground water ( 2.14 m). Wells of this type are not generally expected to be used for drinking water purposes, although many wells in Florida less than 17 m deep are used for drinking water.

In a separate water monitoring study asulam was detected in public drinking water sources from ground and surface water. At the request of EPA, Rhone Poulenc conducted a drinking water monitoring study in areas of high asulam use in Florida and Louisiana. The surface water study was designed to sample raw surface water in up to 15 community water systems in Florida and 4 systems in Louisiana. Samples were collected monthly for one year and analyzed for asulam and the metabolite sulfanilamide at a detection limit of 1 ppb. In addition to surface water collection, the study collected samples from potable wells in Florida and Louisiana that were located within 1,000 feet of an asulam treated area.

Seven of the ten surface water community systems sampled contained traces (< 1 ppb) of asulam residues during May through June. Four of the community systems were located in Louisiana and three were in Florida.

A total of 28 drinking water wells were sampled in Florida. Because of poor water quality in this area of Florida, many of the wells reportedly use some type of treatment system prior to use. Three wells contained quantifiable asulam residues up to 1.92 ppb. [ Note that these asulam concentration are considerably greater than the SCIGROW prediction of 0.95 ppb ( see Attachment 2).] Ten other wells contained detectable traces (< 1 ppb). Reportedly, the depth of the well and distance to treated area did not have any statistically significant effects on the concentrations observed. No residues were detected in 12 wells sampled in the " sandier" areas of Hendry County. Rhone Poulenc reported that there was less intensive use of asulam in this area. No residues were detected in ground water samples in Louisiana.

2  Table 1. Tier I EECs for Drinking Water Surface Water Surface Water Ground Water Peak EEC Chronic EEC1 EEC Asulam 305 µ g/ L 6.6 µ g/ L Asulam + 380 µ g/ L 2 272 µ g/ L 2 154 µ g/ L3 degradates 1 Based on 56 day average immediately following pesticide input to water body. 2 Based on FIRST modeling with upper bound assumptions on mobility and persistence. 3 From groundwater study, see reference 1. This concentration is representative of asulam and the sulfnilamide degradate.

Table 2. FIRST environmental fate input parameters chemical asulam asulam + degradates Solubility 4000 mg L 1 10,000 mg L 1 Hydrolysis aqueous photolysis half life ( near surface) stable 0.0625 days stable stable aerobic soil metabolism half life 28 days ( highest available value) stable aerobic aquatic metabolism half life 105 days ( single value) stable soil organic carbon partitioning ( Koc) 18 L kg 1 ( lowest available value) 1 L kg 1 crop sugarcane sugarcane application rate 3.624 lb a. i. acre 1 * 3.624 lb a. i. acre 1 *

number of applications 1 per season 1 per season application method aerial granular ( no drift) * highest labeled rate; information supplied by BEAD.

REFERENCES 1. Memo to Linda Propst, from Elizabeth Behl, Environmental Fate and Ground Water Branch Review Action, Review of small scale prospective groundwater monitoring study results. Feb 2, 1994. DPBarcodes: D162492, D175842, D180962, D181508, D185103, D190979, D190980.

3 ATTACHMENT 1: FIRST Files RUN No. 1 FOR asulam ON sugarcane * INPUT VALUES *  RATE (#/ AC) No. APPS & SOIL SOLUBIL APPL TYPE % CROPPED INCORP ONE( MULT) INTERVAL Koc ( PPM ) (% DRIFT) AREA ( IN)  3.624( 3.624) 1 1 18.0 4000.0 AERIAL( 16.0) 87.0 .0 FIELD AND RESERVOIR HALFLIFE VALUES ( DAYS)  METABOLIC DAYS UNTIL HYDROLYSIS PHOTOLYSIS METABOLIC COMBINED ( FIELD) RAIN/ RUNOFF ( RESERVOIR) ( RES. EFF) ( RESER.) ( RESER.)  28.00 2 N/ A .06 7.75 105.00 7.22 UNTREATED WATER CONC ( MICROGRAMS/ LITER ( PPB)) Ver 1.0 MAY 16, 2001  PEAK DAY ( ACUTE) ANNUAL AVERAGE ( CHRONIC) CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION  305.275 6.605 RUN No. 1 FOR asulam residues ON sugarcane * INPUT VALUES *  RATE (#/ AC) No. APPS & SOIL SOLUBIL APPL TYPE % CROPPED INCORP ONE( MULT) INTERVAL Koc ( PPM ) (% DRIFT) AREA ( IN)  3.624( 3.624) 1 1 1.010000.0 GRANUL( .0) 100.0 .0 FIELD AND RESERVOIR HALFLIFE VALUES ( DAYS)  METABOLIC DAYS UNTIL HYDROLYSIS PHOTOLYSIS METABOLIC COMBINED ( FIELD) RAIN/ RUNOFF ( RESERVOIR) ( RES. EFF) ( RESER.) ( RESER.)  .00 2 N/ A .00. 00 .00 .00 UNTREATED WATER CONC ( MICROGRAMS/ LITER ( PPB)) Ver 1.0 MAY 16, 2001  PEAK DAY ( ACUTE) ANNUAL AVERAGE ( CHRONIC) CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION  379.819 272.174 4 ATTACHMENT 2: SCIGROW File RUN No. 1 FOR asulam INPUT VALUES  APPL (#/ AC) APPL. URATE SOIL SOIL AEROBIC RATE NO. (#/ AC/ YR) KOC METABOLISM ( DAYS)  3.624 1 3.624 63.0 23.0 GROUND WATER SCREENING CONCENTRATIONS IN PPB  .950323  A= 18.000 B= 68.000 C= 1.255 D= 1.833 RILP= 2.721 F= . 581 G= .262 URATE= 3.624 GWSC= .950323 5


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 73 (Friday, April 15, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 21416]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9188]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy,
Washington, DC 20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 104; SEC File No. 270-411; OMB Control No. 3235-0465.

    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'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (``OMB'') a request for approval of extension of the
existing collection of information provided for in the following rule:
Rule 104 of Regulation M (17 CFR 242.104).
    Rule 104 permits stabilizing by a distribution participant during a
distribution so long as the distribution participant discloses
information to the market and investors. This rule requires disclosure
in offering materials of the potential stabilizing transactions and
that the distribution participant inform the market when a stabilizing
bid is made. It also requires the distribution participants (i.e. the
syndicate manager) to maintain information regarding syndicate covering
transactions and penalty bids.
    There are approximately 745 respondents per year that require an
aggregate total of 149 hours to comply with this rule. Each respondent
makes an estimated 1 annual response. Each response takes approximately
0.20 hours (12 minutes) to complete. Thus, the total compliance burden
per year is 149 burden hours. The total internal labor compliance cost
for the respondents is approximately $9,983.00, resulting in an
estimate of $13.40 (i.e., $9,983.00/745 responses) per response.
    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. Background documentation for this
information collection may be viewed at the following link, http://www.reginfo.gov.
    Comments should be directed to (i) Desk Officer for the Securities
and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503 or by sending an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Thomas Bayer, Chief Information Officer,
Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General
Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted within 30 days of this
notice.

    April 11, 2011.
Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-9188 Filed 4-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 221 (Friday, November 19, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64971-64974]
[FR Doc No: 2021-25228]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-93576; File No. SR-NYSENAT-2021-21]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE National, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its
Schedule of Fees and Rebates

November 15, 2021.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on November 1, 2021, NYSE National, Inc. (``NYSE National''
or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees and Rebates
(``Fee Schedule'') to (1) modify the fee for non-tiered orders adding
liquidity in securities priced at or above $1.00; (2) modify the
requirements to qualify for Removing Tier 4; and (3) add new Removing
Tier 5. The Exchange proposes to implement the rule change on November
1, 2021. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and
at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to (1) modify the
fee for non-tiered orders adding liquidity in securities priced at or
above $1.00; (2) modify the requirements to qualify for Removing Tier
4; and (3) add new Removing Tier 5.
    The proposed changes respond to the current competitive environment
where order flow providers have a choice of where to direct liquidity-
providing and liquidity-removing orders by offering further incentives
for ETP Holders to send additional adding and removing liquidity to the
Exchange.
    The Exchange proposes to implement the rule change on November 1,
2021.
Current Market and Competitive Environment
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. The
Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over
regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services
in the securities markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the
Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining
prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation
of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in promoting
market competition in its broader forms that are most important to
investors and listed companies.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (S7-10-04) (Final Rule)
(``Regulation NMS'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the Commission itself has recognized, the market for trading
services in NMS stocks has become ``more fragmented and competitive.''
\5\ Indeed, equity trading is currently dispersed across 16
exchanges,\6\ 31 alternative trading systems,\7\ and numerous broker-
dealer internalizers and wholesalers. Based on publicly-available
information, no single exchange has more than 18% of the market.\8\
Therefore, no exchange possesses significant pricing power in the
execution of equity order flow. More specifically, the Exchange's share
of executed volume of equity trades in Tapes A, B and C securities is
less than 2%.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808, 84FR 5202,
5253 (February 20, 2019) (File No. S7-05-18) (Transaction Fee Pilot
for NMS Stocks Final Rule) (``Transaction Fee Pilot'').
    \6\ See Cboe Global Markets, U.S. Equities Market Volume
Summary, available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/. See generally https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/divisionsmarketregmrexchangesshtml.html.
    \7\ See FINRA ATS Transparency Data, available at https://otctransparency.finra.org/otctransparency/AtsIssueData. A list of
alternative trading systems registered with the Commission is
available at https://www.sec.gov/foia/docs/atslist.htm.
    \8\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Equities Market Volume Summary,
available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/.
    \9\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
move order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain products, in
response to fee changes. While it is not possible to know a firm's
reason for moving order flow, the Exchange believes that one such
reason is because of fee changes at any of the registered exchanges or
non-exchange trading venues to which a firm routes order flow. These
fees can vary from month to month, and not all are publicly available.
With respect to non-marketable order flow that would provide liquidity
on an exchange, ETP Holders can choose from any one of the

16 currently operating registered exchanges to route such order flow.
Accordingly, competitive forces constrain the Exchange's transaction
fees, and market participants can readily trade on competing venues if
they deem pricing levels at those other venues to be more favorable.
    The Exchange utilizes a ``taker-maker'' or inverted fee model to
attract orders that provide liquidity at the most competitive prices.
Under the taker-maker model, offering rebates for taking (or removing)
liquidity increases the likelihood that market participants will send
orders to the Exchange to trade with liquidity providers' orders. This
increased taker order flow provides an incentive for market
participants to send orders that provide liquidity. The Exchange
generally charges fees for order flow that provides liquidity. These
fees are reasonable due to the additional marketable interest (in part
attracted by the Exchange's rebate to remove liquidity) with which
those order flow providers can trade.
Proposed Rule Change
    To respond to this competitive environment, the Exchange proposes
the following changes to its Fee Schedule designed to provide order
flow providers with additional incentives to route order flow to the
Exchange. As described above, ETP Holders have a choice of where to
send their order flow.
Change of Fee for Non-Tiered Orders Adding Liquidity
    The Exchange proposes to increase the fee for non-tiered orders
adding liquidity in securities priced at or above $1.00, currently set
at $0.0028 per share, to $0.0029 per share. The proposed fee is
competitive and would still be less than the fees charged by other
markets for non-tiered orders adding liquidity.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See, e.g., Nasdaq BX Pricing Schedule, available at https://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=bx_pricing (providing $0.0030
standard rate for adding displayed liquidity); Cboe EDGA Exchange
Fee Schedule, available at https://www.cboe.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/edga/ (providing $0.0030 standard rate for
adding displayed liquidity).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Change To Removing Tier 4 and Addition of New Removing Tier 5
    Under current Removing Tier 4, the Exchange provides a rebate of
$0.0015 per share to ETP Holders that remove liquidity from the
Exchange in securities with a per share price of $1.00 or more and that
have at least 50,000 Adding ADV.
    The Exchange proposes to revise Removing Tier 4 by adding an
additional requirement. As proposed, ETP Holders would qualify for the
current rebate by if they have at least 50,000 Adding ADV and Adding
ADV and Removing ADV combined of at least 0.04% of US CADV. The
Exchange does not propose any changes to the removing rate for orders
that remove liquidity that qualify for Removing Tier 4.
    In addition, the Exchange proposes to add new Removing Tier 5,
which would provide a rebate of $0.0007 per share to ETP Holders that
remove liquidity from the Exchange in securities with a per share price
of $1.00 or more and that have at least 50,000 Adding ADV.
    The Exchange believes that together, these proposed changes will
incentivize more ETP Holders to route liquidity-removing and liquidity-
adding order flow to the Exchange to meet the tier requirements for
Removing Tier 4 by adding the proposed requirement to Removing Tier 4
of a combination of Adding and Removing ADV.\11\ For ETP Holders who
cannot meet the proposed additional requirement to qualify for proposed
Removing Tier 4, the Exchange believes that the addition of proposed
new Removing Tier 5 would encourage additional removing order flow to
the Exchange by providing a $0.0007 per share rebate for ETP Holders
that meet the 50,000 Adding ADV requirement, which would still be less
than the fees charged by other markets for non-tiered orders adding
liquidity.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Exchange currently uses a similarly-structured
requirement for Removing Tier 1. See Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 89640 (August 12, 2020), 85 FR 53041 (August 27, 2020) (SR-
NYSENAT-2020-27).
    \12\ See Nasdaq BX Pricing Schedule, available at https://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=bx_pricing (providing rebates of
$0.0005 for Tapes A and B and $0.0004 for Tape C for firms adding at
least 50,000 ADV).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the increased order flow that may result
from these proposed changes would in turn support the quality of price
discovery on the Exchange and provide additional price improvement
opportunities for incoming orders.
    As noted, the Exchange operates in a competitive environment. The
Exchange does not know how much order flow ETP Holders choose to route
to other exchanges or to off-exchange venues. Based on the profile of
firms generally, the Exchange believes that additional ETP Holders
could qualify for Removing Tier 4 with the additional qualification
criteria if they choose to direct order flow to the Exchange. Without
having a view of ETP Holders' activity on other exchanges and off-
exchange venues, the Exchange has no way of knowing whether this
proposed rule change would result in any additional ETP Holders
directing orders to the Exchange in order to qualify for the Removing
Tier 4 or Removing Tier 5 rate.
    The proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address any
other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that ETP
Holders would have in complying with the proposed changes.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\13\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\14\ in
particular, because it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and
other persons using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate
between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

The Proposed Change Is Reasonable
    As discussed above, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive
market. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for
competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices,
products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS,
the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \15\ While Regulation
NMS has enhanced competition, it has also fostered a ``fragmented''
market structure where trading in a single stock can occur across
multiple trading centers. When multiple trading centers compete for
order flow in the same stock, the Commission has recognized that ``such
competition can lead to the fragmentation of order flow in that
stock.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Regulation NMS, supra note 4, at 37499.
    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61358, 75 FR 3594,
3597 (January 21, 2010) (File No. S7-02-10) (Concept Release on
Equity Market Structure).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the current competitive environment, the Exchange believes
that the proposal represents a reasonable attempt to attract additional
order flow to the Exchange while aligning the Exchange's fees with
those charged by other markets. Specifically, the

proposed fee increase for non-tiered orders adding liquidity in
securities priced at or above $1.00 is reasonable because it is
competitive and the proposed fee would remain advantageous when
compared to the fees charged by other markets for non-tiered orders
adding liquidity.\17\ In addition, the Exchange believes that the
proposed changes to the Removing Tiers are reasonable because they
would encourage greater liquidity for ETP Holders routing order flow to
the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See supra note 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposal as a whole represents a
reasonable effort to promote price discovery and enhanced order
execution opportunities for ETP Holders. All ETP Holders would benefit
from the greater amounts of liquidity on the Exchange, which would
represent a wider range of execution opportunities.
The Proposal Is an Equitable Allocation of Fees and Rebates
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change equitably allocates
its fees among its market participants. The proposed change would
continue to encourage ETP Holders to both submit additional liquidity
to the Exchange and execute orders on the Exchange, thereby
contributing to robust levels of liquidity, to the benefit of all
market participants.
    The Exchange believes that increasing the fee currently charged for
non-tiered orders adding liquidity in securities priced at or above
$1.00 is an equitable allocation of fees. Even though the proposed
change would increase the fee for non-tiered orders, the Exchange does
not believe that it will discourage executions on the Exchange because
the proposed fee would remain advantageous when compared with
comparable fees charged by other markets.\18\ To the extent that the
proposed change continues to attract order flow to the Exchange, this
order flow would make the Exchange a more competitive venue for, among
other things, order execution. Thus, the Exchange believes the proposed
rule change would continue to improve market quality for all market
participants on the Exchange and, as a consequence, continue to attract
more order flow to the Exchange, thereby improving market-wide quality
and price discovery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes to the
Removing Tiers would encourage the submission of additional liquidity
to the Exchange, thus enhancing order execution opportunities for ETP
Holders from the additional amounts of liquidity present on the
Exchange. All ETP Holders would benefit from the greater amounts of
liquidity that would be present on the Exchange, which would provide
greater execution opportunities and improve market quality.
    The Exchange further believes that the proposal constitutes an
equitable allocation of fees and credits because all similarly situated
ETP Holders and other market participants would be eligible for the
same general and tiered rates and would be eligible for the same fees
and credits. Moreover, the proposed change is equitable because the
revised fees would apply equally to all similarly situated ETP Holders.
The proposal neither targets nor will it have a disparate impact on any
particular category of market participant.
The Proposal Is Not Unfairly Discriminatory
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is not unfairly
discriminatory. In the prevailing competitive environment, ETP Holders
are free to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe that
alternatives offer them better value.
    Moreover, the proposal neither targets nor will it have a disparate
impact on any particular category of market participant. The Exchange
believes that the proposal does not permit unfair discrimination
because the proposal would be applied to all similarly situated ETP
Holders and all ETP Holders would be subject to the same modified fee
for non-tiered orders adding liquidity in securities priced at or above
$1.00, and to the same qualification requirements for modified Removing
Tier 4 and new Removing Tier 5. Accordingly, no ETP Holder already
operating on the Exchange would be disadvantaged by the proposed
allocation of fees and credits.
    The Exchange further believes that the proposed changes would not
permit unfair discrimination among ETP Holders because the non-tiered
and tiered rates are available equally to all ETP Holders. As described
above, in today's competitive marketplace, order flow providers have a
choice of where to direct order flow, and the Exchange believes there
are additional ETP Holders that could qualify if they chose to direct
their order flow to the Exchange.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant
competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement
regarding the burden on competition.
    For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal
is consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\19\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above, the Exchange believes
that the proposed change would encourage the submission of additional
liquidity and order flow to a public exchange, thereby enhancing order
execution opportunities for ETP Holders. As a result, the Exchange
believes that the proposed change furthers the Commission's goal in
adopting Regulation NMS of fostering competition among orders, which
promotes ``more efficient pricing of individual stocks for all types of
orders, large and small.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Intramarket Competition. The proposed change is designed to attract
additional order flow to the Exchange. As described above, the Exchange
believes that the proposed change would provide additional incentives
for market participants to route liquidity-providing and liquidity-
removing orders to the Exchange. Greater liquidity benefits all market
participants on the Exchange by providing more trading opportunities
and encourages ETP Holders to send orders, thereby contributing to
robust levels of liquidity. The proposed revised requirements for the
tiered rebates and fees would be available to all similarly-situated
market participants, and thus, the proposed change would not impose a
disparate burden on competition among market participants on the
Exchange.
    Intermarket Competition. The Exchange operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily choose to
send their orders to other exchanges and off-exchange venues if they
deem fee levels at those other venues to be more favorable. In such an
environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees and rebates
to remain competitive with other exchanges and off-exchange venues.
Because competitors are free to modify their own fees and rebates in
response, and because market participants may readily adjust their
order routing practices, the Exchange does not believe its proposed fee
change can impose any burden on intermarket competition.

    The Exchange believes that the proposed change could promote
competition between the Exchange and other execution venues, including
those that currently offer similar order types and comparable
transaction pricing, by encouraging additional orders to be sent to the
Exchange for execution.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \21\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \22\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \22\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \23\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSENAT-2021-21 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-NYSENAT-2021-21. 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-NYSENAT-2021-21 and should be submitted
on or before December 10, 2021.

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

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-25228 Filed 11-18-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 28 (Thursday, February 10, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7552-7553]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2945]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[ Docket No. PR10-31-001]

DCP Guadalupe Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Baseline Filing

    Take notice that on February 3, 2011, DCP Guadalupe Pipeline, LLC
submitted a revised baseline filing of their Statement of Operating
Conditions for services provided under section 311 of the Natural Gas
Policy Act of 1978 (``NGPA'').
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate proceeding must
file a motion to intervene or to protest this filing must file in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered
by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken,
but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or
motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, February 11, 2011.

    Dated: February 3, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-2945 Filed 2-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 25, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 37)]
[Notices]
[Page 10023]
[DOCID:fr25fe08-62]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Filing

February 19, 2008.

Regional Transmission              RT01-99-000, RT01-99-001, RT01-99-002
 Organizations.                     and RT01-99-003.
Bangor Hydro-Electric Company, et  RT01-86-000, RT01-86-001 and RT01-86-
 al.                                002.
New York Independent System        RT01-95-000, RT01-95-001 and RT01-95-
 Operator, Inc., et al.             002.
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., et    RT01-2-000, RT01-2-001, RT01-2-002
 al.                                and RT01-2-003.
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.......  RT01-98-000.
ISO New England, Inc.............
New York Independent System        RT02-3-000.
 Operator, Inc.

    Take notice that PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., New York Independent
System Operator, Inc. and ISO New England, Inc. have posted on their
Internet Web sites information updating their progress on the
resolution of RTO seams.
    Any person desiring to file comments on this information should
file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). All such comments should be filed on or before the comment
date. Comments may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of
paper; see 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the
Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission
strongly encourages electronic filings.
    Comment Date: March 11, 2008.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-3435 Filed 2-22-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P