----- Forwarded by Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US on 12/07/2009 02:11 PM
-----
|------------>
| From:      |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
  |"Suchecki, Joe"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| To:        |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
  |Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Date:      |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
  |12/07/2009 12:20 PM
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Subject:   |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
  |RE: EMA Recommendation on Reducing Crankcase Blow-by emissions
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|

Melanie,

It is really a combination of all the items you mentioned.  First, technically
one can certainly set up a sampling scheme to measure metals in exhaust or
blow-by, but the accepted and approved engine method is generally completed
under laboratory dynamometer conditions and requires the use of a dilution
tunnel. Since virtually all older and in-use engines do not vent the crankcase
to the exhaust, if you want to measure both exhaust and crankcase emissions,
you would have to sample the exhaust and the blow-by separately or devise a
system to vent the blow-by to the exhaust during sampling.

Second, the sampling and analysis scheme that is needed to determine metallic
HAP content is very expensive.  Essentially you have to collect the metal
samples from the exhaust on filters and then have the filters analyzed in
laboratories that have the appropriate analysis equipment.
Analysis methods include using extraction techniques and ICP/MS or ED
XRF analysis   .  Although I do not have specific information, these
methods are relatively expensive compared to normal criteria pollutant
sampling.

Third, the above methods are necessary in order to achieve the needed
detection limits for the levels of metals emitted from engines.  The amount of
metallic emissions produced is very low, and so sampling times are long and
methods with very low detection limits must be used.
Depending on the engine, individual metal concentrations are likely on the
order of 10-3 to 10-7 g/bhp-hr. Such very low limits require expensive
sampling and analytical methods to obtain reliable and acceptable results.

Measurement of metals from in-use engines in the field is problematic and
expensive due to the methods involved, expense in extracting and analyzing for
the large number of potential metallic HAPs, and the low levels of metals
normally emitted.  We believe it would  be impractical and cost prohibitive to
require the many thousands of owners/operators to complete metals testing for
all of the in-use stationary diesel engines in the country.

I'm attaching a recent paper that looked at emissions from a 2004 and
2007 engine that includes metals.  Jamie Schauer at University of Wisconsin
would be a good person to contact about testing methods and costs for metals
in engines.

Joe Suchecki
Director, Public Affairs
Engine Manufacturers Association
Two North LaSalle Street, Suite 1700
Chicago, IL 60602
Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>www.enginemanufacturers.org

Confidentiality Notice:  This communication is confidential and may contain
privileged information.  If you have received it in error, please notify the
sender by reply e-mail and immediately delete it and any attachments without
copying or further transmitting the same.

All attachments are MS Office XP and are MIME encoded.  If you have any
software compatibility issues, please contact EMA at<PHONE_NUMBER>
immediately.

-----Original Message-----
From<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 9:31 AM
To: Suchecki, Joe
Subject: RE: EMA Recommendation on Reducing Crankcase Blow-by emissions

Thanks Joe.  Can you elaborate on why it isn't feasible to measure the
emissions - for example is it because they aren't all emitted from the engine
exhaust pipe, or because the test method is difficult and/or expensive to
perform, or the emissions are so low that they might be below detection limit?

Melanie King
Energy Strategies Group
Sector Policies and Programs Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency

Mail Code D243-01
RTP, NC  27711

Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

|------------>
| From:      |
|------------>

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------|

  |"Suchecki, Joe"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>|

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>
| To:        |
|------------>

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------|

  |Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA
|

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>
| Date:      |
|------------>

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------|

  |12/07/2009 10:27 AM
|

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>
| Subject:   |
|------------>

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------|

  |RE: EMA Recommendation on Reducing Crankcase Blow-by emissions
|

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------|

We talked about that, and there is no simple way to measure the metallic
emissions.  It would be difficult and expensive to get quantitative data on
the metallic HAPs.  That is why we made the statements that reducing the
amount of oil will also reduce the metallic HAP emissions - so that the oil
mist can essentially serve as a surrogate for metallic HAPS.
The 60-80 percent removal efficiency for oil would result is a similar or
larger reduction in metallic HAPS from the blow-by emissions.

We do not think it is economically feasible to require owners and operators to
measure metal emissions from existing engines in the field.

Joe

Joe Suchecki
Director, Public Affairs
Engine Manufacturers Association
Two North LaSalle Street, Suite 1700
Chicago, IL 60602
Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>www.enginemanufacturers.org

Confidentiality Notice:  This communication is confidential and may contain
privileged information.  If you have received it in error, please notify the
sender by reply e-mail and immediately delete it and any attachments without
copying or further transmitting the same.

All attachments are MS Office XP and are MIME encoded.  If you have any
software compatibility issues, please contact EMA at<PHONE_NUMBER>
immediately.

-----Original Message-----
From<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 9:18 AM
To: Suchecki, Joe
Subject: Re: EMA Recommendation on Reducing Crankcase Blow-by emissions

Hi Joe,
Thanks so much for your letter, we really appreciate your quick response to
our questions on this issue.  One of the things that we talked about was the
difficulty in measuring the metallic HAP emissions - I didn't see any mention
of that issue in your letter, so I wanted to check and see if you had any
comment on that issue.

Melanie King
Energy Strategies Group
Sector Policies and Programs Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency

Mail Code D243-01
RTP, NC  27711

Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

|------------>
| From:      |
|------------>

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------|

  |"Suchecki, Joe"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>|

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>
| To:        |
|------------>

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------|

  |Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA
|

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>
| Date:      |
|------------>

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------|

  |12/04/2009 04:01 PM
|

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>
| Subject:   |
|------------>

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------|

  |EMA Recommendation on Reducing Crankcase Blow-by emissions
|

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------|

TO:        Melanie King
                US EPA

FROM:    Joe Suchecki
                 EMA

DATE:     December 4, 2009

RE:          Reducing Crankcase Blowdown Emissions from Existing CI
Stationary Engines

    Per your request during our recent teleconference, EMA is submitting the
attached letter with information and a recommendation regarding the reduction
of crankcase blow-by emissions form existing stationary CI engines.

    Please do not hesitate to call me if you have additional questions.

Joe Suchecki
Director, Public Affairs
Engine Manufacturers Association
Two North LaSalle Street, Suite 1700

Chicago, IL 60602

Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>www.enginemanufacturers.org

Confidentiality Notice:  This communication is confidential and may contain
privileged information.  If you have received it in error, please notify the
sender by reply e-mail and immediately delete it and any attachments without
copying or further transmitting the same.

All attachments are MS Office XP and are MIME encoded.  If you have any
software compatibility issues, please contact EMA at<PHONE_NUMBER>
immediately.

 [attachment
"EMADOCS-#36897-v1-EPA_Crankcase_Emissions_Letter_12-09.pdf" deleted by
Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US]

(See attached file: SAE 2009-01-1084A  .pdf)


[Federal Register: March 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 47)]
[Notices]
[Page 11069-11071]
[DOCID:fr12mr07-143]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55405; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2007-020]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to
Establish a Directed Order Type

March 6, 2007.
    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 March 2, 2007, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange.
Nasdaq has designated this proposal as non-controversial under Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \4\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\5\ 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
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Nasdaq proposes to amend Nasdaq Rule 4611 to update and codify the
requirements applicable to Nasdaq members that provide sponsored access
to other firms and customers to the Nasdaq execution system.
    The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new
language is

italicized; proposed deletions are in brackets.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Changes are marked to the rule text that appears in the
electronic Nasdaq Manual found at nasdaq.complinet.com/nasdaq/
display/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
4750. NASDAQ MARKET CENTER--EXECUTION SERVICES
4751. Definitions
    The following definitions apply to the Rule 4600 and 4750 Series
for the trading of securities listed on a national securities exchange
other than Nasdaq.
    (a)-(e) No change.
    (f) The term ``Order Type'' shall mean the unique processing
prescribed for designated orders that are eligible for entry into the
System, and shall include: (1)-(8) No change.
    (9) ``Directed Orders'' are orders that are directed to an exchange
other than Nasdaq as directed by the entering party without checking
the Nasdaq book. If unexecuted, the order (or unexecuted portion
thereof) shall be returned to the entering party. This option may only
be used for orders with time-in-force parameters of IOC.
    Directed Orders may be designated as intermarket sweep orders by
the entering party to execute against the full displayed size of any
protected bid or offer (as defined in Rule 600(b) of Regulation NMS
under the Act). A broker-dealer that designates an order as an
intermarket sweep order has the responsibility of complying with Rules
610 and 611 of Regulation NMS.
    (g)-(i) No change.
* * * * *
4755. Order Entry Parameters
(a) System Orders
    (1)
    (A) No Change.
    (B) A System order may also be designated as Reserve Order, a
Pegged Order, a Non-Displayed Order, a Minimum Quantity Order, an
Intermarket Sweep Order, a Price to Comply order, a Price to Comply
Post order, [or] a Discretionary Order, or a Directed Order.
    (C) No Change.
    (2)-(4) No change.
* * * * *

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 changes and
discussed any comments it received regarding the proposal. 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
    Nasdaq proposes to create a new order type--the Directed Order--for
use by its members in compliance with their obligations under
Regulation NMS.\7\ Directed Orders will be entered by a Nasdaq member
and sent to a market center other than Nasdaq without checking the
Nasdaq book. The entering member will select the market center to
receive the order This functionality existed in Nasdaq's former Brut
and INET facilities in the form of a ``Thru'' order that members used
to route trading interest directly to the New York Stock Exchange or
American Stock Exchange to avoid trading through those markets.\8\ If
unexecuted, the order (or unexecuted portion thereof) shall be returned
to the entering party. This option may only be used for orders with
time-in-force parameters of IOC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 17 CFR 242.600 et seq.
    \8\ See former NASD Rules 4903(b) and 4956(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This order will provide additional flexibility and functionality to
Nasdaq's system and to members that wish to use the system to comply
with their obligation to avoid trading through any Protected Quotation
within the meaning of Rule 600(b)(58) of Regulation NMS.\9\ Directed
Orders may be designated as intermarket sweep orders (as defined in
Rule 600(b)(30) of Regulation NMS \10\) and therefore will provide
Nasdaq member's the ability to execute against the full displayed size)
of any Protected Bid or Protected Offer (as defined in Rule 600(b)(57)
of Regulation NMS \11\) in the case of a limit order to sell or buy
with a price that is superior to the limit price of the limit order
identified in the intermarket sweep order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 242.600(b)(58).
    \10\ 17 CFR 242.600(b)(30).
    \11\ 17 CFR 242.600(b)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq members will be required to comply with the requirements of
Rules 610 and 611 of Regulation NMS \12\ when designating Directed
Orders as intermarket sweep orders. A broker-dealer that designates an
order as an intermarket sweep order has the responsibility of complying
with Rules 610 and 611 of Regulation NMS. When Nasdaq's execution
system receives a Directed Order that is designated as an intermarket
sweep order, Nasdaq's system will pass that order to NASDAQ Execution
Services, LLC, Nasdaq's broker-dealer subsidiary. Nasdaq Execution
Services has connectivity to route to all automated trading centers
displaying protected quotations.\13\ Nasdaq Execution Services will
accept orders only from Nasdaq, which in turn accepts orders only from
Nasdaq members. Because Nasdaq Execution Services will be routing
orders strictly on behalf of Nasdaq members, and Nasdaq members that
designate Directed Orders as intermarket sweep orders are obligated to
comply with Rules 610 and 611 of Regulation NMS, Nasdaq Execution
Services will not perform additional validations to ensure that orders
are properly designated as intermarket sweep orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 242.610; 17 CFR 242.611.
    \13\ See Responses to Frequently Asked Questions, posted on the
nasdaqtrader.com Web site at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/trader/tradingservices/regnms_faqs.pdf
.

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

2. Statutory Basis
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\14\ in general, and with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\15\ in particular, in that the proposal is
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purpose of the Act.

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

    Written comments on the proposed rule change were neither solicited
nor received.

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

    Because the proposed rule change does not: (1) Significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (2) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (3) become operative for 30 days
after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the Commission
may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant
to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \16\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). When filing a proposed rule change
pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act, an exchange is required
to give the Commission written notice of its intent to file the
proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the
proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date
of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as
designated by the Commission. The Exchange has requested that the
Commission waive the 5-day pre-filing notice requirement. The
Commission has determined to grant this request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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.
    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally may
not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \18\ permits the Commission to designate
a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Commission believes
that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest.\19\ The Commission
believes that the proposed rule change will facilitate the ability of
Nasdaq members to utilize Nasdaq's automated system to comply with
their respective obligations under Regulation NMS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \19\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include File

Number SR-NASDAQ-2007-020 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to file Number SR-NASDAQ-2007-020. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filings will also be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File number SR-NASDAQ-2007-020 and should be submitted on or before
April 2, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-4328 Filed 3-9-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 117 (Tuesday, June 20, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39895-39901]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13004]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-97718; File No. SR-NYSE-2023-20]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Its Price List

June 13, 2023.
    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 May 30, 2023, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I
and II 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 Price List to institute Ratio
Threshold Fees. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change
effective June 1, 2023. 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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Price List to institute Ratio
Threshold

Fees, which would be applied to orders ranked Priority 2--Display
Orders and to shares of Auction-Only Orders \4\ that have a
disproportionate ratio of orders that are not executed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Rule 7.31(c) and note 15, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective June 1,
2023.
Background
    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.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (File No. S7-10-04) (Final
Rule) (``Regulation NMS'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.'' \6\ Indeed, cash equity trading is currently dispersed
across 16 exchanges,\7\ numerous alternative trading systems,\8\ and
broker-dealer internalizers and wholesalers, all competing for order
flow. Based on publicly-available information, no single exchange
currently has more than 17% market share.\9\ Therefore, no exchange
possesses significant pricing power in the execution of cash 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 12%.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 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).
    \7\ See Cboe U.S. Equities Market Volume Summary, available at
https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share. See generally
https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/divisionsmarketregmrexchangesshtml.html.
    \8\ 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.
    \9\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Equities Market Volume Summary,
available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/.
    \10\ 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 categories of
products, based on transaction fees and credits. Accordingly, the
Exchange's fees, including the proposed Ratio Threshold Fee, are
reasonably constrained by competitive alternatives and market
participants can readily trade on competing venues if they deem pricing
levels at those other venues to be more favorable.
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to encourage efficient
usage of Exchange systems by member organizations, which the Exchange
believes is in the best interests of all member organizations and
investors who access the Exchange. Unproductive share entry and
cancellation practices, such as when member organizations flood the
market with displayed orders that are frequently and/or rapidly
cancelled, do little to support meaningful price discovery and may
create investor confusion about the extent of trading interest in a
security. The Exchange further believes that the inefficient order
entry practices of a small number of member organizations may place
excessive burdens on Exchange systems and on the systems of member
organizations that ingest market data, while also negatively impacting
the usefulness of market data feeds that transmit each order and
subsequent cancellation.\11\ Member organizations with an excessive
ratio of cancelled to executed orders do little to support meaningful
price discovery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See generally Recommendations Regarding Regulatory Reponses
to the Market Events of May 6, 2010, Joint CFTC-SEC Advisory
Committee on Emerging Regulatory Issues, at 11 (February 18, 2011)
(``The SEC and CFTC should also consider addressing the
disproportionate impact that [high frequency trading] has on
Exchange message traffic and market surveillance costs. . . . The
Committee recognizes that there are valid reasons for algorithmic
strategies to drive high cancellation rates, but we believe that
this is an area that deserves further study. At a minimum, we
believe that the participants of those strategies should properly
absorb the externalized costs of their activity.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that market quality can be improved
through the imposition of a fee on market participants that have a
disproportionate ratio of unexecuted orders. The Exchange believes that
the proposed rule change would promote a more efficient marketplace and
enhance the trading experience of all member organizations by
encouraging them to more efficiently participate in the marketplace
while at the same time allowing for the provision of liquidity in
volatile, high-volume markets and providing member organizations with
order management flexibility without being subject to the proposed fee.
Unnecessary ratios of executed orders due to cancellations can have a
detrimental effect on all market participants who are potentially
compelled to upgrade capacity as a result of the bandwidth usage of
other participants.
    All member organizations are free to manage their order and message
flow consistent with their business models, and the vast majority of
member organizations are able to do so without even approaching the
ratio thresholds proposed for the fee, as described below. The Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would promote a more efficient
marketplace, encourage liquidity provision and enhance the trading
experience of all member organizations by imposing a financial
incentive for the small number of member organizations that are
currently exceeding the proposed ratio thresholds. The Exchange notes
that its technology and infrastructure is adequately able to handle
high-volume and high-volatility situations for member organizations
that exceed the thresholds established by the Exchange. As described
below, the proposed fee would take into consideration the number of
shares that are executed or trades that occur.
    As noted, only a small number of member organizations are executing
orders at a disproportionately low ratio to the number of orders that
have been entered and, thus, the impact of the proposed fee would be
narrow and limited to those member organizations. These member
organizations can avoid the proposed fee by altering their behavior.
The Exchange believes the proposed fee would encourage member
organizations that could be impacted to modify their practices in order
to avoid the fee, thereby improving the market for all participants.
Accordingly, the Exchange does not expect the proposed fee to result in
meaningful, if any, revenue. Prior to the submission of the proposed
fee change, the Exchange engaged in discussions with member
organizations that could be impacted by the proposed fee based on their
prior trading behavior so that they may enhance the efficiency of their
order entry practices and avoid the fee. The Exchange also provided
notice to member organizations generally regarding the proposed
fee.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See NYSE Equities Trader Update dated May 30, 2023,
available at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/notifications/trader-update/110000564614/NYSE_Notice_Fee_Change_202306.pdf.

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

Proposed Rule Change
    As proposed, the Ratio Threshold Fee would apply to orders ranked
Priority 2--Display Orders and to shares of Auction-Only Orders during
the period when Auction Imbalance information is being
disseminated.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Exchange proposes the non-substantive change of
removing the colon following ``Routing Fees'' in the heading beneath
which the proposed Ratio Threshold Fee would be inserted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ratio Threshold for Priority 2--Display Orders (``RT--Display Fee'')
    For orders ranked Priority 2--Display Orders, member organizations
that have characteristics indicative of inefficient order entry
practices would be charged an RT--Display Fee on a monthly basis.\14\
For purposes of determining the RT--Display Fee:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The proposed fee focuses on displayed orders because such
orders utilize more system resources than non-displayed orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The ``Weighted Order Total'' is the total number of orders
ranked Priority 2--Display Orders entered by that member organization
in a month, as adjusted by a ``Weighting Factor.'' The Weighted Order
Total calculation excludes (i) all orders in securities in which that
member organization is registered as a Designated Market Makers
(``DMM''), and (ii) all orders for a member organization that is
registered as a DMM, a market maker, a Supplemental Liquidity Provider
(``SLP'') or as an SLP registered as an Exchange market maker
(``SLMM'') in 100 or more securities.
     The ``Weighting Factor'' applied to each order based on
its price in comparison to the national best bid or best offer
(``NBBO'') at the time of order entry is:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Weighting
             Order's price versus NBBO at entry                 factor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than 0.20% away........................................          0x
0.20% to 0.99% away.........................................          1x
1.00% to 1.99% away.........................................          2x
2.00% or more away..........................................          3x
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, an order more than 2.0% away from the NBBO would be
equivalent to three orders that were 0.50% away. Due to the applicable
Weighting Factor of 0x, orders entered less than 0.20% away from the
NBBO would not be included in the Weighted Order Total but would be
included in the ``executed'' orders component of the Order Entry Ratio
if they execute in full or part.
     The ``Order Entry Ratio'' would be calculated by dividing
a member organization's Weighted Order Total by the greater of (i) the
number of orders ranked Priority 2--Display Orders that execute in full
or in part or (ii) the number one (1).\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ In the case where no orders entered by a member
organization executed, this component of the ratio would be assumed
to be 1 so as to avoid the impossibility of dividing by zero.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     ``Excess Weighted Orders'' would be calculated by
subtracting (i) the Weighted Order Total that would result in the
member organization having an Order Entry Ratio of 100 from (ii) the
member organization's actual Weighted Order Total.
    A member organization with a daily average Weighted Order Total of
100,000 or more \16\ during a month would be charged the RT--Display
Fee, which is calculated by multiplying the Applicable Rate in the
chart below by the number of Excess Weighted Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Exchange believes it is reasonable to exclude member
organizations with a daily average Weighted Order Total of less than
100,000 during the month because member organizations with an
extremely low volume of entered orders has only a de minimis impact
on Exchange systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Member organizations that exceed the Order Entry Ratio threshold of
1,000:1 would pay a fee of $0.01 on each order that caused the member
organization to surpass the threshold. member organizations that exceed
the Order Entry Ratio threshold of 100:1 but less than 1,000:1 would
pay a fee of $0.005 on all orders that caused member organization's
ratio to exceed 100:1.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Applicable
                     Order entry ratio                           rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0-100......................................................        $0.00
101-1,000..................................................        0.005
More than 1,000............................................         0.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following example illustrates the calculation of the Order
Entry Ratio and resulting RT--Display Fee:
     In a month, Member Organization A enters 35,000,000
displayed, liquidity-providing orders:
    [cir] 20,000,000 of the orders are in securities in which Member
Organization A is an DMM or registered as a DMM, a market maker, SLP,
which assumes is 100 securities or more. These orders are excluded from
the calculation.
    [cir] 10,000,000 orders are entered at the NBBO. The Weighting
Factor for these orders is 0x.
    [cir] 5,000,000 orders are entered at a price that is 1.50% away
from the NBBO. The Weighting Factor for these orders is 2x.
     The Weighted Order Total is (10,000,000 x 0) + (5,000,000
x 2) = 10,000,000.
     Of the 15,000,000 orders included in the calculation,
90,000 are executed in full or in part.
     The Order Entry Ratio is 10,000,000 (Weighted Order
Total)/90,000 (executed orders total) = 111
    In the example above, the Weighted Order Total that would result in
an Order Entry Ratio of 100 is 9,000,000, since 9,000,000/90,000 = 100.
Accordingly, the Excess Weighted Orders would be 10,000,000-9,000,000 =
1,000,000.
    The RT--Display Fee charged to a member organization would then be
determined by multiplying the Applicable Rate by the number of Excess
Weighted Orders.
    In the example above, because Member Organization A had an Order
Entry Ratio of 111, the Applicable Rate would be $0.005. Accordingly,
the monthly RT--Display Fee would be 1,000,000 (Excess Weighted Orders)
x $0.005 (Applicable Rate) = $5,000.
Ratio Threshold for Auction-Only Orders During the Period When Auction
Imbalance Information is Being Disseminated for a Core Open Auction or
Closing Auction (``RT--Auction Fee'')
    For Auction-Only Orders,\17\ member organizations with an average
daily number of orders of 10,000 or more \18\ would be charged an RT--
Auction Fee on a monthly basis.\19\ For purposes of determining the
RT--Auction Fee:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ An Auction-Only Order is a Limit or Market Order that is to
be traded only within an auction pursuant to Rule 7.35 Series (for
Auction-Eligible Securities) or routed pursuant to Rule 7.34 (for
UTP Securities). See Rule 7.31(c). Auction-Only Orders are orders
submitted by member organizations before the Core Trading Session
begins (for the Core Open Auction) or during a halt or pause (for a
Trading Halt Auction). See id.
    \18\ The Exchange believes it is reasonable to exclude member
organizations with average daily orders of less than 10,000 during
the month because a member organization with an extremely low volume
of entered orders has only a de minimis impact on Exchange systems.
    \19\ Similar to orders ranked Priority 2--Display Orders, the
proposed fee focuses on Auction-Only Orders because a
disproportionate ratio of such orders that are not executed utilize
more system resources, including updates to the Auction Imbalance
Information as such orders are entered and cancelled, than other
order entry and cancellation practices of member organizations.
Accordingly, for Auction-Only Orders, Ratio Shares include shares of
Auction-Only Orders executed in a disproportionate ratio to the
quantity of shares entered during the period when Auction Imbalance
Information is being disseminated for the Core Open Auction and
Closing Auction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The number of ``Ratio Shares'' is the average daily number
of shares of Auction-Only Orders that are cancelled by the member
organization during the Closing Auction Imbalance Freeze Time \20\ at a
disproportionate ratio to the average daily number of shares executed
by that member organization. Orders

ranked Priority 2--Display Orders designated for the Core Trading
Session only that are entered during the period when Auction Imbalance
Information for the Core Open Auction is being disseminated are
included in the Ratio Shares calculation.\21\ All orders entered by a
member organization acting as a DMM are not included in the calculation
of Ratio Shares.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ ``Closing Auction Imbalance Freeze Time'' means 10 minutes
before the scheduled end of Core Trading Hours. See Rule 7.35(a)(8).
    \21\ For purposes of the Ratio Threshold Fees, orders ranked
Priority 2--Display Orders designated for the Core Trading Session
only that are cancelled during the period when Auction Imbalance
Information for the Core Open Auction is being disseminated are
included in the calculation of the proposed RT--Auction Fee. The
Exchange proposes to include such orders as Auction-Only Orders for
purposes of such fee because prior to the Core Open Auction, such
orders would not be eligible to trade and therefore would not be
included in the RT--Display Fee calculation, yet such orders would
be included in the imbalance calculation for the Core Open Auction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The ``Ratio Shares Threshold'' is a member organization's
Ratio Shares divided by the average daily executed shares by the member
organization.
    The Exchange proposes to charge the RT--Auction Fee for Auction-
Only Orders during the period when Auction Imbalance Information is
being disseminated.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Rules 7.35A(e)(1) (Core Open Auction Imbalance
Information begins at 8:00 a.m.); 7.35B(e)(1) (Closing Auction
Imbalance Information begins at the Closing Auction Imbalance Freeze
Time); Rule 7.35(a)(8) (Closing Auction Imbalance Freeze Time means
10 minutes before the scheduled end of Core Trading Hours).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes that it would not charge the RT--Auction Fee
if Auction-Only Orders have a Ratio Shares Threshold of less than 25.
If the Ratio Shares Threshold is greater than or equal to 25, the fee
would be as follows:
     No Charge for member organizations with an average of
fewer than 10 million Ratio Shares per day.
     $5.00 per million Ratio Shares for member organizations
with an average of 10 million to 100 million Ratio Shares per day.
     $15.00 per million Ratio Shares for member organizations
with an average of more than 100 million Ratio Shares per day.
    Member organizations would be charged for the entirety of their
Ratio Shares at a rate of $5.00 per million Ratio Shares if the member
organization has an average of 10 million to 100 million Ratio Shares;
and $15.00 per million Ratio Shares if the member organization has an
average of more than 100 million Ratio Shares.
    The following example illustrates the calculation of the RT--
Auction Fee for Auction-Only Orders.
     In a month, Member Organization B enters a daily average
of 100,000 Auction-Only Orders for the Closing Auction, with an average
size of 600 shares.
     Thus, Member Organization B's daily average number of
shares submitted in Auction-Only Orders for the Closing Auction is
60,000,000 shares (100,000 orders x 600 shares).
     During the period when Closing Auction Imbalance
Information is being disseminated, Member Organization B cancels a
daily average of 59,000,000 shares and executes a daily average of
1,000,000 shares in the Closing Auction.
     Member Organization B has an average daily Ratio Shares
quantity of 58,000,000 (59,000,000-1,000,000), and a Ratio Shares
Threshold of 58 (58,000,000/1,000,000).
     Since the Ratio Shares Threshold is greater than 25 and
the average daily Ratio Shares quantity is between 10 million and 100
million, Member Organization B would be subject to the proposed fee of
$5.00 per million Ratio Share, resulting in a fee of $6,090 assuming a
21-day month (58,000,000/1,000,000 x $5.00 x 21).
    As noted above, the purpose of the fee is not the generation of
revenue but rather to provide an incentive for a small number of member
organizations to change their order entry practices. Therefore, the
Exchange also proposes to limit the amount a member organization would
pay by adopting a cap such that the combined RT--Display Fee and RT--
Auction Fee for a member organization would not exceed $1,000,000 per
month. Based on an analysis of the impact to member organizations, the
Exchange does not believe that many member organizations would be
impacted. For example, the median Order Entry Ratio across all member
organizations was 0.59 in April 2023 and 0.62 in May 2023 \23\ for
orders ranked Priority 2--Display Orders. The median Ratio Shares
Threshold across all ETP Holders was -0.918 in April 2023 and -0.919 in
May 2023 \24\ Auction-Only Orders. The negative Ratio Shares Threshold
indicates that the median ETP Holder has more executed shares than
Ratio Shares.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Through May 17, 2023.
    \24\ Through May 17, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address any
other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any significant problems
that market participants 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,\25\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\26\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed fee would help to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest, because it is designed to
reduce the numbers of orders and shares being entered and then
cancelled prior to an execution.
The Proposed Changes Are Reasonable
    As discussed above, the Exchange operates in a highly fragmented
and 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.'' \27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Regulation NMS, supra note 4, 70 FR at 37499.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the Commission itself recognized, the market for trading
services in NMS stocks has become ``more fragmented and competitive.''
\28\ Indeed, equity trading is currently dispersed across 13
exchanges,\29\ numerous alternative trading systems,\30\ and broker-
dealer

internalizers and wholesalers, all competing for order flow. Based on
publicly-available information, no single exchange currently has more
than 20% market share (whether including or excluding auction
volume).\31\ The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share
among the exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market
participants can shift order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of
certain categories of products, in response to fee changes.
Accordingly, the Exchange's fees, including the proposed Ratio
Threshold Fee, are reasonably constrained by competitive alternatives
and market participants can readily trade on competing venues if they
deem pricing levels at those other venues to be more favorable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808, 84 FR 5202,
5253 (February 20, 2019) (File No. S7-05-18) (Final Rule).
    \29\ See Cboe U.S. Equities Market Volume Summary, available at
https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share. See generally
https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/divisionsmarketregmrexchangesshtml.html.
    \30\ 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.
    \31\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Equities Market Volume
Summary, available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed Ratio Threshold Fees are
reasonable because they are designed to achieve improvements in the
quality of displayed liquidity--both intraday and in advance of
auctions--on the Exchange for the benefit of all market participants.
In addition, the proposed fees are reasonable because market
participants may readily avoid the fee by adjusting their order entry
and/or cancellation practices, which would result in more orders or
shares being cancelled before execution.
    The Exchange believes it is also reasonable to charge a Ratio
Threshold Fee on the basis of the number of orders ranked Priority 2--
Display Orders and to charge a Ratio Threshold Fee that is based on the
number of shares of Auction-Only Orders because, as a general matter,
displayed orders entered on the Exchange have fewer shares associated
with each order whereas, the share quantity of an Auction-Only Order
typically is much larger. The Exchange believes that applying the Ratio
Threshold Fee to orders ranked Priority 2--Display Orders based on the
number of shares of each order would not promote efficient order entry
practice by member organizations in a meaningful way because, as noted
above, the average size of each displayed order is relatively small in
terms of shares. Therefore, to properly incentivize member
organizations, the Exchange believes assessing the proposed fee based
on orders, rather than number of shares, is more appropriate. The
Exchange further believes that it is reasonable to apply the proposed
fee to Auction-Only Orders only during the period when Auction
Imbalance Information is being disseminated, because such orders are
not displayed prior to such information being disseminated. By
contrast, cancelling shares of Auction-Only Orders during the period
when Auction Imbalance Information is being disseminated could result
in excessive and unnecessary changes to imbalance information.
    Although only a small number of member organizations could be
subject to the proposed fee, the Exchange believes that the proposed
fee is necessary because of the negative externalities that such
behavior imposes on others through order entry practices resulting in a
disproportionate ratio of executed orders or shares to those that are
not executed. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that it is fair to
impose the fee on these market participants in order to incentivize
them to modify their practices and thereby benefit the market.
Importantly, whether a member organization would be subject to the
proposed fee would be independent of any determination of whether such
member organization is complying with Exchange and federal rules,
including those governing order entry and cancellation.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed combined fee cap of
$1,000,000 is reasonable as it would reduce the impact of the fee on
member organizations. As noted above, the purpose of the proposed fee
is not to generate revenue for the Exchange, but rather to provide an
incentive for a small number of member organizations to change their
order entry and/or cancellation behavior. As a general principal, the
Exchange believes that greater participation on the Exchange by member
organizations improves market quality for all market participants.
Thus, in adopting the proposed fee, and the cap, the Exchange balanced
the desire to improve market quality against the need to discourage
inefficient order entry and/or cancellation practices.
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade by adopting a fee that
is comparable to a fee charged by the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC
(``Nasdaq'') \32\ and by both the options and equities markets of the
Exchange's affiliate NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'').\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Nasdaq Stock Market LLC Equity Rule 7, Section 118(m).
    \33\ See NYSE Arca Equities Fees and Charges, Ratio Threshold
Fee, at available at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/nyse-arca/NYSE_Arca_Marketplace_Fees.pdf, and NYSE Arca Options Fees
and Charges, Ratio Threshold Fee, at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/arca-options/NYSE_Arca_Options_Fee_Schedule.pdf. On the NYSE Arca options
marketplace, the Ratio Threshold Fee is charged to OTP Holders based
on the number of orders entered compared to the number of executions
received in a calendar month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the RT--Display Fee, the proposed fee is
substantially the same as the display fee charged on NYSE Arca's
equities market and the Excess Order Fee on Nasdaq, and would subject
member organizations to the fee if they exceed the Order Entry Ratio
thresholds established by the Exchange, which thresholds are also
substantially the same as those on NYSE Arca and Nasdaq. Additionally,
the proposed RT--Auction Fee, similar to the RT--Display fee, is
intended to disincentivize a disproportionate ratio of orders that are
not executed. Therefore, the RT--Auction Fee focuses on Auction-Only
Orders because a disproportionate ratio of such orders that are not
executed uses more system resources, including updates to the Auction
Imbalance Information as such orders are entered and cancelled, than
other order entry and cancellation practices of member organizations.
Finally, the RT--Auction Fee, unlike the RT--Display Fee which would be
assessed on a tiered basis, would be applied on the entirety of each
member organization's Ratio Shares, which, as defined above, is
calculated net of shares that have been executed, and therefore, the
fee would be applied only to those shares that remain unexecuted. The
Exchange believes it would be appropriate to assess the fee in a non-
tiered manner because Auction-Only Orders generally have a larger
number of shares associated with each order than orders ranked Priority
2--Display Orders and therefore, the number of shares that could be
impacted could increase significantly in a short period of time since
the auction imbalance period only lasts for one hour. Additionally, the
submission, and subsequent cancellation, of Auction-Only Orders during
the imbalance dissemination period could lead to disruption in trading
as each order, which could contain a large number of shares, would
require the Exchange to update and disseminate the new order
information on its market data feed. Accordingly, the Exchange believes
assessing the fee on a share basis is appropriate because it would more
effectively disincentivize member organizations from submitting a
disproportionate ratio of shares that are not executed.

The Proposal Is an Equitable Allocation of Fees
    For the reasons noted above, the Exchange believes the proposed
fees are also equitably allocated among its market participants.
Although only a small number of member organizations may be subject to
the proposed fees based on their current trading practices, any member
organization could determine to change their order entry practices at
any time, and the proposed fees would be applied to any member
organization that determined to engage in such inefficient order entry
practices. The proposed fee is therefore designed to encourage better
displayed order entry practices by all member organizations for the
benefit of all market participants. Moreover, the purpose of the
proposal is not to generate revenue for the Exchange, but rather to
provide an incentive for a small number of member organizations to
change their order entry and/or cancellation behavior.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal constitutes an equitable
allocation of fees because all similarly situated member organizations
would be subject to the proposed fees. As noted above, the Exchange
believes that because having a disproportionate ratio of unexecuted
orders is a problem associated with a relatively small number of member
organizations, the impact of the proposal would be limited to those
member organizations, and only if they do not alter their trading
practices. The Exchange believes the proposal would encourage member
organizations that could be impacted to modify their practices in order
to avoid the fee, thereby improving the market for all participants.
The Proposal Is Not Unfairly Discriminatory
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is not unfairly
discriminatory. In the prevailing competitive environment, member
organizations are free to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they
believe that alternatives offer them better value, and are free to
transact on competitor markets to avoid being subject to the proposed
fees. The Exchange believes that the proposed fees neither target nor
will they have a disparate impact on any particular category of market
participant. The Exchange believes that the proposal change does not
permit unfair discrimination because it would be applied to all
similarly situated member organizations, who would all be subject to
the proposed fee on an equal basis.
    The Exchange further believes that it is not unfairly
discriminatory to exclude DMMs from the proposed RT--Display Fee in
securities in which they are registered, or DMMs, non-DMM market
makers, SLPs or SLMMs if they are registered in more than 100
securities. Each of these market participants have independent
obligations to maintain a two-sided quotation in their registered
securities. In order to meet this obligation, these member
organizations are more likely to need to cancel their resting orders so
that they can update their quotes. The Exchange believes that such
independent obligation to maintain a fair and orderly market outweighs
any impact such cancellations would have on Exchange systems.
    Finally, the submission of orders to the Exchange is optional for
member organizations in that they could choose whether to submit orders
to the Exchange and, if they do, the extent of its activity in this
regard.
    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,\34\ 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 fee would encourage member organizations to modify
their order entry and/or cancellation practices so that fewer orders or
shares are cancelled without resulting in an execution, thereby
promoting price discovery and transparency and enhancing order
execution opportunities on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Intramarket Competition. The Exchange believes the proposed Ratio
Threshold Fees would not place any undue burden on intramarket
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act because the proposed fees are designed to encourage
member organizations to submit orders or shares into the market that
are actionable. Further, the proposal would apply to all member
organizations on an equal basis, and, as such, the proposed change
would not impose a disparate burden on competition among market
participants on the Exchange. To the extent that these purposes are
achieved, the Exchange believes that the proposal would serve as an
incentive for member organizations to modify their order entry
practices, thus enhancing the quality of the market and increase the
volume of orders or shares directed to, and executed on, the Exchange.
In turn, all the Exchange's market participants would benefit from the
improved market liquidity.
    Intermarket Competition. The Exchange operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor other
exchange and off-exchange venues. In such an environment, the Exchange
must continually review, and consider adjusting its services along with
its fees and rebates, to remain competitive with other exchanges and
with off-exchange venues. Because competitors are free to modify their
own services, and their fees and credits in response, the Exchange does
not believe the proposed fee change can impose any burden on
intermarket competition.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \35\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \36\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \36\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \37\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 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 (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
file number SR-NYSE-2023-20 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to file number SR-NYSE-2023-20. 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 (https://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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not
include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We
may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted
material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All
submissions should refer to file number SR-NYSE-2023-20 and should be
submitted on or before July 11, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-13004 Filed 6-16-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


DRAFT MEMORANDUM
DATE: 	September 17, 2020
TO: 		Korbin Smith, U.S. EPA OAQPS/SPPD/MMG
FROM:	SC&A Incorporated
SUBJECT: 	Identification of Area Sources for Carbon Black Production NESHAP
 1.0  Purpose and Introduction
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) outlines the statutory requirements for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stationary source air toxics program. CAA section 112(k) requires the development of standards for area sources located in urban areas which account for 90 percent of the emissions of the 33 identified urban hazardous air pollutants (HAP) listed in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy (UATS). These area source standards can require control levels which are equivalent to either maximum achievable control technology (MACT) or generally available control technology (GACT), as defined in section 112(d)(3) and section 112(d)(5) of the CAA, respectively.
Carbon black production was listed as an area source under CAA sections 112(c)(3) and 112(k)(3)(B)(iii) in November 2002 (67 FR 11670) based on emissions of polycyclic organic matter (POM). Area source standards were promulgated under 40 CFR 63.11400 of subpart MMMMMM (NESHAP for Carbon Black Production Area Sources)(72 FR 38864, July 16, 2007). At the time the area source NESHAP for Carbon Black Production Area Sources was promulgated, the EPA identified one carbon black production area source facility. The facility identified at that time, no longer produces carbon black.[,]
Technology reviews, as prescribed in CAA section 112(d)(6) are required for area sources, however risk reviews are not required as stated explicitly in CAA section 112(f)(5). The purpose of this memorandum is to identify existing area source carbon black production facilities in support of the technology review required for area sources under CAA section 112(d)(6).
 2.0  Sources of Data
The primary source of data assessed to identify HAP area sources for the carbon black production source category was the Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) website (which incorporates records from the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) and National Emissions Inventory (NEI)). Supplemental information was also gathered and assessed from background internet searches and communications with facilities. The following paragraphs outline the methods and results of this assessment.
An ECHO website air search for any active facility with the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code 2895 or North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 325182 was performed and facility information (e.g., pollutant reports, facility reports, and emissions data) was examined for 37 facilities that met these criteria. The 15 major HAP sources identified and included in the EPA major source assessment for carbon black manufacturing were captured in this assessment and excluded from consideration as area HAP sources. Results from this search (excluding major HAP sources identified in the EPA major source assessment for carbon black manufacturing) are identified in Table 1.
            Table 1: ECHO Results  -  Identified Major Sources Excluded
Company Name
City
State
3M COMPANY
KNOXVILLE
IA
3M MINNESOTA MINING & MANUFACTURING CO
KNOXVILLE
IA
BAYTOWN CARBON BLACK PLANT (DEGUSSA ENGINEERED CARBONS LP)
BAYTOWN
TX
CABOT CORPORATION
BILLERICA
MA
CABOT CORPORATION,  WAVERLY, OHIO RIVER
SAINT MARYS
WV
CARB-RITE COMPANY
SCHNEIDER
IN
CHEVRON PHILLIPS CHEMICAL CEDAR BAYOU PLANT
BAYTOWN
TX
COLUMBIAN CHEMICALS COMPANY
NEW JERSEY
NJ
CONTINENTAL CARBON COMPANY
BARBERTON
OH
EVERRIS NA INC CHARLESTON
N CHARLESTON
SC
HYPERION CATALYSIS
CAMBRIDGE, TOWN OF
MA
JACOBI CARBONS, INC
COLUMBUS
OH
MARYVILLE CARBON SOLUTIONS LLC
MARYVILLE
MO
MCCOY B #5 FACILITY
LOGANSPORT
LA
NALCO PRODUCTION LLC - GARYVILLE FACILITY
GARYVILLE
LA
NATIONAL PLASTICS COLOR
VALLEY CENTER
KS
NILOK CHEMICALS ARANSAS PASS CARBON BLACK PLANT
ROCKPORT
TX
PYROLYX USA INCORPORATED
TERRE HAUTE
IN
SCOTTS COMPANY-CLSD
CHARLESTON
SC
SCOTTS COMPANY-CLSD
CHARLESTON
SC
SUN CHEMICAL CORPORATION
GOOSE CREEK
SC
In addition to facilities identified in ECHO, Table 2 lists additional facilities that were identified in EPA's HAP major source assessment that were not considered to be major HAP sources.
              Table 2: Additional Facilities from Major Sources Memo
Company Name
City
State
CABOT CORP FMO DIV
TUSCOLA
IL
E I DUPONT DE NEMOURS CO - DELISLE PLANT
PASS CHRISTIAN
MS
HORSEHEAD CORP
ROCKWOOD
TN
ZINC CORPORATION OF AMERICA
PALMERTON
PA
Based on ECHO pollutant reports, facility reports, emissions data; and internet searches, the EPA has ruled out the listed facilities in Table 1 and 2 as carbon black production areas sources. Table 3 presents the context/basis for our assumptions by company and location.
               Table 3. Basis for Area Source Status Assumptions
Company Name
Location
Context for Assumptions Re: Area Source Status
3M COMPANY
Knoxville, IA
No associated HAPs listed in air pollutant report. Carbon black manufacturing not listed under industry description of air pollutant report. Internet search indicates that facility is involved in tape and adhesive manufacturing: (https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/plant-locations-us/knoxville/)
3M MINNESOTA MINING & MANUFACTURING CO
Knoxville, IA
Same 3M Company as listed above under a different Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS)-Air Source ID.
BAYTOWN CARBON BLACK PLANT (DEGUSSA ENGINEERED CARBONS LP)
Baytown, TX
Facility stopped manufacturing and is currently a distribution center.[3]
CABOT CORPORATION
Billerica, MA
No TRI releases recorded. Internet search indicates that the facility is a sales and research and development (R&D) facility: (https://www.cabotcorp.com/company/worldwide-locations).
CABOT CORP FMO DIV
Tuscola, IL
Facility manufactures fumed silica.
CABOT CORPORATION, Waverly, Ohio River
Saint Mary's, WV
Internet search indicates that carbon black production ceased in 2008: (https://cabotog.gcs-web.com/news-releases/news-release-details/cabot-corporation-close-west-virginia-carbon-black-plant). Communications with facility confirm that the facility no longer produces carbon black.
CARB-RITE COMPANY
Schneider, IN
Only the SIC code is listed, no pollutant information. Internet search indicates that facility produces the following: Metallurgical Coke, Anthracite Coal, Petroleum Coke, Graphite, Fluid Coke. Carbon black is not listed as a product produced at this site on the company's website: (https://ejbognar.com/).
CHEVRON PHILLIPS CHEMICAL CEDAR BAYOU PLANT
Baytown, TX
No associated HAPs listed in air pollutant report. Carbon black manufacturing not listed under industry description of air pollutant report. Internet search indicates that the facility produces the following: Ethylene, High-Density Polyethylene, Low-Density Polyethylene, Linear Low-Density Polyethylene, Normal Alpha Olefins, Polyalphaolefins, On-purpose 1-Hexene. Carbon black is not listed as a product produced at this site: (https://www.cpchem.com/locations/north-america/baytown-texas)
COLUMBIAN CHEMICALS COMPANY
New Jersey, NJ
Internet search of the Birla Carbon company website (purchased Columbian Chemicals in 2011) appears to indicate that this facility is no longer active (not listed on list of company facility locations): (https://www.birlacarbon.com/locations/).
CONTINENTAL CARBON COMPANY
Barberton, OH
Internet search indicates that the facility is a distribution facility, and no carbon black is manufactured: (http://www.continentalcarbon.com/locations.asp).
E I DUPONT DE NEMOURS CO - DELISLE PLANT
Pass Christian, MS
Facility manufactures titanium dioxide.[3]
EVERRIS NA INC CHARLESTON
N. Charleston, SC
No associated HAPs listed in air pollutant report. Carbon black manufacturing not listed under industry description of air pollutant report. Internet search indicates that the company is involved with chemical and fertilizer mining: (https://www.dandb.com/businessdirectory/everrisnainc.-northcharleston-sc-20154837.html).
HORSEHEAD CORP
Rockwood, TN
Facility is a zinc recycling facility.
HYPERION CATALYSIS
Cambridge, Town of MA
No associated HAPs listed in air pollutant report. Carbon black manufacturing not listed under industry description of air pollutant report. Internet search indicates that the company is involved with the development of novel forms and morphologies of carbon: (http://www.hyperioncatalysis.com/).
JACOBI CARBONS, INC
Columbus, OH
Internet search indicates that the facility produces activated carbons (and not carbon black): (https://www.jacobi.net/products/).
MARYVILLE CARBON SOLUTIONS LLC
Maryville, OH
Internet search indicates the facility is a tire recycling facility: (https://www.bolderindustries.com/locations).
MCCOY B #5 FACILITY

Logansport, LA
Owned by Cypress Operating Inc who produces oil not carbon black.
NALCO PRODUCTION LLC - GARYVILLE FACILITY
Garyville, LA
No associated HAPs listed in air pollutant report. Carbon black manufacturing not listed under industry description of air pollutant report.
NATIONAL PLASTICS COLOR
Valley Center, KS
Facility produces color concentrates, and does not appear to produce carbon black: (https://www.npccolor.com/services/services.htm).
NILOK CHEMICALS ARANSAS PASS CARBON BLACK PLANT
Rockport, TX
Production ceased in 2013: (http://www.rockportpilot.com/news/article_e02e7fe5-f668-53eb-b567-0381834560d0.html).
PYROLYX USA INCORPORATED
Terre Haute, IN
Internet search indicates that the facility is a tire recycling facility: (https://pyrolyx.com/).
SCOTTS COMPANY-CLSD
Charleston, SC
No associated HAPs listed in air pollutant report. Carbon black production is not listed under industry description of air pollutant report. Facility assumed to be closed. Scotts Company does not produce or distribute carbon black.
SCOTTS COMPANY-CLSD
Charleston, SC
Same as Scotts Company listing above under a different ICIS-Air Source ID.
SUN CHEMICAL CORPORATION
Goose Creek, SC
Facility manufactures pigments using aluminum.
ZINC CORPORATION OF AMERICA
Palmerton, PA
Facility manufactures zinc.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 41 (Wednesday, March 2, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11327-11328]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4694]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 240

[Release No. 34-63949]

Technical Amendments to Rule 17a-8: Financial Recordkeeping and
Reporting of Currency and Foreign Transactions

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; technical amendments.

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

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') is
adopting technical amendments to Rule 17a-8 under the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') to update a reference within
the rule to the implementing regulations of the Currency and Foreign
Transactions Reporting Act of 1970, as amended (commonly referred to as
the Bank Secrecy Act or the ``BSA''). The BSA's implementing
regulations are promulgated and administered by the Financial Crimes
Enforcement Network (``FinCEN''), a bureau within the Department of the
Treasury. The reference to the BSA's implementing regulations in Rule
17a-8 is being updated in response to FinCEN's reorganization of those
regulations into a new chapter of the Code of Federal Regulations
(``CFR'').

DATES: Effective Date: March 1, 2011.

FOR FURTHER CONTACT INFORMATION: John J. Fahey, Office of Chief
Counsel, Division of Trading and Markets, Securities and Exchange
Commission;<PHONE_NUMBER>; 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549.

I. Supplementary Material

A. Background

    The BSA,\1\ as implemented through regulations issued and
administered by FinCEN, requires financial institutions, including
broker-dealers registered with the Commission, to make, keep, retain
and report certain records that are useful for the purposes of
criminal, tax, or regulatory investigations or proceedings.\2\ FinCEN
administers the BSA and its implementing regulations, and the
Commission has oversight authority for broker-dealers' compliance with
the BSA's requirements.\3\ Exchange Act Rule 17a-8 requires broker-
dealers to comply with the reporting, recordkeeping and record
retention requirements of the BSA's implementing regulations as found
in part 103 of title 31 of the CFR.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 31 U.S.C. 5311 et seq.
    \2\ See Section 17 of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78q) and 31
CFR 103.12 (redesignated as 31 CFR 1010.301).
    \3\ See 31 CFR 103.56(a)(6) (redesignated as 31 CFR
1010.810(a)(6)).
    \4\ See Exchange Act Release No. 18321 (December 10, 1981); 46
FR 61454 (December 17, 1981) (``Rule 17a-8 Adopting Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FinCEN recently reorganized the BSA's implementing regulations into
a new chapter within title 31 of the CFR.\5\ As part of this
reorganization, FinCEN moved the regulations reflected in 31 CFR Part
103 into 31 CFR Chapter X. When Chapter X becomes effective on March 1,
2011, 31 CFR Part 103 will be deleted, thereby rendering the references
to ``part 103 of title 31'' of the CFR in Exchange Act Rule 17a-8
incorrect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Transfer and Reorganization of Bank Secrecy Act Regulation;
Proposed Rule, 73 FR 66414 (November 7, 2008); Transfer and
Reorganization of Bank Secrecy Act Regulation; Final Rule, 75 FR
65806 (October 26, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Technical Amendments to Rule 17a-8

    The Commission is amending Rule 17a-8 to conform the current CFR
references to the BSA's implementing regulations to those that will
apply as a result of FinCEN's reorganization of these regulations.
Accordingly, the two references to ``part 103 of title 31'' in Exchange
Act Rule 17a-8 will be

replaced with references to ``Chapter X of title 31.''

II. Certain Findings

    Under the Administrative Procedure Act (``APA''), notice of
proposed rulemaking is not required when an agency, for good cause,
finds ``that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.'' \6\ The Commission
is making technical amendments to Rule 17a-8 to update the reference to
the BSA implementing regulations. The Commission finds that because the
amendment is technical in nature and is being made solely to reflect
the changes in applicable references to the BSA's implementing
regulations, publishing the amendment for comment is unnecessary.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 5 U.S.C. 553(b).
    \7\ For similar reasons, the amendments do not require analysis
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA'') or analysis of major
rule status under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2) (for purposes of RFA analysis, the term
``rule'' means any rule for which the agency publishes a general
notice of proposed rulemaking); and 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(C) (for purposes
of Congressional review of agency rulemaking, the term ``rule'' does
not include any rule of agency organization, procedure or practice
that does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-
agency parties).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The APA also requires publication of a rule at least 30 days before
its effective date unless the agency finds otherwise for good cause.\8\
Due to the need to coordinate the effectiveness of the amendment to
Rule 17a-8 with the effective date of FinCEN's rule reorganization
scheduled to take effect on March 1, 2011, and for the same reasons
described above with respect to notice and opportunity for comment, the
Commission finds that there is good cause for these technical
amendments to take effect on March 1, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Consideration of Competitive Effects of Amendment

    Section 3(f) of the Exchange Act,\9\ provides that whenever the
Commission is engaged in rulemaking and is required to consider or
determine whether an action is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest, the Commission shall consider, in addition to the protection
of investors, whether the action will promote efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. Section 23(a)(2) of the Exchange Act requires
the Commission, in adopting rules under the Exchange Act, to consider
the competitive effects of such rules, if any, and to refrain from
adopting a rule that would impose a burden on competition not necessary
or appropriate in the furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange
Act.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78w(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the amendments to Exchange Act Rule 17a-8 are technical in
nature, and do not impose any additional requirements beyond those
already required, we do not anticipate that the amendments would have a
significant effect on efficiency, competition, or capital formation,
and we do not anticipate that any competitive advantages or
disadvantages would be created.

IV. Statutory Authority

    We are adopting this technical amendment to Rule 17a-8 under the
authority set forth in the Exchange Act, in particular, Sections 3, 10,
15, 17 and 23 thereof.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78c, 78j, 78o, 78q, and 78w.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 240

    Broker-dealers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Securities.

Text of Amendments

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, Title 17, Chapter II of
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 240--GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS, SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF
1934

0
1. The authority citation for Part 240 continues to read, in part, as
follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77c, 77d, 77g, 77j, 77s, 77z-2, 77z-3,
77eee, 77ggg, 77nnn, 77sss, 77ttt, 78c, 78d, 78e, 78f, 78g, 78i,
78j, 78j-1, 78k, 78k-1, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o, 78p, 78q, 78s, 78u-5,
78w, 78x, 78ll, 78mm, 80a- 20, 80a-23, 80a-29, 80a-37, 80b-3, 80b-4,
80b-11, and 7201 et seq., and 18 U.S.C. 1350, unless otherwise
noted.
* * * * *

0
2. Amend Sec.  240.17a-8 by removing the phrase ``part 103'' in the two
places it appears and adding in its place ``Chapter X.''

    Dated: February 23, 2011.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-4694 Filed 3-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 21, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78106-78107]
[FR Doc No: 2022-27699]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-10506-01-OW]

Notice of Public Meeting of the Environmental Financial Advisory
Board (EFAB) With Webcast

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of public EFAB meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announces a public
meeting with a webcast of the Environmental Financial Advisory Board
(EFAB). The meeting will be shared in real-time via webcast and public
comments may be provided in writing in advance or virtually via
webcast. Please see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for further details. The
purpose of the meeting will be for the EFAB to provide updates on the

Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund charge and previous EFAB deliverables,
consider possible future advisory topics, and receive updates on EPA
activities. The meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format of in-
person and virtual via webcast.

DATES: The meeting will be held:
    1. January 24, 2023, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Eastern Time;
    2. January 25, 2023, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Eastern Time; and
    3. January 26, 2023, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. Eastern Time.

ADDRESSES:
    In-Person: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, William Jefferson
Clinton East Building, 1201 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC
20004.
    Webcast: Information to access the webcast will be provided upon
registration in advance of the meeting.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any member of the public who wants
information about the meeting may contact Tara Johnson via telephone/
voicemail at<PHONE_NUMBER> or email to [email protected]. General
information concerning the EFAB is available at www.epa.gov/waterfinancecenter/efab.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Background: The EFAB is an EPA advisory committee chartered under
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2, to provide
advice and recommendations to EPA on innovative approaches to funding
environmental programs, projects, and activities. Administrative
support for the EFAB is provided by the Water Infrastructure and
Resiliency Finance Center within EPA's Office of Water. Pursuant to
FACA and EPA policy, notice is hereby given that the EFAB will hold a
public meeting with a webcast for the following purposes:
    (1) Provide updates on the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund charge and
other recent EFAB deliverables;
    (2) Discuss potential future EFAB charges; and
    (3) Receive briefings on environmental finance topics from invited
speakers from EPA.
    Registration for the Meeting: To register for the meeting, please
visit www.epa.gov/waterfinancecenter/efab#meeting. Interested persons
who wish to attend the meeting must register by January 10, 2023, to
attend in person or by January 17, 2023, to attend via webcast. Pre-
registration is strongly encouraged. In person attendees should review
EPA's Visitor Guidance at https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/visiting-epa-building-access in advance of the meeting. In the event the in-person
component of the meeting cannot be held due to relevant pandemic
protocols, the meeting will be conducted fully via webcast.
    Availability of Meeting Materials: Meeting materials, including the
meeting agenda and briefing materials, will be available on EPA's
website at www.epa.gov/waterfinancecenter/efab.
    Procedures for Providing Public Input: Public comment for
consideration by EPA's federal advisory committees has a different
purpose from public comment provided to EPA program offices. Therefore,
the process for submitting comments to a federal advisory committee is
different from the process used to submit comments to an EPA program
office. Federal advisory committees provide independent advice to EPA.
Members of the public may submit comments on matters being considered
by the EFAB for consideration as the Board develops its advice and
recommendations to EPA.
    Oral Statements: In general, individuals or groups requesting an
oral presentation at a public meeting will be limited to three minutes
each. Persons interested in providing oral statements at the January
2023 meeting should register in advance and provide notification, as
noted in the registration confirmation, by January 10, 2023, to be
placed on the list of registered speakers.
    Written Statements: Written statements should be received by
January 17, 2023, so that the information can be made available to the
EFAB for its consideration prior to the meeting. Written statements
should be sent via email to [email protected]. Members of the public should
be aware that their personal contact information, if included in any
written comments, may be posted to the EFAB website. Copyrighted
material will not be posted without explicit permission of the
copyright holder.
    Accessibility: For information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities or to request accommodations for a
disability, please register for the meeting and list any special
requirements or accommodations needed on the registration form at least
10 business days prior to the meeting to allow as much time as possible
to process your request.

Andrew D. Sawyers,
Director, Office of Wastewater Management, Office of Water.
[FR Doc. 2022-27699 Filed 12-20-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P