 July                                                         VPP Stakeholder Meeting     Day-After Report

On July 17, 2017 in the DOL Frances Perkins Building Great Hall, Directorate of Cooperative and State Programs (DCSP) hosted a successful Stakeholder meeting on the recalibration of OSHA's Voluntary Protection Programs (VPP).  Prior to the event there were a more than a half-a-dozen write-ups from industry press highlighting interest in the Stakeholder meeting. These included Safety and Health Magazine, Safety Law Matters, and Industrial Safety and Hygiene News. A total of 145 attendees preregistered and 125 people attended.
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary Thomas Galassi welcomed the attendees, including members of the Voluntary Protection Programs Participant Association (VPPPA) Board, and recognized VPP's 35-year anniversary along with the newly framed VPP STAR Flag. This flag was flown on Space Shuttle STS 93 in July of 1999.
A diverse group of attendees actively shared with OSHA ideas to help OSHA reshape VPP so that it continues to represent safety and health excellence, leverages partner resources, further recognizes the successes of long-term participants, and supports smart program growth.
Some common themes included comments relating to areas already being discussed by OSHA. These include reshaping processes or policies relating to:
   * Long-term participants with mature safety and health management systems who are committed to the VPP safety culture;
   * Increasing participation in the VPP Corporate Option;
   * The use of Special Government Employees (SGEs) and their expertise to supplement safety and health efforts and to help reduce the burden on OSHA staff.

Additional recommendations included procedural changes for greater efficiency and to take advantage of existing structures:
   * Improving communication and better publicizing of VPP (both inside and outside DOL)
         o One attendee shared an elevator discussion with a DOL (ETA) staff member on the way to lunch.  The DOL staffer replied:  "What's VPP?"
         o From just the publicity around the Stakeholder meeting, DCSP received inquiries from companies requesting information on how to participate in VPP.
   * Shorten the time for New Approvals and Reapprovals
         o Alter/Simplify the Reapproval form/process
   * Increasing OSHA's use of technology to work smarter
         o Using technology to automate annual self-evaluation reports for sites and financial disclosure reports for SGEs.

Stakeholders also indicated that improvements to VPP should not come at the expense of enforcement.
DCSP is still pulling together detailed information from the transcript and planning has already begun for the follow-up stakeholder event that will take place immediately prior to the VPPPA National Conference the week of August 28, 2017 in New Orleans, Louisiana.


[Federal Register: November 6, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 214)]
[Notices]
[Page 57464-57466]
[DOCID:fr06no09-45]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0041; FRL-8975-7]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; RadNet (Previously Known as ERAMS); EPA ICR No.
0877.10, OMB Control No. 2060-0015

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that EPA is planning to
submit a request to renew an existing approved Information Collection
Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This ICR is
scheduled to expire on May 31, 2010. Before submitting the ICR to OMB
for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects
of the proposed information collection as described below.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before January 5, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2003-0041, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: EPA Docket Center, Air and Radiation Docket, Mail
Code 2822, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2003-0041. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/
epahome/dockets.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles M. Petko, Office of Radiation
and Indoor Air (ORIA), National Air and Radiation Environmental
(NAREL), 540 South Morris Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36115-2601. TEL:
334-270-3411; FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>; E-MAIL<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

How Can I Access the Docket and/or Submit Comments?

    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0041, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Office of Air
and Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading
Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Office of Air
and Radiation Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use http://www.regulations.gov to obtain a copy of the draft
collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once
in the system, select ``search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified in this document.

What Information Is EPA Particularly Interested in?

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically
solicits comments and information to enable it to:
    (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden
of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
to be collected; and
    (iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from
very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

What Should I Consider When I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific
examples.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used
that support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at the estimate that you provide.
    5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
    6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified
under DATES.
    7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket
ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page
of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal
Register citation.

What Information Collection Activity or ICR Does This Apply to?

    Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are
sample collectors.
    Title: RadNet.
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 0877.10, OMB Control No. 2060-0015.
    ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on May 31,
2010. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal
Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed
either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate
means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if
applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA
regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: RadNet is a national network of stations collecting
sampling media that include air, precipitation, drinking water, and
milk. Samples are sent to EPA National Air and Radiation Environmental
Laboratory (NAREL) in Montgomery, Alabama, where they are analyzed for
radioactivity. RadNet provides emergency response/homeland security and
ambient monitoring information on levels of environmental radiation
across the nation. All stations, usually operated by state and local
personnel, participate in RadNet voluntarily. Station operators
complete information forms that accompany the samples. The forms
request descriptive information pertaining to sample location, e.g.,
sample type, sample location, length of sampling period, and volume
represented.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1.3
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate,
which is only briefly summarized here:
    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 249.
    Frequency of response: from twice weekly to four times annually,
depending upon type of medium being sampled.
    Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent:
34.
    Estimated total annual burden hours: 8363 hours.
    Estimated total annual costs: $254,890. This cost refers to
respondent burden. The costs of capital investment, maintenance and
operational costs are assumed by the Agency.

Are There Changes in the Estimates From the Last Approval?

    There will be an increase in the total estimated respondent burden
compared with that identified in the ICR currently approved by OMB.
This increase reflects EPA's decision to upgrade and expand the air
monitoring network of RadNet. Over the years covered by this ICR
renewal the air network will expand from existing 64 monitors to

approximately 130 monitors, which will result in the addition of 66
respondents.

What Is the Next Step in the Process for This ICR?

    EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will
issue another Federal Register notice pursuant to 5 CFR
1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the
opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any
questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Dated: October 5, 2009.
Ronald Fraass,
Director, National Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory (NAREL).
[FR Doc. E9-26836 Filed 11-5-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 20, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44010-44013]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19968]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81616; File Nos. SR-CHX-2017-11; SR-FINRA-2017-020]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed
Rule Changes, as Modified by Amendments, To Adopt a Consolidated Audit
Trail Fee Dispute Resolution Process

September 14, 2017.

I. Introduction

    On June 5, 2017 \1\ and June 19, 2017,\2\ Chicago Stock Exchange,
Inc. (``CHX'') and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') (each, ``SRO'' or ``Participant;'' collectively, the
``Participants'') \3\ filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \4\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\5\
proposed rule changes to establish the procedures for resolving
potential disputes related to CAT Fees charged to Industry Members.\6\
The proposed rule change submitted by CHX was published for comment in
the Federal Register on June 19, 2017.\7\ The proposed rule change
submitted by FINRA was published for comment in the Federal Register on
July 6, 2017.\8\ Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\9\ the
Commission designated a longer period within which to approve,
disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to approve or
disapprove the proposed rule changes.\10\ The Commission received no
comments in response to the proposed rule changes. On September 6,
2017, CHX filed Amendment No. 1 to its proposed rule change,\11\ and on
September 13, 2017, FINRA filed Amendment No. 2 to its proposed rule
change.\12\ This order approves the proposed rule changes, as modified
by the Amendments.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. filed its proposed rule change
on June 5, 2017.
    \2\ Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. filed its
proposed rule change on June 19, 2017.
    \3\ The Commission notes that Bats BYX Exchange, Inc. (``Bats
BYX''), Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. (``Bats BZX''), Bats EDGA Exchange,
Inc. (``Bats EDGA''), Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``Bats EDGX''), BOX
Options Exchange LLC (``BOX''), C2 Options Exchange, Inc., Chicago
Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE''), Investors Exchange
LLC (``IEX''), Nasdaq ISE, LLC (``ISE''), Nasdaq MRX, LLC (``MRX''),
Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC (``MIAX''), MIAX PEARL,
LLC, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq''), NASDAQ BX, Inc.
(``BX''), Nasdaq GEMX, LLC (``GEMX''), NASDAQ PHLX LLC (``Phlx''),
New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''), NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE
Arca''), NYSE MKT LLC (``NYSE MKT'') and NYSE National, Inc. are
also deemed ``Participants'' for purposes of this Order as they,
like CHX and FINRA, are also Participants of the National Market
System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail (``CAT NMS Plan''
or ``Plan''). See infra note 17. The Commission also notes that CHX
refers to Participants of the Plan as ``Plan Participants'' in its
proposal.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \6\ Bats BYX, Bats BZX, Bats EDGA, Bats EDGX, BOX, CBOE, IEX,
ISE, MRX, MIAX, Nasdaq, BX, GEMX, Phlx, NYSE, NYSE Arca and NYSE MKT
also submitted proposed rule changes to establish procedures for
resolving potential disputes related to CAT Fees charged to Industry
Members. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 80780 (May 26,
2017), 82 FR 25382 (June 1, 2017); 80781 (May 26, 2017), 82 FR 25369
(June 1, 2017); 80782 (May 26, 2017), 82 FR 25379 (June 1, 2017);
80837 (June 1, 2017), 82 FR 26526 (June 7, 2017); 80836 (June 1,
2017), 82 FR 26539 (June 7, 2017); 80834 (June 1, 2017), 82 FR 26542
(June 7, 2017); 80835 (June 1, 2017), 82 FR 26549 (June 7, 2017);
80833 (June 1, 2017), 82 FR 26529 (June 7, 2017); 80831 (June 1,
2017), 82 FR 26536 (June 7, 2017); 80832 (June 1, 2017), 82 FR 26523
(June 7, 2017); 80936 (June 15, 2017), 82 FR 28153 (June 20, 2017);
80952 (June 16, 2017), 82 FR 28540 (June 22, 2017); 80967 (June 19,
2017), 82 FR 28719 (June 23, 2017); 80968 (June 19, 2017), 82 FR
28705 (June 23, 2017); 80970 (June 19, 2017), 82 FR 28708 (June 23,
2017); 80971 (June 19, 2017), 82 FR 28698 (June 23, 2017); and 80966
(June 19, 2017), 82 FR 28702 (June 23, 2017).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80916 (June 13,
2017), 82 FR 27904 (``Notice'').
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81053 (June 29,
2017), 82 FR 31366.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81163 (July 18,
2017), 82 FR 34343 (July 24, 2017); 81275 (August 1, 2017), 82 FR
36836 (August 7, 2017). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No.
81110 (July 10, 2017), 82 FR 32598 (July 14, 2017); 81112 (July 10,
2017), 82 FR 32592 (July 14, 2017); 81113 (July 10, 2017), 82 FR
32596 (July 14, 2017); 81156 (July 18, 2017), 82 FR 34337 (July 24,
2017); 81157 (July 18, 2017), 82 FR 34338 (July 24, 2017); 81158
(July 18, 2017), 82 FR 34339 (July 24, 2017); 81159 (July 18, 2017),
82 FR 34338 (July 24, 2017); 81161 (July 18, 2017), 82 FR 34337
(July 24, 2017); 81162 (July 18, 2017), 82 FR 34336 (July 24, 2017);
81164 (July 18, 2017), 82 FR 34346 (July 24, 2017); 81165 (July 18,
2017), 82 FR 34345 (July 24, 2017); 81166 (July 18, 2017), 82 FR
34345 (July 24, 2017); 81167 (July 18, 2017), 82 FR 34337 (July 24,
2017); 81178 (July 20, 2017), 82 FR 34715 (July 26, 2017); 81179
(July 20, 2017), 82 FR 34716 (July 26, 2017); 81180 (July 20, 2017),
82 FR 34728 (July 26, 2017); and 81181 (July 20, 2017), 82 FR 34727
(July 26, 2017).
    \11\ Amendment No. 1 is available on the Commission's Web site
for CHX at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-chx-2017-11/chx201711-2433023-161039.pdf.
    \12\ Amendment No. 2 replaced and superseded Amendment No. 1 in
its entirety. Amendment No. 2 is available on the Commission's Web
site for FINRA at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-finra-2017-020/finra2017020-2442749-161061.pdf.
    \13\ The Amendments amended the original filings to make
technical changes to the proposed rule changes. Specifically, each
Participant amended the proposed rule text to remove references to
proposed ``Consolidated Audit Trail Funding Fees,'' as such fees are
currently suspended, and replaced such term with the phrase ``any
fees contemplated by the CAT NMS Plan and imposed on Industry
Members pursuant to [SRO] Rules.'' See infra note 18. Each
Participant also removed references to ``Consolidated Audit Trail
Funding Fees'' from paragraphs (a)(1), (b) and (c)(1) of the
proposed rule text. The Amendments are not subject to notice and
comment because they are technical amendments that do not materially
alter the substance of the proposed rule changes or raise any novel
regulatory issues. The Commission notes that on August 30, 2017, the
Commission approved the proposed rule changes filed by the other
Participants to the CAT NMS Plan to establish procedures for
resolving potential disputes related to CAT Fees charged to Industry
Members, as modified by such amendments. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 81500 (August 30, 2017), 82 FR 42143 (September 6, 2017)
(order approving proposed rule changes by Bats BYX, Bats BZX, Bats
EDGA, Bats EDGX, BOX, CBOE, IEX, ISE, MRX, MIAX, Nasdaq, BX, GEMX,
Phlx, NYSE, NYSE Arca and NYSE MKT to adopt a Consolidated Audit
Trail Fee Dispute Resolution Process), at 42144 n.19. See also supra
note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Changes, as Modified by the
Amendments \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The Commission notes that for purposes of this Order,
unless otherwise specified, capitalized terms used in this Order are
defined as set forth in the proposals, as modified by the
Amendments, or in the CAT NMS Plan. See supra notes 11-12; see also
infra note 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Participants filed with the Commission, pursuant to Section 11A
of the Act \15\ and Rule 608 of Regulation

NMS thereunder,\16\ the CAT NMS Plan.\17\ The Plan is designed to
create, implement and maintain a consolidated audit trail (``CAT'')
that would capture customer and order event information for orders in
NMS Securities and OTC Equity Securities, across all markets, from the
time of order inception through routing, cancellation, modification, or
execution in a single consolidated data source. The Plan accomplishes
this by creating CAT NMS, LLC (``Company''), of which each Participant
is a member, to operate the CAT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \16\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \17\ See Letter from the Participants to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Commission, dated September 30, 2014; and Letter from
Participants to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated
February 27, 2015. On December 24, 2015, the Participants submitted
an amendment to the CAT NMS Plan. See Letter from Participants to
Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated December 23, 2015. The
Plan was published for comment in the Federal Register on May 17,
2016, and approved by the Commission, as modified, on November 15,
2016. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 77724 (April 27,
2016), 81 FR 30614 (May 17, 2016); 79318 (November 15, 2016), 81 FR
84696 (November 23, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the CAT NMS Plan, the Operating Committee of the Company
(``Operating Committee'') has the discretion to establish funding for
the Company to operate the CAT, including establishing fees that the
Participants and Industry Members will pay (``CAT Fees'').\18\ Section
11.5 of the CAT NMS Plan requires the Participants to adopt rules
requiring that disputes with respect to fees charged to Industry
Members pursuant to the CAT NMS Plan be determined by the Operating
Committee or a designated Subcommittee. Section 11.5 of the CAT NMS
Plan also states that decisions by the Operating Committee or a
designated Subcommittee on such matters shall be binding on Industry
Members, without prejudice to the right of any Industry Member to seek
redress from the Commission pursuant to Rule 608 \19\ or in any other
appropriate forum. The Participants filed the proposed rule changes to
establish the procedures for resolving potential disputes related to
CAT Fees charged to Industry Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Section 11.1(b) of the CAT NMS Plan. The Commission notes
that the Participants filed proposed rule changes to adopt fees to
be charged to Industry Members, including Industry Members that are
Execution Venues. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 80691
(May 16, 2017), 82 FR 23344 (May 22, 2017); 80710 (May 17, 2017), 82
FR 23639 (May 23, 2017). See also Securities Exchange Act Release
Nos. 80675 (May 15, 2017), 82 FR 23100 (May 19, 2017); 80697 (May
16, 2017), 82 FR 23398 (May 22, 2017); 80692 (May 16, 2017), 82 FR
23325 (May 22, 2017); 80696 (May 16, 2017), 82 FR 23439 (May 22,
2017); 80693 (May 16, 2017), 82 FR 23363 (May 22, 2017) 80698 (May
16, 2017), 82 FR 23457 (May 22, 2017); 80694 (May 16, 2017), 82 FR
23416 (May 22, 2017); 80721 (May 18, 2017), 82 FR 23864 (May 24,
2017); 80713 (May 18, 2017), 82 FR 23956 (May 24, 2017); 80715 (May
18, 2017), 82 FR 23895 (May 24, 2017); 80726 (May 18, 2017), 82 FR
23915 (May 24, 2017); 80725 (May 18, 2017), 82 FR 23935 (May 24,
2017); 80785 (May 26, 2017), 82 FR 25404 (June 1, 2017); 80784 (May
26, 2017), 82 FR 25448 (June 1, 2017); 80809 (May 30, 2017), 82 FR
25837 (June 5, 2017); 80822 (May 31, 2017), 82 FR 26148 (June 6,
2017); and 80821 (May 31, 2017), 82 FR 26177 (June 6, 2017). On June
30, 2017, the Commission temporarily suspended the proposed rule
changes and instituted proceedings to determine whether to approve
or disapprove the proposed rule changes. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 81067, 82 FR 31656 (July 7, 2017).
    \19\ 17 CFR 242.608.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fee Dispute Resolution

    The proposals state that disputes initiated by an Industry Member
with respect to CAT Fees charged to such Industry Member, including
disputes related to the designated tier and the fee calculated pursuant
to such tier, shall be resolved by the Operating Committee, or a
Subcommittee designated by the Operating Committee, pursuant to the Fee
Dispute Resolution Procedures adopted by the Operating Committee
pursuant to the CAT NMS Plan.\20\ The proposals further indicate that
decisions on such matters shall be binding on Industry Members, without
prejudice to the rights of any such Industry Member to seek redress
from the Commission or in any other appropriate forum.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See, e.g., Notice, supra note 7, at 27905. The Participants
also represent that the Fee Dispute Resolution Procedures were
modeled after the adverse action procedures adopted by various
exchanges and that such Procedures will be posted on the CAT NMS
Plan Web site (www.catnmsplan.com). See, e.g., id.
    \21\ See, e.g., id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Fee Dispute Resolution Procedures, an Industry Member
that disputes CAT Fees charged to such Industry Member and that desires
to have an opportunity to be heard with respect to such disputed CAT
Fees must file a written application with the Company within 15
business days after being notified of such disputed CAT Fees.\22\ The
application must identify the disputed CAT Fees, state the specific
reasons why the applicant takes exception to such CAT Fees, and set
forth the relief sought.\23\ In addition, if the applicant intends to
submit any additional documents, statements, arguments or other
material in support of the application, the same should be so stated
and identified under the Fee Dispute Resolution Procedures.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See, e.g., id.
    \23\ See, e.g., id.
    \24\ See, e.g., id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Participants state that the Company will refer applications for
hearing and review promptly to the Fee Review Subcommittee designated
by the Operating Committee with responsibility for conducting the
reviews of CAT Fee disputes pursuant to these Fee Dispute Resolution
Procedures.\25\ The proposals note that the Fee Review Subcommittee
will keep a record of the proceedings.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See, e.g., id. The Participants further indicate that the
members of the Fee Review Subcommittee will be subject to the
provisions of Section 4.3(d) of the CAT NMS Plan regarding recusal
and Conflicts of Interest. See, e.g., id.
    \26\ See, e.g., id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposals further specify that the Fee Review Subcommittee will
hold hearings promptly and will set a hearing date.\27\ Under the
proposed rule changes, the parties to the hearing shall furnish the Fee
Review Subcommittee with all materials relevant to the proceedings at
least 72 hours prior to the hearing, and each party will have the right
to inspect and copy the other party's materials prior to the
hearing.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See, e.g., id.
    \28\ See, e.g., id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Participants state that the parties to the hearing will consist
of the applicant and a representative of the Company who shall present
the reasons for the action taken by the Company that allegedly
aggrieved the applicant.\29\ The applicant is entitled to be
accompanied, represented and advised by counsel at all stages of the
proceedings under the proposed rule changes.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See, e.g., id.
    \30\ See, e.g., id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposals further indicate that the Fee Review Subcommittee
will determine all questions concerning the admissibility of evidence
and will otherwise regulate the conduct of the hearing.\31\ Each of the
parties will be permitted, under the proposed rule changes, to make an
opening statement, present witnesses and documentary evidence, cross
examine opposing witnesses and present closing arguments orally or in
writing as determined by the Fee Review Subcommittee.\32\ In addition,
the Fee Review Subcommittee will have the right to question all parties
and witnesses to the proceeding.\33\ The proposals require the Fee
Review Subcommittee to keep a record of the hearing, to set forth its
decision in writing, and to send the written decision to the parties to
the proceeding.\34\ Such decisions must contain the reasons supporting
the conclusions of the Fee Review

Subcommittee under the proposed rule changes.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See, e.g., id. The proposed rule changes note, however,
that the formal rules of evidence will not apply.
    \32\ See, e.g., id.
    \33\ See, e.g., id.
    \34\ See, e.g., id.
    \35\ See, e.g., id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Participants state that the decision of the Fee Review
Subcommittee will be subject to review by the Operating Committee
either on its own motion within 20 business days after issuance of the
decision or upon written request submitted by the applicant within 15
business days after issuance of the decision.\36\ The applicant's
petition for review must be in writing and must specify the findings
and conclusions to which the applicant objects, together with the
reasons for such objections.\37\ According to the proposed rule
changes, any objection to a decision not specified in writing will be
considered to have been abandoned and may be disregarded.\38\ The
proposed rule changes allow parties to petition to submit a written
argument to the Operating Committee and to request an opportunity to
make an oral argument before the Operating Committee.\39\ The Operating
Committee will then have sole discretion to grant or deny either
request.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See, e.g., id. at 27905-27906.
    \37\ See, e.g., id. at 27906.
    \38\ See, e.g., id.
    \39\ See, e.g., id.
    \40\ See, e.g., id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposed rule changes, any review conducted by the
Operating Committee will be made upon the record and will be made after
such further proceedings, if any, as the Operating Committee may
order.\41\ Based upon such record, the Operating Committee may affirm,
reverse or modify, in whole or in part, the decision of the Fee Review
Subcommittee.\42\ The Participants state that the decision of the
Operating Committee will be in writing, will be sent to the parties to
the proceeding, and will be final.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See, e.g., id.
    \42\ See, e.g., id.
    \43\ See, e.g., id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A final decision regarding the disputed CAT Fees by the Operating
Committee, or the Fee Review Subcommittee (if there is no review by the
Operating Committee), must be provided within 90 days of the date on
which the Industry Member filed a written application regarding
disputed CAT Fees with the Company.\44\ The proposed rule changes
indicate, however, that the Operating Committee may extend the 90-day
time limit at its discretion.\45\ The Fee Dispute Resolution Procedures
also state that any time limits for the submission of answers,
petitions or other materials may be extended by permission of the
Operating Committee.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See, e.g., id.
    \45\ See, e.g., id.
    \46\ See, e.g., id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Participants state that an Industry Member that files
a written application with the Company disputing CAT Fees in accordance
with the Fee Dispute Resolution Procedures is not required to pay such
CAT Fees until the dispute is resolved in accordance with the
Procedures, including any review by the Commission or in any other
appropriate forum.\47\ The Participants state that, if it is determined
that the Industry Member owes any of the disputed CAT Fees, then the
Industry Member must pay such disputed CAT Fees that are owed as well
as interest on such disputed CAT Fees from the original due date until
such disputed CAT Fees are paid at a per annum rate equal to the lesser
of (i) the Prime Rate plus 300 basis points, or (ii) the maximum rate
permitted by applicable law.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See, e.g., id. The Participants clarify that the Industry
Member may only withhold any invoiced CAT Fees that the Industry
Member has disputed; under the proposed rule changes, the Industry
Member must pay any invoiced CAT Fees that are not disputed when
such fees are due, as set forth in the invoice. See, e.g., id.
    \48\ See, e.g., id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After carefully considering the proposed rule changes, the
Commission finds that the proposals, as modified by the Amendments, are
consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to national securities exchanges and
national securities associations.\49\ Specifically, the Commission
finds that the proposed rule changes are consistent with Section
6(b)(5) \50\ and Section 15A(b)(6) \51\ of the Act, which require,
among other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange or
national securities association be designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest, and are not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers or dealers. In addition, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule changes are consistent with Section 6(b)(8) \52\ and Section
15A(b)(9) \53\ of the Act, which require that the rules of a national
securities exchange or national securities association not impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ In approving these proposed rule changes, the Commission
has considered the proposed rules' impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). The
Commission notes that on August 30, 2017, the Commission approved
the proposed rule changes filed by the other Participants to the CAT
NMS Plan to establish procedures for resolving potential disputes
related to CAT Fees charged to Industry Members, as modified by such
amendments. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81500 (August
30, 2017), 82 FR 42143 (September 6, 2017).
    \50\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \51\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
    \52\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \53\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposals are consistent with
Section 6(b) \54\ and Section 15A(b) \55\ of the Act in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \56\ and Section 15A(b)(6)
\57\ of the Act in particular, because they are designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest,
by providing a uniform mechanism by which Industry Members may dispute
CAT Fees and receive a timely review of such disputes. The Commission
notes that the Fee Dispute Resolution Procedures provide for a hearing
before the Fee Review Subcommittee, and if the Industry Member is not
satisfied with the decision of the Fee Review Subcommittee, it may
request a review of the decision by the Operating Committee. Further,
the proposals provide that, although the decisions of the Operating
Committee or Fee Review Subcommittee are binding on an Industry Member,
the Industry Member may seek redress from the Commission or in any
other appropriate forum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \55\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b).
    \56\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \57\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also notes that the proposals implement Section 11.5
of the CAT NMS Plan.\58\ Specifically, Section 11.5 states that the
Participants will adopt rules requiring that disputes with respect to
fees charged to Industry Members pursuant to Article XI of the CAT NMS
Plan be determined by the Operating Committee or a designated
Subcommittee. Section 11.5 further provides that such fee disputes will
be determined by the Operating Committee or a designated Subcommittee,
and that decisions on such matters will be binding on Industry Members
without prejudice to the rights of any Industry Member to seek redress
from the

Commission pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS or in any other
appropriate forum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ The Commission previously approved the CAT NMS Plan. See
supra note 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that the proposed rule changes (SR-CHX-2017-11; SR-FINRA-2017-020), as
modified by the Amendments, are approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\59\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-19968 Filed 9-19-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 151 (Tuesday, August 6, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38275-38276]
[FR Doc No: 2019-16790]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4449-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2019-0001]

Kansas; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Kansas (FEMA-4449-DR), dated June 20, 2019, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued July 25, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident
period for this disaster is closed effective July 12, 2019.
    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Pete Gaynor,
Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2019-16790 Filed 8-5-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 239 (Wednesday, December 14, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76473-76474]
[FR Doc No: 2022-27127]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 Notice of Waiver Period for Water Quality Certification
Application

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Project
                                                                  No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eagle Creek Hydro Power, LLC................................    9690-115
Eagle Creek Water Resources, LLC............................
Eagle Creek Land Resources, LLC.............................
Eagle Creek Hydro Power, LLC................................   10481-069
Eagle Creek Water Resources, LLC............................
Eagle Creek Land Resources, LLC.............................
Eagle Creek Hydro Power, LLC................................   10482-122
Eagle Creek Water Resources, LLC............................
Eagle Creek Land Resources, LLC.............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 30, 2022, Eagle Creek Hydro Power, LLC, Eagle Creek
Water Resources, LLC, and Eagle Creek Land Resources, LLC (co-
licensees) submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission a copy
of their application for a Clean Water Act section 401(a)(1) water
quality certification filed with the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (New York DEC), in conjunction with the
above captioned projects. Pursuant to 40 CFR 121.6 and section 5.23(b)
of the Commission's regulations,\1\ we hereby notify the New York State
Department

of Environmental Conservation (DEC) of the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 5.23(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Date of Receipt of the Certification Request: November 30, 2022.
    Reasonable Period of Time to Act on the Certification Request: One
year (November 30, 2023).
    If the New York DEC fails or refuses to act on the water quality
certification request on or before the above date, then the agency
certifying authority is deemed waived pursuant to section 401(a)(1) of
the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1).

    Dated: December 8, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-27127 Filed 12-13-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 119 (Friday, June 19, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37123-37129]
[FR Doc No: 2020-13201]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-89065; File No. SR-NYSENAT-2020-05]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE National, Inc.; Request for
Information and Additional Comment on a Proposed Rule Change To
Establish Fees for the NYSE National Integrated Feed

June 12, 2020.

I. Introduction

    On February 3, 2020, NYSE National, Inc. (``NYSE National'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to establish fees for the NYSE National Integrated
Feed. The proposed rule change was immediately effective upon filing
with the Commission pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act.\3\ The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on February 20, 2020.\4\ On April 1, 2020, the Division of Trading and
Markets, for the Commission pursuant to delegated authority,
temporarily suspended the proposed rule change and instituted
proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed
rule change.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88211 (February 14,
2020), 85 FR 9847 (``Notice''). Comments received on the Notice are
available on the Commission's website at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysenat-2020-05/srnysenat202005.htm. The Commission
notes that, on December 4, 2019, NYSE National filed a proposed rule
change to establish fees for the NYSE National Integrated Feed that
are identical to the fees proposed in this filing. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 87797 (December 18, 2019), 84 FR 71025
(December 26, 2019) (SR-NYSENAT-2019-31). Comments received on SR-
NYSENAT-2019-31 are available on the Commission's website at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysenat-2019-31/srnysenat201931.htm. On
January 31, 2020, the Commission temporarily suspended SR-NYSENAT-
2019-31 and instituted proceedings to determine whether to approve
or disapprove that proposed rule change. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 88109, 85 FR 6982 (February 6, 2020) (``SR-NYSENAT-2019-
31 OIP''). On February 3, 2020, NYSE National withdrew SR-NYSENAT-
2019-31. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88118 (February 4,
2020), 85 FR 7611 (February 10, 2020).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88538, 85 FR 19541
(April 7, 2020) (``Suspension Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal and Comment Letters

    NYSE National proposes to establish fees for the NYSE National
Integrated Feed.\6\ According to NYSE National, the NYSE National
Integrated Feed is a NYSE National-only market data feed that provides
vendors and subscribers on a real-time basis with a unified view of
events, in sequence, as they appear on the NYSE National matching
engine.\7\ The NYSE National Integrated Feed includes depth-of-book
order data, last sale data, security status updates (e.g., trade
corrections and trading halts), and stock summary messages.\8\ It also
includes information about NYSE

National's best bid or offer at any given time.\9\ NYSE National
proposes the following fees for the NYSE National Integrated Feed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The fees became effective on February 3, 2020. Prior to
February 3, 2020, NYSE National did not charge any fees for the NYSE
National Integrated Feed. See Notice, supra note 4, at 9847.
    \7\ See id.
    \8\ See id.
    \9\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     $2,500 per month access fee, which would be charged (once
per firm) to any data recipient that receives a data feed of the NYSE
National Integrated Feed; \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Data recipients that only use display devices to view NYSE
National Integrated Feed data and do not separately receive a data
feed would not be charged an access fee. See id. at 9848.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     $1,500 per month redistribution fee, which would be
charged (once per redistributor account) to any redistributor \11\ of
the NYSE National Integrated Feed;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ A redistributor would be a vendor or person that provides a
real-time NYSE National market data product externally to a data
recipient that is not its affiliate or wholly-owned subsidiary, or
to any system that an external data recipient uses, irrespective of
the means of transmission or access. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     $10 per month professional per user fee and $1 per month
non-professional per user fee, which would apply to each display device
that has access to the NYSE National Integrated Feed; \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Non-display use \13\ fees:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Non-display use would mean accessing, processing, or
consuming the NYSE National Integrated Feed, delivered directly or
through a redistributor, for a purpose other than in support of a
data recipient's display or further internal or external
redistribution. See id. As proposed, non-display use would include
trading uses such as high frequency or algorithmic trading, as well
as any trading in any asset class, automated order or quote
generation and order pegging, price referencing for algorithmic
trading or smart order routing, operations controls programs,
investment analysis, order verification, surveillance programs, risk
management, compliance, and portfolio management. See id. One, two,
or three categories of non-display use may apply to a data
recipient. See id. Moreover, data recipients that receive the NYSE
National Integrated Feed for non-display use would be required to
complete and submit a non-display use declaration before they would
be authorized to receive the feed. See id. at 9849. In addition, if
a data recipient's use of the NYSE National Integrated Feed data
changes at any time after the data recipient submits a non-display
use declaration, the data recipient must inform NYSE National of the
change by completing and submitting an updated declaration
reflecting the change of use at the time of the change. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [cir] $5,000 per month category 1 non-display fee, which would
apply when a data recipient's non-display use of real-time market data
is on its own behalf;
    [cir] $5,000 per month category 2 non-display fee, which would
apply when a data recipient's non-display use of real-time market data
is on behalf of its clients;
    [cir] $5,000 per platform per month category 3 non-display fee
(capped at $15,000), which would apply when a data recipient's non-
display use of real-time market data is for the purpose of internally
matching buy and sell orders within an organization, including matching
customer orders on a data recipient's own behalf and on behalf of its
clients; \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ According to NYSE National, category 3 non-display fees
would apply to non-display use in trading platforms, such as, but
not limited to, alternative trading systems (``ATSs''), broker
crossing networks, broker crossing systems not filed as ATSs, dark
pools, multilateral trading facilities, exchanges, and systematic
internalization systems. See id. at 9848-49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     $1,000 per month non-display use declaration late fee,
which would apply to any data recipient that is paying an access fee
for the NYSE National Integrated Feed and that fails to complete and
submit the annual non-display use declaration by December 31 of the
year, and would apply beginning January 1 and for each month thereafter
until the data recipient has completed and submitted the annual non-
display use declaration; \15\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See id. at 9849.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     $200 per month multiple data feed fee, which would apply
to any data recipient that takes a data feed for a market data product
in more than two locations, and would apply to each location, beyond
the first two locations, where the data recipient receives a data
feed.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The access fees, professional user fees, and non-display fees would
not apply to Federal agencies \17\ that subscribe to the products
listed on the proposed fee schedule that includes such fees.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The term ``Federal agencies'' as used in the proposed fee
schedule would include all Federal agencies subject to the Federal
Acquisition Regulation (``FAR''), as well as any Federal agency not
subject to FAR that has promulgated its own procurement rules. See
id. All Federal agencies that subscribe to the NYSE National real-
time proprietary market data products would continue to be required
to execute the appropriate subscriber agreement, which includes,
among other things, provisions against the redistribution of data.
See id.
    \18\ The proposed fee schedule lists NYSE National BBO, NYSE
National Trades, and NYSE National Integrated Feed, and specifies
that there would be no fees for NYSE National BBO and NYSE National
Trades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, first-time subscribers \19\ would be eligible for a free
trial by contacting NYSE National and would not be charged the access
fee, the non-display fee, any applicable professional and non-
professional user fee, and the redistribution fee for one calendar
month for each of the products listed on the proposed fee schedule.\20\
The free trial would be for the first full calendar month following the
date a subscriber is approved to receive trial access to NYSE National
market data.\21\ As proposed, NYSE National would provide the one-month
free trial for a particular product to each subscriber only once.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ A first-time subscriber would be any firm that has not
previously subscribed to a particular product listed on the proposed
fee schedule. See Notice, supra note 4, at 9849.
    \20\ See id.
    \21\ See id. at 9849-50.
    \22\ See id. at 9850.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its proposal, NYSE National makes multiple arguments in support
of the proposed fees. With respect to whether the proposed fees are
reasonable, NYSE National states that exchanges in general function as
platforms between consumers of market data and consumers of trading
services, and that overall competition between exchanges will limit
their overall profitability.\23\ In connection with these arguments,
NYSE National asserts that the introduction of the NYSE Integrated Feed
in 2015 attracted more trading to NYSE by both subscribers and non-
subscribers to the NYSE Integrated Feed,\24\ and concludes that overall
competition between exchanges will limit their overall profitability
(not margins on any particular side of the platform).\25\ According to
NYSE National, exchanges are platforms for market data and transaction
services and competition for order flow on the trading side of the
platform acts to constrain the pricing of market data on the other side
of the platform.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See id. at 9852.
    \24\ See id. NYSE National provides a report by Marc Rysman to
support these arguments. See Marc Rysman, Stock Exchanges as
Platforms for Data and Trading (December 2, 2019) (``Rysman
Paper''), available at https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/nysenat/2020/34-88211-ex3b.pdf. NYSE National also states that, since May 2018,
when NYSE National relaunched trading, it has observed a direct
correlation between the steady increase of subscribers to the NYSE
National Integrated Feed and the increase in NYSE National's
transaction market share volume over the same period. See Notice,
supra note 4, at 9850. NYSE National states that, between May 2018
and October 2019, it has grown from 0% to nearly 2% market share of
consolidated trading volume and, between May 2018 and November 2019,
the number of NYSE National Integrated Feed subscribers increased
from 12 to 57. See id. at 9847-48, 9852.
    \25\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 9852 (citing Rysman Paper,
supra note 24).
    \26\ See id. at 9853.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, NYSE National argues that, due to the ready
availability of substitutes and the low cost to move order flow to the
substitute trading venues, an exchange setting market data fees that
are not at competitive levels would expect to quickly lose business to
alternative platforms with more attractive pricing.\27\ NYSE National
argues that subscribing to the NYSE National Integrated Feed is
optional, that its customers may choose to discontinue using the feed
once the proposed fees are effective, and that any customers who choose
to discontinue

using the feed may choose to shift order flow away from NYSE
National.\28\ Similarly, NYSE National argues that its market data
pricing is constrained by the availability of numerous substitute
platforms offering competing proprietary market data products and
trading services.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See id.
    \28\ See id. at 9850, 9853.
    \29\ See id. at 9853.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to its platform-based arguments, NYSE National presents
an alternative competition-based argument, asserting that the NYSE
National Integrated Feed is sold in a competitive market.\30\ NYSE
National asserts that exchanges compete with each other in selling
proprietary market data products, as well as with consolidated data
feeds and with data provided by ATSs.\31\ More specifically, NYSE
National states that NYSE National BBO (which includes best bid and
offer information for NYSE National on a real-time basis), NYSE
National Trades (which includes NYSE National last sale information on
a real-time basis), and consolidated data feeds are substitutes for the
NYSE National Integrated Feed and constrain NYSE National's ability to
charge supracompetitive prices for the feed.\32\ In addition, NYSE
National states that, since the date of filing of SR-NYSENAT-2019-31
and before the proposed fees went into effect on February 3, 2020, five
subscribers to the NYSE National Integrated Feed (i.e., nearly nine
percent of the prior subscriber base) have cancelled their
subscriptions due to the imminent imposition of the fees.\33\ Moreover,
NYSE National states that a sixth customer informed NYSE National that
if NYSE National is permitted to impose the fees, the customer would
cancel its subscription to the NYSE National Integrated Feed and
instead subscribe to the NYSE National BBO feed.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See id. at 9851.
    \31\ See id. NYSE National provides a report by Charles M. Jones
to support these arguments. See Charles M. Jones, Understanding the
Market for U.S. Equity Market Data (August 31, 2018) (``Jones
Paper''), available at https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/nysenat/2020/34-88211-ex3a.pdf. The Jones Paper also states that the market for
order flow and the market for market data are closely linked, and
that an exchange needs to consider the negative impact on its order
flow if it raises the price of market data. See id.
    \32\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 9854.
    \33\ See id. at 9848.
    \34\ NYSE National states that six lost subscribers constitute
10.5 percent of the prior NYSE National Integrated Feed subscriber
base. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the other requirements under the Act, NYSE National
argues that the proposed fees are equitably allocated and are not
unfairly discriminatory because they would apply on an equal basis to
all data recipients that choose to subscribe to the data in a manner
that is subject to an applicable fee and because any differences among
categories of users are justified.\35\ Specifically, NYSE National
argues that the professional and non-professional user fee structure
has long been used by NYSE National to reduce the price of data to non-
professional users and to make it more broadly available, and that the
non-display fee structure results in subscribers with greater uses of
the data paying higher fees and subscribers with fewer uses of the data
paying lower fees.\36\ For similar reasons, and because it claims
numerous substitute market data products are available, NYSE National
argues that the proposed fees do not impose an unnecessary or
inappropriate burden on competition.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See id. at 9856-58.
    \36\ See id. at 9856-57.
    \37\ See id. at 9858-59.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the redistribution fee, NYSE National argues that
the proposed fee is reasonable because vendors that would be charged
the proposed fee would profit by re-transmitting NYSE National's market
data to their customers,\38\ and that the proposed fee is equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory because the fees would be charged on an
equal basis to those vendors that choose to redistribute the feed.\39\
Similarly, with respect to category 3 non-display fees, which would be
charged to each trading platform on which the customer uses non-display
data (capped at three platforms), NYSE National argues that the
proposal is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory
because such use of data is directly in competition with NYSE National
and NYSE National should be permitted to recoup some of its lost
trading revenue by charging for the data that makes such competition
possible.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See id. at 9854.
    \39\ See id. at 9856-57.
    \40\ See id. at 9855-58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, with respect to the non-display use declaration late fee
and the multiple data feed fee, NYSE National claims that these fees
are reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory because they
would offset NYSE National's administrative burdens and costs
associated with incorrect billing, late payments, and tracking data
usage locations.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter states that NYSE National fails to provide the
necessary information for the Commission to determine whether the
proposed fees meet the requirements of the Act.\42\ This commenter
argues that the NYSE National Integrated Feed is not subject to
competitive forces because there are no available substitutes to NYSE
National's depth-of-book product.\43\ This commenter also argues that
competition for order flow under the ``platform theory'' does not
constrain the cost of market data, but instead results in supra-
monopoly prices for market data products.\44\ In addition, this
commenter argues that NYSE National makes an unpersuasive attempt to
show an elasticity of demand for the NYSE National Integrated Feed
(i.e., in response to the fee increase, 5 of the 57 subscribers
notified NYSE National of their intent to cancel their subscriptions
before the fees went into effect).\45\ Moreover, this commenter argues
that exchanges have yet to show an increase (or decrease) in trading
volume after reducing (or increasing) a respective exchange's price of
market data, and that NYSE National does not state the anticipated
impact on order flow from losing subscribers to the NYSE National
Integrated Feed.\46\ Finally, the commenter argues that, because it
believes competitive forces have not constrained the cost of market
data, NYSE National should provide additional information on cost.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See letter from Ellen Greene, Managing Director, Equities &
Options Market Structure, Securities Industry and Financial Markets
Association (``SIFMA''), to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary,
Commission, dated March 11, 2020 (``SIFMA Letter''). This commenter
also refers to the comment letter it submitted on SR-NYSENAT-2019-31
in stating that the proposal does not meet the requirements of the
Act. See id. at 2. See also SR-NYSENAT-2019-31 OIP, supra note 4, at
6984-85 (describing the commenter's letter on SR-NYSENAT-2019-31);
letter from Robert Toomey, Managing Director and Associate General
Counsel, SIFMA, to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Commission, dated
January 21, 2020, available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysenat-2019-31/srnysenat201931-6678406-204968.pdf.
    \43\ See SIFMA Letter, supra note 42, at 2.
    \44\ See id.
    \45\ See id.
    \46\ See id.
    \47\ See id.

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

    Another commenter also states that the information provided by NYSE
National is not adequate to establish that the proposed fees are
consistent with the Act and Commission rules.\48\ This commenter
questions whether third parties can compete with NYSE National in
offering data related to activity on NYSE National.\49\ This commenter
also questions NYSE National's assertion that market participants have
a meaningful ability to choose whether or not to connect to the NYSE
National Integrated Feed and believes instead that many market
participants must buy the feed.\50\ This commenter acknowledges that
NYSE National provides the number of customers that discontinued using
the NYSE National Integrated Feed in response to the proposed fees, but
expresses concern that NYSE National has not provided any relevant
information about these customers (e.g., why they subscribed to the
NYSE National Integrated Feed in the first place; whether they were
proprietary trading firms, agency brokers, or data vendors; and whether
and how often they sent orders to NYSE National).\51\ This commenter
also states that NYSE National should update and further elaborate on
information about the remaining subscribers.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See letter from Tyler Gellasch, Executive Director, The
Healthy Markets Association, to Vanessa Countryman, Office of the
Secretary, Commission, dated March 12, 2020 (``Healthy Markets
Letter''). See also SR-NYSENAT-2019-31 OIP, supra note 4, at 6984
(describing the commenter's letter on SR-NYSENAT-2019-31); letter
from Tyler Gellasch, Executive Director, The Healthy Markets
Association, to Vanessa Countryman, Office of the Secretary,
Commission, dated January 16, 2020, available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysenat-2019-31/srnysenat201931-6663540-203934.pdf.
    \49\ See Healthy Markets Letter, supra note 48, at 6-8. This
commenter states that NYSE National controls who, under what terms,
and when anyone other than NYSE National can obtain order-related
information about NYSE National. See id. at 7.
    \50\ See id. at 4-5. According to this commenter, if one set of
market participants has access to a faster, richer data set, then
those without that information will not be as competitive and may
not be able to quote or otherwise route orders in a manner that
could effectively achieve best execution. See id. at 8.
    \51\ See id. at 5-6.
    \52\ See id. at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, this commenter argues that NYSE National's discussions
regarding the reasonableness of the proposed fees (i.e., the comparison
to similar fees charged by affiliated exchanges, the nature of the
market for order flow, the availability of other data options, and the
lack of a relation between the proposed fees and the costs of
production) do not support a finding that the proposed fees are
reasonable.\53\ This commenter also states that NYSE National does not
provide any information about the costs of production for the NYSE
National Integrated Feed, the expected revenue NYSE National projects
to generate from the proposed fees, the impact of the proposed fees on
subscribers, the competition between subscribers and non-subscribers,
and whether the proposed fees would be equitably allocated and would
not impose any undue burden on competition.\54\ In addition, the
commenter states that NYSE National does not provide any information
about the latency difference between the NYSE National Integrated Feed
and the consolidated data feed or other methods of transmitting
data.\55\ Finally, this commenter objects to NYSE National's platform-
based arguments, stating that the supply and demand functions for order
flow and market data are separate.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ See id. at 8-9.
    \54\ See id. at 9.
    \55\ See id.
    \56\ See id. at 9-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Request for Information and Additional Comment

    The Commission must determine on a factual record whether NYSE
National has established by a preponderance of the record that its
proposed fees: (1) Provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable
fees among members, issuers, and other persons using the exchange's
facilities; \57\ (2) perfect the mechanism of a free and open market
and a national market system, protect investors and the public
interest, and are not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers; \58\ and (3) do not impose any
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \58\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \59\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that there are significant unresolved
questions about whether NYSE National has produced sufficient factual
support to satisfy its burden to demonstrate that its proposed fees
meet the standards set forth in the Act. Under Commission Rule of
Practice 700(b)(3), NYSE National has the ``burden to demonstrate that
a proposed rule change is consistent with the [Act] and the rules and
regulations issued thereunder.'' \60\ The description of a proposed
rule change, its purpose and operation, its effect, and a legal
analysis of its consistency with applicable requirements must all be
sufficiently detailed and specific to support an affirmative Commission
finding,\61\ and any failure of an SRO to provide this level of
information may result in the Commission not having a sufficient basis
to make an affirmative finding that a proposed rule change is
consistent with the Act and the applicable rules and regulations.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ 17 CFR 201.700(b)(3).
    \61\ See id.
    \62\ See id. Moreover, as is the case with a proposed rule
change under Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, the Commission must make
an affirmative finding to approve any fee filing for which it has
instituted proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change
is consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In seeking additional information and comment, the Commission
intends to further consider whether NYSE National has met its burden to
establish that the proposed fees for the NYSE National Integrated Feed
are consistent with the regulatory requirements applicable to a
national securities exchange.

1. Are the proposed fees constrained by competition?

    As noted above, in support of the proposed fees, NYSE National
asserts that exchanges function as platforms between consumers of
market data and consumers of trading services, and that competition
among exchanges will limit their overall profitability (not margins on
any particular side of the platform).\63\ According to NYSE National,
exchanges are platforms for market data and transaction services, and
competition for order flow on the trading side of the platform acts to
constrain the pricing of market data on the other side of the
platform.\64\ In connection with this platform theory-based argument,
the Commission believes that it does not have sufficient information to
make an affirmative finding that the rule change is consistent with the
Act and the rules and regulations thereunder. The Commission believes
that additional information from NYSE National would assist the
Commission's analysis of whether NYSE National has met its burden under
the Act. The Commission recognizes that there are various combinations
of factual information and analysis that NYSE National could provide to
establish the presence of sufficient competitive forces or otherwise to
meet its burden under the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 9852 (citing Rysman Paper,
supra note 24).
    \64\ See id. at 9853.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission further believes that with regard to NYSE National's
platform theory-based arguments, some or all of the following
information, including in combination with other information,

would assist its analysis of whether NYSE National has met its burden:
     An explanation of NYSE National's characterization that
market data and transaction services are the two sides of the exchange
platform, including whether there are any other sides of the exchange
platform (e.g., connectivity; listings, for an exchange that lists
securities) and, if so, whether the other sides of the exchange
platform should also be considered in analyzing the proposed fees.
     Information sufficient to assess whether aggregate profit
margins, returns on assets, or other metrics indicate the presence of
competition. In discussing these metrics, it may be relevant to discuss
whether and, if so, to what extent some of NYSE National's business
lines would cross-subsidize its other business lines with the proposed
fees in place. For example, NYSE National could compute operating
profit margins and returns on assets for the entirety of NYSE National
and for each of its business lines (including proprietary market data
products, consolidated market data products, market connectivity
services, and transaction services) for a period when the proposed fees
were in place (e.g., for the period from February 3, 2020 to the date
of the Suspension Order). NYSE National could also estimate projected
operating profit margins and returns on assets for the entirety of NYSE
National and for each of its business lines (including proprietary
market data products, consolidated market data products, market
connectivity services, and transaction services) for a period in the
second half of 2020 (e.g., for the third calendar quarter of 2020),
with the assumption that the proposed fees are in place during that
period.\65\ Accordingly, explaining the methodology for computing
profit margins, returns on assets, or any other metrics provided
(including the methodology for allocating expenses and assets to
business lines and among the affiliated exchanges under the NYSE Group
\66\) and supporting any assumptions that it may need to make (such as
assumptions underlying its treatment of costs of revenues and
assumptions needed to project financials) may be necessary for the
metrics to be meaningful.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ NYSE National may seek confidential treatment for such
projected financial information, or other information requested in
this order. The Commission anticipates that such information will
remain non-public subject to federal law.
    \66\ The Commission notes that NYSE National, New York Stock
Exchange LLC (``NYSE''), NYSE Arca, Inc., NYSE American LLC, and
NYSE Chicago, Inc. are all, directly or indirectly, wholly-owned
subsidiaries of NYSE Group, Inc. (``NYSE Group''). The methodology
for allocating expenses across affiliated exchanges under the NYSE
Group would enable the Commission to assess how an analysis of NYSE
National may be different from its affiliated exchanges because it
is a smaller exchange that is part of a larger exchange group. In
this context, infrastructure and other NYSE National expenses may be
cross-subsidized from investments and services provided by the other
NYSE Group exchanges. To the extent that this is the case, NYSE
National should explain how this potentially affects the analysis
and computation of its expenses, profit margins, and returns-on-
assets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Any other information to support the argument that
competition between exchanges will limit the overall profitability of
NYSE National and meaningfully constrain NYSE National's ability to
price its proprietary market data products at supracompetitive prices.
In particular, NYSE National should consider providing empirical
support substantiating its claims. For example, because NYSE National
supported its arguments with information relating to NYSE and the NYSE
Integrated Feed,\67\ such empirical support could include the financial
information specified above for NYSE before and after specific
increases or decreases in the NYSE Integrated Feed fees. To the extent
that NYSE National argues that competition from other exchanges on the
trading side meaningfully constrains the pricing on the market data
side (or other applicable sides) of the platform, it could produce
disaggregated (i.e., by business line) profit-margin and return-on-
assets information in order to establish that it has met its burden
under the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ See Rysman Paper, supra note 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     An explanation of whether platform-based competition
functions differently for an exchange with a smaller market share
(e.g., NYSE National) as compared to an exchange with a larger market
share (e.g., NYSE) and if so, an explanation of any differences.
     NYSE National may provide other data to substantiate its
platform theory-based argument, including the claims that competition
among exchanges will limit the overall profitability of NYSE National's
platform and competition for order flow on the trading side of the
platform acts to constrain the pricing of market data on the other side
of the platform.
    As noted above, in addition to its platform theory-based arguments,
NYSE National argues that an exchange setting market data fees that are
not at competitive levels would expect to quickly lose business to
alternative platforms with more attractive pricing.\68\ NYSE National
argues that subscribing to the NYSE National Integrated Feed is
optional, that its customers may choose to discontinue using the feed
once the proposed fees are effective, and that any customer who chooses
to discontinue using the feed may choose to shift order flow away from
NYSE National.\69\ The Commission believes that some or all of the
following information (including in combination with other information)
would inform the Commission's analysis of these arguments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 9853.
    \69\ See id. at 9850, 9853.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     For periods that would provide meaningful comparisons
(e.g., each completed calendar quarter of 2019 and 2020, and for each
full month from November 2019 to date): (1) The number of NYSE National
Integrated Feed customers and the market participant type of each
customer (e.g., ATS, broker-dealer, market data vendor, any other
specified type of market participant); (2) the total number of unique
clients, and the average number of unique clients per customer, under
each of the proposed fees (i.e., each product code as used by NYSE
National) (calculated separately for the group of customers that
discontinued using the NYSE National Integrated Feed after the proposed
fees became effective (``discontinued NYSE National customers''), the
group of customers that continued using the NYSE National Integrated
Feed after the proposed fees became effective (``continued NYSE
National customers''), and others (e.g., customers that discontinued
using the NYSE National Integrated Feed before the proposed fees became
effective, customers that started using the NYSE National Integrated
Feed after the proposed fees became effective)); and (3) the aggregate
dollar trading volume for customers and firms on NYSE National and the
average dollar trading volume per customer or firm on NYSE National
(calculated separately for discontinued NYSE National customers,
continued NYSE National customers, and others (e.g., customers that
discontinued using the NYSE National Integrated Feed before the
proposed fees became effective, customers that started using the NYSE
National Integrated Feed after the proposed fees became effective,
firms that have not used the NYSE National Integrated Feed)). The
Commission believes that this type of information would inform the
Commission's analysis of NYSE National's argument that customers who
choose to discontinue using the NYSE National Integrated Feed may
choose to shift order flow away from NYSE National.
     Other specific, factual information that demonstrates that
customers may choose to discontinue using an

exchange proprietary depth-of-book market data feed in response to a
new fee or fee increase, and that the customers who choose to
discontinue using the market data feed also shift order flow away from
such exchange. For example, because NYSE National supported its
arguments with information relating to the NYSE Integrated Feed,\70\
NYSE National could provide the following information, calculated
before and after specific increases in the NYSE Integrated Feed fees:
(1) The number of NYSE Integrated Feed customers and the market
participant type of each customer; (2) the total number of unique
clients, and the average number of unique clients per customer, under
each fee (i.e., each product code as used by NYSE) (calculated
separately for the group of customers that discontinued using the NYSE
Integrated Feed after the fee was initially imposed or after the fee
increase (``discontinued NYSE customers''), the group of customers that
continued using the NYSE Integrated Feed after the fee was initially
imposed or after the fee increase (``continued NYSE customers''), and
others); and (3) the aggregate dollar trading volume for customers and
firms on NYSE and the average dollar trading volume per customer or
firm on NYSE (calculated separately for discontinued NYSE customers,
continued NYSE customers, and others). This type of information would
inform the Commission's analysis of whether NYSE National has met its
burden to demonstrate that customers who choose to discontinue using a
depth-of-book market data feed also shift order flow away from the
exchange offering the feed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ See Rysman Paper, supra note 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     NYSE National may provide other data to substantiate its
claim that customers may choose to discontinue using the NYSE National
Integrated Feed once the proposed fees are effective, and that
customers who choose to discontinue using the feed may choose to shift
order flow away from NYSE National.

2. Are there substitutes for the NYSE National Integrated Feed?

    The Commission also believes that additional information regarding
NYSE National's substitution-based arguments would assist the
Commission in its analysis of whether NYSE National has met its burden
under the Act. The Commission believes that some or all of the
following information (including in combination with other information)
would further inform the Commission's analysis of NYSE National's
substitution-based arguments:
     Information regarding how many of the five original
subscribers that cancelled their NYSE National Integrated Feed
subscription subsequently started using the NYSE National BBO or NYSE
National Trades feed, or any other proprietary market data feed, and
the market participant type of each of these five subscribers.
     Information regarding how many additional customers
discontinued (or notified NYSE National of their intention to
discontinue) using the NYSE National Integrated Feed after the proposed
fees were implemented on February 3, 2020, how many of these customers
subsequently started (or notified NYSE National of their intention to
start) using the NYSE National BBO or NYSE National Trades feed, or any
other proprietary market data feed, and the market participant type of
each of these customers.
     NYSE National may provide other data to substantiate its
substitution-based arguments.
    The Commission believes that responses to some or all of these
requests would inform the Commission's analysis of NYSE National's
argument that the NYSE National Integrated Feed is sold in a
competitive market and that other market data feeds are substitutes for
the NYSE National Integrated Feed.

3. Are the fees reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory?

    The Commission believes that additional information from NYSE
National could inform the Commission's analysis of the allocation of
the proposed fees to different types of market participants (e.g.,
whether most of the fees are borne by a particular type of customer and
whether such an outcome would result in an inequitable allocation of
the fees or render the fees unfairly discriminatory). For example, some
or all of the following information (including in combination with
other information) could meaningfully inform the Commission's analysis:
     In addition to the customer, unique client, and dollar
trading volume information discussed in Item 1 above,\71\ NYSE National
could provide projections of the same customer and unique client
information (with the assumption that the proposed fees are in place,
and including the methodology for and assumptions underlying such
projections) for the uncompleted calendar quarters of 2020 up to the
third calendar quarter of 2020. The Commission believes that this type
of information would inform the Commission's analysis of the impact of
the proposed fees on different groups of market participants, including
because this type of information would allow the Commission to compare:
(1) The number of discontinued NYSE National customers against the
number of continued NYSE National customers and the number of other
customers; and (2) the total and average number of unique clients and
the aggregate and average dollar trading volume across these three
groups of customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ NYSE National states that, based on usage at the time of
the filing of SR-NYSENAT-2019-31, at least 34 firms would be subject
to category 1 non-display fees, at least 14 firms would be subject
to category 2 non-display fees, and at least 10 firms would be
subject to category 3 non-display fees. See Notice, supra note 4, at
9850. However, NYSE National does not provide the same usage
information for each of the other proposed fees (e.g., the number of
professional users and non-professional users).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     NYSE National may provide other data to substantiate its
claims that the proposed fees are equitably allocated, are not unfairly
discriminatory, and do not impose an unnecessary or inappropriate
burden on competition.
    With respect to the redistribution fee, as noted above, NYSE
National argues that the proposed fee is reasonable because vendors
that would be charged the proposed fee would profit by re-transmitting
NYSE National's market data to their customers,\72\ and that the
proposed fee is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the
fee would be charged on an equal basis to those vendors that choose to
redistribute the feed.\73\ Similarly, with respect to category 3 non-
display fees, which would be charged to each trading platform on which
the customer uses non-display data (capped at three platforms), NYSE
National argues that the proposal is reasonable, equitable, and not
unfairly discriminatory because such use of data is directly in
competition with NYSE National and NYSE National should be permitted to
recoup some of its lost trading revenue by charging for the data that
makes such competition possible.\74\ The Commission believes its
analysis of the proposed redistribution fee and category 3 non-display
fees would benefit from a fuller explanation, with supporting facts, of
why these fees, which are applied specifically to NYSE National's
competitors, would not be unfairly discriminatory toward those
competitors or impose an unnecessary or inappropriate burden on
competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ See id. at 9854.
    \73\ See id. at 9856-57.
    \74\ See id. at 9855-58.

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

    Finally, as noted above, with respect to the non-display use
declaration late fee and the multiple data feed fee, NYSE National
claims that these fees are reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly
discriminatory because they would offset NYSE National's administrative
burdens and costs associated with incorrect billing, late payments, and
tracking data usage locations.\75\ The Commission again believes that
its analysis would benefit from a fuller explanation, with supporting
facts, of NYSE National's ``administrative burdens'' and
``administrative costs'' associated with these activities. The
Commission believes that such information would inform the Commission's
analysis of the non-display use declaration late fee and the multiple
data feed fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. General Request for Comment

    The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency and
merit of NYSE National's statements in support of the proposal, in
addition to any other comments they may wish to submit about the
proposed rule change. For example, the Commission believes that its
analysis may benefit from comment, including, where relevant, any
specific data, statistics, or studies, on the following:
     Do the proposed fees represent an equitable allocation of
reasonable fees, not permit unfair discrimination, and not impose any
unnecessary or inappropriate burden on competition? Please explain and
provide supporting information.
     Are the proposed fees constrained by robust competition?
Please explain and provide supporting information.
     Are NYSE National's characterization of platform
competition and characterization of market data and transaction
services as two sides of an exchange platform correct? Are there any
other sides of an exchange platform (e.g., connectivity, listing) and
should these other sides be considered in analyzing the proposed fees?
     Should the question of whether the NYSE National
Integrated Feed fees are constrained by competitive forces be analyzed
using any separate methodology not discussed in the proposal (i.e.,
other than substitution and platform competition)? If so, please
explain such methodology.
     Does an analysis of the total market data revenue from
NYSE National's parent company demonstrate or support NYSE National's
assertion that the market for proprietary market data products is
characterized by robust competition? \76\ Why or why not? Should other
data, such as operating profit margins and returns on assets for the
entirety of NYSE National and for each of its business lines (including
proprietary market data products, consolidated market data products,
market connectivity services, and transaction services), also be
analyzed in order to evaluate NYSE National's assertion? Why or why
not?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ See Jones Paper, supra note 31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Does an analysis of the effect of the introduction of the
NYSE Integrated Feed on trading volume on NYSE demonstrate or support
NYSE National's assertions that platform economics applies to
exchanges' sale of proprietary market data products and trading
services and that platform competition effectively constrains the
pricing of those data products? \77\ Why or why not?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ See Rysman Paper, supra note 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-NYSENAT-2020-05 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 No. SR-NYSENAT-2020-05. The file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of NYSE National. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make publicly available. All submissions
should refer to File No. SR-NYSENAT-2020-05 and should be submitted on
or before July 10, 2020.

    By the Commission.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-13201 Filed 6-18-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P