[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 98 (Friday, May 20, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29153-29156]
[FR Doc No: 2011-12362]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0030; FRL-9308-3]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Mojave
Desert Air Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the
Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD) portion of the
California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern
negative declarations for volatile organic compound (VOC) source
categories for the MDAQMD. We are approving these negative declarations
under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

DATES: This rule is effective on July 19, 2011 without further notice,
unless EPA receives adverse comments by June 20, 2011. If we receive
such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal
Register to notify the public that this direct final rule will not take
effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2011-0030, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments 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 Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. http://www.regulations.gov is an
``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. 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.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), and some may not be publicly available in either location
(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia Allen, EPA Region IX, (415)
947-4120<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What negative declarations did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of these negative declarations?

    C. What is the purpose of the submitted negative declarations?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the negative declarations?
    B. Do the negative declarations meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. Public Comment and Final Action
III. Background Information
    A. Why were these negative declarations submitted?
IV. Administrative Requirements

I. The State's Submittal

A. What negative declarations did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the negative declarations we are approving with the
dates that they were adopted by the Mojave Desert Air Quality
Management District (MDAQMD) and submitted by the California Air
Resources Board (CARB).

                Table 1--Submitted Negative Declarations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Local agency                Title            Adopted     Submitted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MDAQMD................  Pneumatic Rubber Tire      01/22/07     07/11/07
                         Manufacturing.
MDAQMD................  Large Petroleum Dry        01/22/07     07/11/07
                         Cleaners.
MDAQMD................  Surface Coating of         01/22/07     07/11/07
                         Cans.
MDAQMD................  Surface Coating of         01/22/07     07/11/07
                         Coils.
MDAQMD................  Surface Coating            01/22/07     07/11/07
                         Fabrics.
MDAQMD................  Surface Coating            01/22/07     07/11/07
                         Operations at
                         Automotive and Light
                         Duty Truck Assembly
                         Plants.
MDAQMD................  Surface of Coating of      01/22/07     07/11/07
                         Large Appliances.
MDAQMD................  Surface of Coating of      01/22/07     07/11/07
                         Magnet Wire.
MDAQMD................  Vacuum Producing           01/22/07     07/11/07
                         Devices or Systems.
MDAQMD................  Leaks From Petroleum       01/22/07     07/11/07
                         Refinery Equipment.
MDAQMD................  Process Unit               01/22/07     07/11/07
                         Turnarounds.
MDAQMD................  Equipment Leaks From       01/22/07     07/11/07
                         Natural Gas/Gasoline
                         Processing Plants.
MDAQMD................  Synthesized                01/22/07     07/11/07
                         Pharmaceutical
                         Products.
MDAQMD................  Air Oxidation Process--    01/22/07     07/11/07
                         SOCMI.
MDAQMD................  Polymer Manufacturing      01/22/07     07/11/07
                         SOCMI and Polymer
                         Manufacturing
                         Equipment Leaks.
MDAQMD................  Reactor Processes and      01/22/07     07/11/07
                         Distillation
                         Operations in SOCMI.
MDAQMD................  Synthetic Organic          01/22/07     07/11/07
                         Chemical Polymer and
                         Resin Manufacturing.
MDAQMD................  Petroleum Refinery         08/23/10     10/22/10
                         Equipment.
MDAQMD................  Manufacture of High-       08/23/10     10/22/10
                         Density Polyethylene,
                         Polypropylene, and
                         Polystyrene Resins.
MDAQMD................  Fugitive Emissions         08/23/10     10/22/10
                         From Synthetic
                         Organic Chemical
                         Polymer and Resin
                         Manufacturing
                         Equipment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 16, 2010, EPA determined that the submittal for Mojave
Desert AQMD Negative Declarations submitted on October 22, 2010, met
the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V, which must be
met before formal EPA review.
    On January 11, 2008, the submittal for Mojave Desert Negative
Declarations submitted on July 11, 2007 was deemed by operation of law
to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V, which
must be met before formal EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of these negative declarations?

    There are no previous versions of these negative declarations.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted negative declarations?

    The negative declarations were submitted to meet the requirements
of CAA section 182(b)(2). Ozone Nonattainment areas classified at
moderate and above are required to adopt volatile organic compound
(VOC) regulations for the published Control Technique Guideline (CTG)
categories and for major non-CTG sources of VOC or NOx. If a
nonattainment area does not have stationary sources covered by an EPA
published CTG, then the area is required to submit a negative
declaration. The negative declarations were submitted because there are
no applicable sources within the MDAQMD jurisdiction. EPA's technical
support document (TSD) has more information about these negative
declarations.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the negative declarations?

    The negative declarations are submitted as SIP revisions and must
be consistent with Clean Air Act requirements for Reasonable Available
Control Technology (RACT) (see section 182(b)(2)) and SIP relaxation
(see sections 110(1) and 193.) To do so, the submittal should provide
reasonable assurance that no sources subject to the CTG requirements
currently exist or are planned for the MDAQMD.

B. Do the negative declarations meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe these negative declarations are consistent with the
relevant policy and guidance regarding RACT and SIP relaxations. The
TSD has more information on our evaluation.

C. Public Comment and Final Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully
approving the submitted negative declarations as additional information
to the SIP because we believe they fulfill all relevant requirements.
We do not think anyone will object to this approval, so we are
finalizing it without proposing it in advance. However, in the Proposed
Rules section of this Federal Register, we are simultaneously proposing
approval of these negative declarations. If we receive adverse comments
by June 20, 2011, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal
Register to notify the public that the direct final approval will not
take effect and we will address the comments in a subsequent final
action based on the proposal. If we do not receive timely adverse
comments, the direct final approval will be effective without further
notice on July 19, 2011.

III. Background Information

A. Why were these negative declarations submitted?

    These negative declarations were submitted to fulfill the
requirements of CAA Section 182(a)(2). Section 182 requires that ozone
nonattainment areas adopt VOC regulations found in the

Control Technique Guideline Series and for all major non-CTG sources of
VOC or NOX in their geographic area. Mojave Desert AQMD is a
nonattainment area for ozone and thus is required to adopt reasonable
available control technology (RACT) regulations for all CTG sources and
major non-CTG sources. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States to
submit regulations that control VOC emissions. Table 2 lists some of
the national milestones leading to the submittal of these local agency
negative declarations.

                 Table 2--Ozone Nonattainment Milestones
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Date                                 Event
------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 3, 1978...........................  EPA promulgated a list of
                                           ozone attainment areas Under
                                           the Clean Air Act as amended
                                           in 1977. 43 FR 8964; 40 CFR
                                           81.305.
May 26, 1988............................  EPA notified Governors that
                                           parts of their SIPs were
                                           inadequate to attain and
                                           maintain the ozone standard
                                           and requested that they
                                           correct the deficiencies
                                           (EPA's SIP-Call). See section
                                           110(a)(2)(H) of the pre-
                                           amended Act.
November 15, 1990.......................  Clean Air Act Amendments of
                                           1990 were enacted. Pub. L.
                                           101-549, 104 Stat. 2399,
                                           codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401-
                                           7671q.
May 15, 1991............................  Section 182(a)(2)(A) requires
                                           that ozone nonattainment
                                           areas correct deficient RACT
                                           rules by this date.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Administrative Requirements

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not interfere with Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629
(Feb. 16, 1994)) because EPA lacks the discretionary authority to
address environmental justice in this rulemaking.
    In addition, this rule does not have Tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 19, 2011. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final
rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel
notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the Proposed
Rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an
immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so
that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in
the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: May 9, 2011.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.222 is amended by adding paragraphs (a)(1)(v) and (vi) to
read as follows:

Sec.  52.222  Negative declarations.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (v) Pneumatic Rubber Tire Manufacturing, Large Petroleum Dry
Cleaners, Surface Coating of Cans, Surface Coating of Coils, Surface
Coating Fabrics, Surface Coating Operations at Automotive and Light

Duty Truck Assembly Plants, Surface of Coating of Large Appliances,
Surface of Coating of Magnet Wire, Vacuum Producing Devices or Systems,
Leaks From Petroleum Refinery Equipment, Process Unit Turnarounds,
Equipment Leaks From Natural Gas/Gasoline Processing Plants,
Synthesized Pharmaceutical Products, Air Oxidation Process--SOCMI,
Polymer Manufacturing SOCMI and Polymer Manufacturing Equipment Leaks,
Reactor Processes and Distillation Operations in SOCMI, and Synthetic
Organic Chemical Polymer and Resin Manufacturing were submitted on July
11, 2007 and adopted January 22, 2007.
    (vi) Petroleum Refinery Equipment, Manufacture of High-Density
Polyethylene, Polypropylene, and Polystyrene Resins, and Fugitive
Emissions from Synthetic Organic Chemical Polymer and Resin
Manufacturing Equipment were submitted on October 22, 2010 and adopted
on August 23, 2010.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-12362 Filed 5-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 125 (Friday, June 30, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42404-42409]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13894]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-97798; File No. SR-FINRA-2023-009]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend FINRA's Trading Activity Fee

June 26, 2023.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on June 23, 2023, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA. FINRA has
designated the proposed rule change as ``establishing or changing a
due, fee or other charge'' under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\
and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal
effective upon receipt of this filing by the Commission. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    FINRA is proposing to amend Section 1(b) of Schedule A to the FINRA
By-Laws to exempt from the Trading Activity Fee (``TAF'') any
transaction by a proprietary trading firm that occurs on an exchange of
which the proprietary trading firm is a member.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's
website at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA and
at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    As a general matter, the most significant sources of FINRA's
funding are three core regulatory fees: the Gross Income Assessment;
the TAF; and the Personnel Assessment.\5\ These regulatory fees are
used to substantially fund FINRA's regulatory activities, including
examinations, financial monitoring, and FINRA's policymaking,
rulemaking, and enforcement activities.\6\ As discussed in FINRA's
prior Regulatory Notices, FINRA is proposing an exemption from one of
FINRA's regulatory fees--the TAF--for transactions by ``proprietary
trading firms,'' which FINRA understands would include firms currently
operating in compliance with existing SEA Rule 15b9-1 and that would be
required to become FINRA members in light of the SEC's proposed
amendments to SEA Rule 15b9-1, as further discussed below.\7\ In this
regard, FINRA proposes to define ``proprietary trading firm'' as a
member that (i) trades exclusively its own capital; (ii) does not have
``customers,'' which shall include any person, other than a broker or
dealer, with whom the member engages, or within the past six months has
engaged, in securities activities; and (iii) conducts all trading
through the firm's accounts by traders that are owners of, employees
of, or contractors to the firm, or employees of an affiliate of the
firm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See FINRA By-Laws, Schedule A, Section 1.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90176 (October 14,
2020), 85 FR 66592 (October 20, 2020) (Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of File No. SR-FINRA-2020-032).
    \7\ FINRA believes that proprietary trading firms currently
operating in compliance with existing SEA Rule 15b9-1 that would
join FINRA due to the SEC's proposed amendments to SEA Rule 15b9-1
would meet the proposed definition of ``proprietary trading firm''
and would qualify for the proposed exemption (assuming no changes to
their business models that would alter their eligibility), as well
as current FINRA members that meet the proposed definition. See also
infra notes 37 and 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Exchange Act, a registered broker-dealer must become a
member of a national securities association (currently, FINRA is the
sole national securities association) unless the broker-dealer effects
transactions in securities solely on a national securities exchange of
which it is a member.\8\ SEA Rule 15b9-1 provides an exemption to the
requirement that a broker-dealer become a member of a national
securities association if the broker-dealer (i) is a member of a
national securities exchange, (ii) carries no customer accounts, and
(iii) has annual gross income derived from purchases and sales of
securities otherwise than on a national securities exchange of which it
is a member in an amount no greater than $1,000 (the $1,000 limitation
is known as the ``de minimis allowance'').\9\ The $1,000 gross income
limitation does not apply to income derived from transactions for the
dealer's own account with or through another registered broker or
dealer. Thus, for example, income derived from over-the-counter trades
through an alternative trading system does not count toward the $1,000
threshold. On July 29, 2022, the SEC proposed amendments to SEA Rule
15b9-1 to narrow the exemption from association membership.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78o(b)(8).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.15b9-1.
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 95388 (July 29,
2022), 87 FR 49930 (August 12, 2022) (``Proposing Release''). The
SEC previously proposed to amend SEA Rule 15b9-1 in 2015. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74581 (March 25, 2015), 80 FR
18036 (April 2, 2015) (File No. S7-05-15) (``2015 Proposal'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the Proposing Release, the securities markets have
evolved dramatically since the adoption of SEA Rule 15b9-1 and, today,
the de minimis allowance is relied upon by proprietary trading firms
that, in some cases, engage in substantial cross-exchange and off-
exchange trading activity, yet they are not subject to FINRA
oversight.\11\ The SEC therefore proposed to eliminate the de minimis
allowance and instead provide that a broker-dealer may effect
transactions otherwise than on a national securities exchange of which
it is a member in

only two narrow circumstances: (i) transactions that result solely from
orders routed by the exchange of which the firm is a member to prevent
trade-throughs consistent with Rule 611 of Regulation NMS or the
Options Order Protection and Locked/Cross Market Plan; and (ii)
transactions that are solely for the purpose of executing the stock leg
of a stock-option order, subject to specified conditions.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Proposing Release, supra note 10, 87 FR 49930, 49931.
    \12\ See Proposing Release, supra note 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SEC estimates that the proposed amendments to SEA Rule 15b9-1
would impact approximately 65 broker dealers that are not currently
FINRA members.\13\ Thus, if adopted, the proposed amendments to SEA
Rule 15b9-1 would require additional broker-dealers to become a member
of FINRA (unless they limit their activities to the contours of the
amended exemption from membership in a national securities
association), and such member firms would become subject to FINRA
regulatory fees, among other requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Proposing Release, supra note 10, 87 FR 49930, 49954.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proprietary trading firms that potentially could become members of
FINRA have expressed concern about the TAF in particular. FINRA notes
that there currently are several exemptions from the TAF, including for
transactions by floor brokers and for market making transactions
subject to Section 11(a) of the Act.\14\ However, proprietary trading
firms do not function as floor brokers and may only be registered
market makers in some, but not all, of the securities that they trade.
As a result, if the proposed amendments to SEA Rule 15b9-1 are adopted
by the SEC, those proprietary trading firms that would become FINRA
members would be subject to the TAF for much of their trading activity,
including transactions on exchanges of which they are a member. The SEC
noted specifically when proposing the amendments to SEA Rule 15b9-1
that FINRA may want to ``evaluate its TAF to ensure that it
appropriately reflects the activities of, and regulatory
responsibilities towards, broker-dealer proprietary trading firms that
would be required to join FINRA if the proposed amendments to [SEA]
Rule 15b9-1 are adopted.'' \15\ In light of the SEC's proposed
amendments to SEA Rule 15b9-1, FINRA has considered the application and
potential impact of the TAF to proprietary trading firms and has
concluded that it is appropriate to provide an exemption from the TAF
for all proprietary trading firms for transactions executed on an
exchange of which the proprietary trading firm is a member.\16\ As
FINRA regularly evaluates its fees to ensure appropriate funding for
its regulatory mission, FINRA expects to evaluate the TAF--including
with respect to proprietary trading firms--more broadly in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ FINRA By-Laws, Schedule A, Section 1(b)(2)(F) and (G).
    \15\ See Proposing Release, supra note 10, 87 FR 49930, 49943.
In the 2015 Proposal, the SEC made a similar comment: ``FINRA may
need to consider reassessing the structure of its fees, including
its Trading Activity Fee, in order to assure that it is fairly and
equitably applied to many of the [non-FINRA member firms] that, as a
result of the amendments to [SEA] Rule 15b9-1, may join FINRA.'' See
2015 Proposal, supra note 10, 80 FR 18036, 18044 n.95.
    \16\ FINRA notes that, in addition to any other applicable FINRA
fees, proprietary trading firms would incur a TAF obligation on
transactions executed otherwise than on an exchange and on
transactions executed on an exchange of which the firm is not a
member. These transactions would be subject to the TAF under the
existing fee structure and at existing rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate
effectiveness. FINRA will announce the implementation date of the
proposed rule change in a Regulatory Notice. The implementation date
will be no earlier than the date of adoption of the Commission's
amendments to SEA Rule 15b9-1 eliminating the de minimis allowance and
no later than the effective date of any such amendments.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(5) of the Act,\18\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules provide for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and issuers and
other persons using any facility or system that FINRA operates or
controls. FINRA believes that the proposed TAF exemption will result in
an equitable allocation of fees to proprietary trading firms in accord
with their activities and the regulatory resources to oversee them with
respect to their trading activity on an exchange of which they are a
member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA believes it is reasonable to propose this amendment in view
of the fact that regulatory costs for firms that do not have customers
are expected to be less than the cost to oversee the activity of firms
with customers. FINRA also believes that it is appropriate to proceed
with an exemption for proprietary trading firms with respect to their
transactions on an exchange of which they are a member because FINRA
anticipates that regulatory costs largely will relate to overseeing
such firms' activity over the counter or across exchanges.
    Under the proposal, proprietary trading firms (as defined in the
proposed rule) that are current FINRA members would experience a
reduction in their TAF assessments to the extent they conduct non-
market making transactions executed on exchanges of which they are
members. Proprietary trading firms that become FINRA members would
incur a smaller TAF assessment than they otherwise would pay absent the
proposal. Finally, FINRA believes that the proposal is reasonable in
that the proposed exemption is clear, simple, and cost effective for
firms to implement.

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

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Economic Impact Assessment
1. Regulatory Need
    As discussed above, the SEC is proposing to amend SEA Rule 15b9-1
to narrow the scope of the exemption from FINRA membership. The
proposed amendments to SEA Rule 15b9-1, if adopted, would generally
require proprietary trading firms to become FINRA members if they
engage in trading otherwise than on exchanges of which they are
members.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See supra notes 10-12 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Economic Baseline
    The economic baseline for FINRA's proposed rule change consists of
the regulatory framework under the SEC's proposed amendments to SEA
Rule 15b9-1, if adopted, as well as FINRA's current TAF. In the
Proposing Release, the SEC notes that, under the amended rule, a non-
FINRA member firm that trades equities, options or fixed income
securities off-exchange, or on exchanges of which it is not a member,
can comply in four ways. One option is to join FINRA. The other options
are to cease any off-exchange trading and either trade solely upon the
exchanges of which the firm is already a member, or join additional
exchanges, or cease trading securities altogether.\20\ The discussion
below briefly considers the benefits, costs and other economic impacts
of the SEC proposed amendments to SEA Rule 15b9-1, as discussed by the
SEC, to facilitate the

consideration of the economic impacts of FINRA's proposed rule change
to the TAF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Proposing Release, supra note 10, 87 FR 49930, 49958.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA expects that some firms that are not currently FINRA members
will apply for FINRA membership due to the SEC's modifications to SEA
Rule 15b9-1, if adopted. These firms would maintain the ability to
effect securities transactions on the same on and off exchange venues
on which they currently effect such transactions. These firms would
incur the one-time and ongoing costs of FINRA membership, including the
TAF and other regulatory fees. The TAF would increase these firms'
variable costs to trade, and the SEC notes that this may lead certain
firms to reduce their trading both on-exchange and off-exchange.\21\
These firms may, however, mitigate some of the disincentive that comes
from being liable for the TAF for trading on exchanges by registering
as market makers.\22\ Membership by these firms in FINRA would provide
more stable and uniform FINRA surveillance of off-exchange and cross-
exchange trading activity than currently occurs.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Proposing Release, supra note 10, 87 FR 49930, 49958-
60, 49965.
    \22\ See Proposing Release, supra note 10, 87 FR 49930, 49960,
49965.
    \23\ See Proposing Release, supra note 10, 87 FR 49930, 49962.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other non-FINRA member firms may choose to cease their off-exchange
activity rather than join FINRA. Some of these firms may adjust their
business models to trade solely upon the exchanges of which they are
already a member or join additional exchanges upon which they wish to
trade. However, since these firms may currently trade on exchanges of
which they are not members, they may also cease trading on some of
those exchanges.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Proposing Release, supra note 10, 87 FR 49930, 49967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SEC also discusses how the changes non-FINRA member firms make
to their business models to comply with the proposed amendments to SEA
Rule 15b9-1 may affect other activities, including competition in the
equity and U.S. Treasury securities markets, particularly for off-
exchange liquidity provision.\25\ As discussed above, non-FINRA member
firms that join FINRA may reduce trading off-exchange and those that do
not join FINRA will cease trading off-exchange, with similar impacts on
their provision of off-exchange liquidity. Non-FINRA member firms may
also reduce trading and liquidity provision on exchanges, whether or
not they join FINRA.\26\ A loss in liquidity provision may impose costs
on investors in the form of higher trading costs than they would
otherwise realize.\27\ However, current member firms may increase their
activity and offset some of these impacts, both on and off-
exchange.\28\ The ultimate impact on liquidity, execution quality and
trading volume for particular assets and trading venues is generally
not determinate. Regarding the overall provision of liquidity to
financial markets, however, the SEC argues that the effect of the
proposed rule is not likely to be significant.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Proposing Release, supra note 10, 87 FR 49930, 49958.
    \26\ See Proposing Release, supra note 10, 87 FR 49930, 49959-
60.
    \27\ See Proposing Release, supra note 10, 87 FR 49930, 49959.
The SEC also states that the removal of liquidity from the market
could either improve or degrade execution quality on off-exchange
markets and reduced liquidity on exchanges can result in higher
spreads and increased liquidity. Id. at 49960.
    \28\ See Proposing Release, supra note 10, 87 FR 49930, 49960.
    \29\ See supra note 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Current FINRA members, including proprietary trading firms, would
not be directly affected by the SEC proposal.\30\ However, to the
extent that member firms currently compete with non-member firms that
must become FINRA members or change their historical trading activities
to avoid FINRA membership, the current members may benefit from having
more uniform regulatory requirements among similarly situated
competitors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Proposing Release, supra note 10, 87 FR 49930, 49963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SEC has estimated that there are approximately 65 broker-
dealers registered with the Commission and exchange members that are
not FINRA members. Each of these non-FINRA member firms will assess the
costs and benefits of the options permitted by the amendments the SEC
may make to SEA Rule 15b9-1. FINRA cannot determine the number of firms
that may choose to become FINRA members or the likelihood or magnitude
of any anticipated changes in trading behavior because of the proposed
SEC rule amendments.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ FINRA notes that the SEC Proposal also discusses
difficulties related to predicting changes in trading behavior and
associated competitive impacts. See Proposing Release, supra note
10, 87 FR 49930, 49960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA estimates that approximately 66 member firms derive all or
most of their revenue from proprietary trading, although not all of
these firms would meet the proposed definition of ``proprietary trading
firm'' based on their current business models.\32\ FINRA understands
that, of the 66 firms that clear their own trades, the TAF accounts for
over 85% of the regulatory fees paid by these firms (GIA, PA and TAF).
However, most of the 66 firms do not clear their own trades and so do
not pay TAF directly to FINRA.\33\ Whether these firms conduct trades
subject to TAF and whether they reimburse their clearing firm for the
TAF, is not known to FINRA. Overall, between 2015 and 2022, TAF as a
proportion of regulatory fees received by FINRA ranged from 41% to 56%.
For the member firms that are proprietary trading firms and conduct
trades subject to TAF, this may be a closer approximation to the
maximum share of their regulatory fees that would be subject to the
proposed TAF exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Some of these 66 member firms may need to adjust their
business models if they seek to qualify for the proposed TAF
exemption. Whether these firms would eliminate disqualifying
activity, move it into a separate entity or decline to take the TAF
exemption depends on the value of this activity and the extent to
which the loss of scale economies in conducting the activity in a
separate entity would affect the cost.
    \33\ See Trading Activity Fee Frequently Asked Questions,
https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/guidance/faqs/trading-activity-fee (``Data should be submitted as monthly aggregates at the
clearing firm level'' A100.6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Economic Impacts
    FINRA is proposing to amend the TAF to exempt all transactions by a
FINRA member proprietary trading firm executed on an exchange of which
it is a member.\34\ The proposed rule change would directly impact
member proprietary trading firms by providing them an exemption from
the TAF for such transactions. These member proprietary trading firms
include current FINRA members as well as those that would join FINRA
due to the SEC's proposed amendments to SEA Rule 15b9-1. The FINRA
proposed rule change may also impact the number of non-member
proprietary trading firms that choose to apply for FINRA membership
rather than use one of the other options for compliance (as described
above). All comparisons below are relative to the baseline, and
therefore assume that SEA Rule 15b9-1 is amended as proposed and that,
notionally, firms have adjusted their business conduct taking into
account the SEC proposed rule and market conditions, as described
above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ As noted above, the TAF currently provides an exemption for
proprietary transactions by a member firm effected on an exchange of
which it is a member in its capacity as a specialist or market maker
in the security on that exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Anticipated Benefits
    FINRA believes that the proposed TAF exemption is clear and simple
for firms to implement. In addition, the

proposed TAF exemption will likely dampen potential competitive effects
and other market impacts as participants determine how to respond to
proprietary trading firms' change in trading behaviors in response to
the amendments to SEA Rule 15b9-1, while continuing to assess fees in a
manner that is fair, reasonable, and equitably allocated among FINRA
member firms. FINRA anticipates that, by reducing the fees associated
with FINRA membership, the proposed TAF exemption may result in more
proprietary trading firms joining FINRA. FINRA membership would allow
these firms increased flexibility in where and how they trade.
    Proprietary trading firms that are current FINRA members would
experience a reduction in their TAF assessments to the extent they
conduct non-market making transactions executed on exchanges of which
they are members. Under the proposed TAF exemption, proprietary trading
firms that become FINRA members would incur a smaller TAF assessment
than they otherwise would pay absent the proposal. FINRA cannot
determine the number of firms for which the proposed TAF exemption will
have an impact on their determination of whether to become FINRA
members and the likelihood or magnitude of any anticipated changes in
trading behavior. There is significant diversity in the business models
of proprietary trading firms. FINRA expects that the impacts of the
exemption would depend on the level of trading activities proprietary
trading firms conduct other than on the exchanges of which they are
members. The impacts may also vary with the proportion of TAF to their
overall FINRA membership costs. When TAF is expected to be a
significant component of their membership costs, the proposed exemption
is more likely to affect the firm's decision to become a FINRA member
under the baseline.
b. Anticipated Costs
    As discussed above, FINRA anticipates that the proposed TAF
exception may increase the number of proprietary trading firms that
choose to become FINRA members relative to the baseline. The costs to
these firms, like the benefits to these firms discussed above, are
qualitatively the same as those incurred by proprietary trading firms
that would choose to become FINRA members absent the proposed TAF
exemption. These firms presumably choose to become FINRA members
because the overall financial outcome is superior to that which would
occur without joining FINRA and complying with the SEC proposed rule by
restricting their trades to exchanges of which they are members.
4. Other Economic Effects
Effects on Trading Activities
    Proprietary trading firms that are current FINRA members may alter
their trading strategies to take advantage of the proposed TAF
exemption, which may impact the amount and allocation of trading
activity among exchange and off-exchange trading venues from the
baseline. Likewise, the existence of the TAF exemption may impact non-
FINRA member firms' decision whether to become FINRA members, and thus
also may impact the amount and allocation of trading activity among
exchange and off-exchange trading venues from the baseline.
    These potential changes in trading activity of proprietary trading
firms may affect liquidity, execution quality and trading volume on the
various trading venues. However, the extent and direction of the effect
is generally not determinate and depends on how other market
participants, including non-proprietary trading firms, respond to
proprietary firms' actions.\35\ To the extent the TAF exemption dampens
a decrease in liquidity that may otherwise result as trading firms
adjust to the amendments to SEA Rule 15b9-1, such an impact could help
improve outcomes for investors seeking to trade, including lowering
transaction costs or providing greater immediacy in trading relative to
the baseline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See Proposing Release, supra note 10, 87 FR 49930, 49959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Effects on Competition
    FINRA members that are proprietary trading firms may compete to
provide liquidity with other FINRA members. Since the proposed TAF
exemption is only available for proprietary trading firms, it could
provide those firms with a competitive advantage over other members
that engage in similar trading activity but do not qualify as
proprietary trading firms by changing the relative costs of trading.
However, this advantage would not be greater than what non-FINRA member
proprietary trading firms currently experience (prior to the potential
amendments of SEA Rule 15b9-1).
    In addition, to the extent the proposed rule change leads to more
proprietary trading firms joining FINRA, the proposed rule change may
increase competition by having a more level playing field in terms of
the costs associated with FINRA membership and regulatory requirements.
As discussed in the SEC Proposal, competition in liquidity provision
may be distorted by inequalities in regulatory requirements.\36\ With
more uniform regulatory requirements and oversight due to the potential
increase in FINRA membership, proprietary trading firms could compete
more equitably to supply liquidity both on and off-exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See Proposing Release, supra note 10, 87 FR 49930, 49960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Alternatives Considered
    FINRA considered alternatives to the exemption proposed in this
proposed rule change. FINRA believes that the proposed TAF exemption is
preferable to an exemption from other types of fees and is directly
related to the impacts on the provision of liquidity that the SEC
discusses in its proposal.
    FINRA also considered other alternative changes to the TAF,
including adjusting the overall rate of the TAF or implementing a
tiered TAF structure based on trading activity or providing caps.
However, such alternatives could likely be more costly to implement for
both the affected firms and FINRA, compared to the proposed TAF
exemption. Accordingly, FINRA believes that the simple structure in
this proposed rule change would be more cost effective to implement.
FINRA will have more information about the total fees paid by
proprietary trading firms, and their impact on FINRA's regulatory
programs and fees once these firms become FINRA members.

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

    Following the SEC's 2015 Proposal to amend SEA Rule 15b9-1, FINRA
published Regulatory Notice 15-13 to solicit comment on a proposal to
exclude from FINRA's TAF transactions by a proprietary trading firm on
exchanges of which the firm is a member.\37\ Four comment letters were
received in response to the 2015 Notice.\38\ Following the SEC's re-

proposal of amendments to SEA Rule 15b9-1 in December 2022, FINRA re-
opened the comment period for Regulatory Notice 15-13 by publishing
Regulatory Notice 22-30.\39\ Four additional comment letters were
received in response to the 2022 Notice.\40\ A copy of both Regulatory
Notices are available on FINRA's website at http://www.finra.org.
Copies of the comment letters received in response to both Regulatory
Notices are also available on FINRA's website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See Regulatory Notice 15-13 (May 2015) (``2015 Notice'').
    \38\ Letter from Mary Ann Burns, Chief Operating Officer, FIA
Principal Traders Group (``FIA PTG''), to Marcia E. Asquith,
Corporate Secretary, FINRA, dated June 19, 2015 (``FIA PTG 2015
Letter''); Letter from Adam Nunes, Hudson River Trading LLC
(``HRT''), to Marcia E. Asquith, Corporate Secretary, FINRA, dated
June 19, 2015 (``HRT 2015 Letter''); Letter from Rory O'Kane,
Chairman of the Board & James Toes, President and CEO, Security
Traders Association (``STA''), to Marcia E. Asquith, Corporate
Secretary, FINRA, dated June 19, 2015 (``STA Letter''); and Letter
from Theodore R. Lazo, Managing Director and Associate General
Counsel, Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association
(``SIFMA''), to Marcia E. Asquith, Corporate Secretary, FINRA, dated
June 22, 2015 (``SIFMA Letter'').
    \39\ See Regulatory Notice 22-30 (December 2022) (``2022
Notice'').
    \40\ Letter from Adam Nunes, Hudson River Trading LLC, to
Jennifer Piorko Mitchell, Office of the Corporate Secretary, FINRA,
dated February 13, 2023 (``HRT 2023 Letter''); Letter from Joanna
Mallers, Secretary, FIA PTG, to Jennifer Piorko Mitchell, Office of
Corporate Secretary, FINRA, dated March 8, 2023 (``FIA PTG 2023
Letter''); Letter from John Kinahan, Chief Executive Officer, Group
One Trading, LP (``Group One''), to Jennifer Piorko Mitchell, Office
of Corporate Secretary, FINRA, dated March 15, 2023 (``Group One
Letter''); and Letter from University of Pittsburgh, School of Law
(``Pittsburgh University'') to Jennifer Piorko Mitchell, Office of
Corporate Secretary, FINRA, dated March 17, 2023 (``University of
Pittsburgh Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA received four generally supportive comment letters in
response to Regulatory Notice 15-13.\41\ All of these commenters also
suggested expanding the proposed TAF exemption to cover additional
proprietary trades. FINRA received three supportive \42\ and one
unsupportive \43\ comment letter in response to Regulatory Notice 22-
30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See FIA PTG 2015 Letter; HRT 2015 Letter; SIFMA Letter; and
STA Letter.
    \42\ See FIA PTG 2023 Letter; Group One Letter; and HRT 2023
Letter.
    \43\ See University of Pittsburgh Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Supportive Comments
    The FIA PTG 2023 Letter, HRT 2023 Letter, and Group One Letter
stated that the proposed TAF exemption would help address the
significant increase in costs that affected firms would otherwise face
in light of the SEC's proposed amendments. HRT and FIA PTG further
stated that the proposed exemption from TAF appropriately recognizes
the differences in the activities between proprietary trading
businesses and customer businesses, and the accompanying costs related
to regulating each type of business.\44\ Group One added that
implementing the proposed TAF exemption would support the ability of
proprietary trading firms to continue to provide liquidity in the least
disruptive manner possible.\45\ HRT, FIA PTG, and Group One also
asserted that implementing the TAF exemption would achieve an equitable
allocation of fees and be in line with FINRA's actual cost of
regulating its members.\46\ SIFMA also generally supported the proposed
TAF exemption and stated that FINRA should not assess TAF on any
principal transactions executed on exchanges of which the firm is a
member, regardless of the type of firm.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See HRT 2023 Letter, at 1-2; FIA PTG 2023 Letter.
    \45\ See Group One Letter, at 1.
    \46\ See HRT 2023 Letter; FIA PTG 2023 Letter; and Group One
Letter.
    \47\ See SIFMA Letter, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Requests for Modifications
    The FIA PTG 2015 Letter and SIFMA Letter requested that the
proposed TAF exemption be broadened to include all principal trades
done on an exchange of which a firm is a member, rather than just
trades by proprietary trading firms.\48\ Similarly, STA recommended
that FINRA ``reduce the TAF rates for equity transactions by
proprietary firms on over-the-counter and exchanges of which they are
not a member.'' \49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Some comments also addressed the potential restructuring of
the TAF as well as issues related to other FINRA fees. For example,
STA suggested that FINRA reduce the current TAF rate for equity
securities and, in particular, consider reducing the rate for over-
the-counter and exchange trades by proprietary trading firms. SIFMA
requested that FINRA review its fees more broadly and provide more
transparency into how it uses and allocates the revenues it receives
from fees and other sources of income. While these comments are not
germane to the instant proposal--which seeks to provide an exemption
from the TAF for a proprietary trading firm for transactions on an
exchange of which it is a member--FINRA notes that it reviews its
revenues as part of its budgeting process and revises fees as
appropriate, both their application and their rates. In this regard,
on October 14, 2020, FINRA amended various regulatory fees to
increase the revenues that FINRA, as a not-for-profit self-
regulatory organization, relies upon to fund its regulatory mission.
The proposed fee increases were designed to better align FINRA's
revenues with its costs while preserving the existing equitable
allocation of fees among FINRA members. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 90176 (October 14, 2020), 85 FR 66592 (October 20, 2020)
(Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of File No. SR-FINRA-
2020-032).
    \49\ See STA Letter, at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    HRT proposed that all principal trades executed on any exchange be
exempt from the TAF, adding that ``off-exchange trades, as well as
Agency and Riskless Principal trades executed on an exchange, should
continue to be charged the TAF.'' \50\ HRT stated that, as proposed,
the TAF exemption may discourage firms from engaging in customer-based
business \51\ or, alternatively, could result in such firms operating
multiple broker-dealers to avoid the proprietary firm business
incurring a TAF obligation on exempt exchange transactions.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ See HRT 2015 Letter, at 2.
    \51\ See supra note 50.
    \52\ See supra note 50; see also FIA PTG 2015 Letter, at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, FINRA believes that it is appropriate to
proceed with an exemption from TAF for proprietary trading firms with
respect to their transactions on an exchange of which they are a member
because FINRA anticipates that regulatory costs largely will relate to
overseeing such firms' activity over the counter or across exchanges.
    The FIA PTG 2015 Letter requested that, should the TAF exemption be
limited to ``proprietary trading firms'' as proposed, FINRA provide
guidance regarding the scope of the term ``proprietary trading firm''
to clarify: (i) the scope of the term ``customer'' for purposes of the
exemption, and (ii) the requirement that traders be owners of,
employees of, or contractors to the firm. Specifically, the FIA PTG
2015 Letter requested that FINRA clarify that the criteria ``does not
have customers'' only applies to customers that are engaged in
transactions in securities that are subject to the TAF, and not to
``non-securities transactions, fixed-income transactions, and other
businesses such as stock-lending and licensing of technology.'' \53\
FIA PTG also asked that FINRA specify what time period is relevant for
purposes of determining whether a firm is engaged in a customer
business.\54\ Further, FIA PTG requested that FINRA clarify that
traders or other associated persons could be employed by an affiliate
of the firm (rather than firm itself) without losing the ability to
rely on the proposed exemption.\55\ FIA PTG asserted that such
employment arrangements are ``a common structure'' for such firms.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ See FIA PTG 2015 Letter, at 4.
    \54\ See supra note 53.
    \55\ See supra note 53, at 5.
    \56\ See supra note 53, at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to these comments, FINRA is clarifying that the
relevant activities for purposes of the proposed definition of
``proprietary trading firm'' are securities activities. The term
``securities activities'' would include transactions in any security
(including fixed income) and also would include securities lending
transactions. However, the term would not include non-securities
activities such as licensing of technology or non-securities
transactions. In addition, FINRA is modifying the definition of
``proprietary trading firm'' to clarify that ``customer'' would include
``any person, other than a broker or dealer, with whom the member
engages, or within the past six

months has engaged, in securities activities.'' FINRA believes that the
six-month proposed timeframe will provide additional clarity as to the
application of the rule as members' businesses may evolve over time.
Thus, for example, if a member restructures its business such that it
ceases engaging in securities activities with customers, the member
would be able to avail itself of the proposed proprietary trading firm
exemption after a six-month period (assuming that the other conditions
of the exemption are met). The six-month timeframe would be assessed on
an ongoing basis; therefore, any securities activity with a customer
would cause the firm to be ineligible for the exemption for six months
from the time the firm ceases to engage in such customer activity.
Finally, FINRA is proposing to include within the scope of
``proprietary trading firm'' a firm that (in addition to the other
criteria) conducts all trading through the firm's accounts by traders
that are owners of, employees of, or contractors to the firm ``or
employees of an affiliate of the firm.''
Unsupportive Comments
    Pittsburgh University stated that proprietary trading firms engage
in significant trading in the marketplace, which pose a substantial
risk to the market, and that there is a related cost for FINRA to
supervise and oversee proprietary trading firm activity and that,
therefore, FINRA should apply a TAF rate to proprietary trading firms
that is proportional to the cost of regulating such firms.\57\
Pittsburgh University also stated that ``[w]hile the cost to regulate
proprietary trading firms is less than the cost to regulate firms which
trade on behalf of customers, proprietary trading firms should not be
entirely exempt from the TAF when trading on an exchange on which they
are members.'' \58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ See University of Pittsburgh Letter, at 6.
    \58\ See University of Pittsburgh Letter. Pittsburgh University
added that ``[t]o exempt proprietary trading firms from TAFs would
alter the balance between the TAF and other FINRA fees that fund
FINRA's operations, due to an increased cost in regulation without a
similar increase of resources.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA agrees that regulating proprietary trading firm trading
activity will involve a cost. For this reason, FINRA is not proposing
to exempt proprietary trading firms from the TAF altogether. As
discussed above, FINRA believes it is appropriate to exempt proprietary
trading firms from the TAF for transactions on an exchange of which
they are a member because FINRA anticipates that regulatory costs
largely will relate to overseeing such firms' activity over the counter
or across exchanges.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \59\ and paragraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\60\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend
such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If
the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute
proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved
or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \60\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
file number SR-FINRA-2023-009 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to file number SR-FINRA-2023-009. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA. Do not include
personal identifiable information in submissions; you should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. We may
redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted material
that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All submissions
should refer to file number SR-FINRA-2023-009 and should be submitted
on or before July 21, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\61\
J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-13894 Filed 6-29-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 238 (Friday, December 11, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76967-76968]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31215]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL00-95-288]

San Diego Gas & Electric Company v. Sellers of Energy and
Ancillary Services Into Markets Operated by the California Independent
System Operator Corporation and the California Power Exchanges; Notice
of Compliance Filing

    Take notice that on December 4, 2015, Exelon Generation Company,
LLC. submitted its Opinion No. 536 Fuel Cost Allowance Compliance
Filing.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See San Diego Gas & Electric Company v. Sellers of Energy
and Ancillary Services into Markets Operated by the California
Independent System Operator Corporation and the California Power
Exchange, Docket No. EL00-95-280 et al., 153 FERC ] 61,144 (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the

Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person
wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion
to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must
be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date,
it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on
persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on December 28, 2015.

    Dated: December 7, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-31215 Filed 12-10-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 3, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 213)]
[Notices]
[Page 64744-64745]
[DOCID:fr03no06-111]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Office of the Secretary

Submission for OMB Review: Comment Request

October 30, 2006.
    The Department of Labor (DOL) has submitted the following public
information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35). A copy of
this ICR, with applicable supporting

documentation, may be obtained from RegInfo.gov at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain
 or by contacting Darrin King on 202-

693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number) / e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Comments should be sent to Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235,
Washington, DC 20503, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> / Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
(these are not toll-free numbers), within 30 days from the date of this
publication in the Federal Register.
    The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
     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;
     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;
     Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
     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.
    Agency: Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
    Type of Review: Extension without change of currently approved
collection.
    Title: Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for General Industry (29
CFR part 1910, subpart I).
    OMB Number: 1218-0205.
    Type of Response: Recordkeeping and Third party disclosure.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profits.
    Number of Respondents: 3,400,000.
    Number of Annual Responses: 49,748,648.
    Estimated Time per Response: Varies by task.
    Total Burden Hours: 3,953,759.
    Total Annualized capital/startup costs: $0.
    Total Annual Costs (operating/maintaining systems or purchasing
services): $0.
    Description: The main objective of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) is to ``assure so far as possible every
working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working
conditions and to preserve our human resources'' (29 U.S.C. 651). To
achieve this objective, the OSH Act authorizes ``the development and
promulgation of occupational safety and health standards'' (29 U.S.C.
651).
    With regard to recordkeeping, the OSH Act specifies that ``[e]ach
employer shall make, keep and preserve, and make available to the
Secretary * * * such records * * * as the Secretary * * * may prescribe
by regulation as necessary appropriate for enforcement of this Act * *
*'' (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act states further that ``[t]he Secretary
* * * shall prescribe such rules and regulations as [he/she] may deem
necessary to carry out [his/her] responsibilities under this Act,
including rules and regulations dealing with inspection of an
employer's establishment'' (29 U.S.C. 657).
    Under the authority granted by the OSH Act, the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration (OSHA) issued personal protective equipment
(PPE) standards for general industry at 29 CFR part 1910, subpart I
(subpart I). Section 1910.132(a) requires that PPE, including equipment
for eyes, face, head, and extremities, protective clothing, respiratory
devices, and protective shields and barriers, be provided, used, and
maintained in a sanitary and reliable condition wherever it is
necessary by reason of hazards of processes or environment, chemical
hazards, radiological hazards, or mechanical irritants encountered in a
manner capable of causing injury or impairment in the function of any
part of the body through absorption, inhalation or physical contact.
Subpart I specifies several paperwork requirements. The following
describes the information collection requirements in subpart I and
addresses who will use the information.

Hazard Assessment and Verification (Sec.  1910.132(d))

    Paragraph (d)(1) requires employers to perform a hazard assessment
of the workplace to determine if hazards are present, or likely to be
present, that make the use of PPE necessary. Where such hazards are
present, employers must communicate PPE selection decisions to each
affected employee (paragraph (d)(1)(ii)). Paragraph (d)(2) requires
employers to certify in writing that they have performed the hazard
assessment. The certification must include the date and the person
certifying that the hazard assessment was conducted, and the
identification of the workplace evaluated (area or location).
    The hazard assessment assures that potential workplace hazards
necessitating PPE use have been identified and the PPE selected is
appropriate for those hazards and the affected employees. The required
certification of the hazard assessment verifies that the required
hazard assessment was conducted.

Training and Verification (Sec.  1910.132(f))

    Section 1910.132(f) requires that employers provide training for
each employee who is required to wear PPE. Paragraph (f)(3) requires
that employers also provide retraining when there is reason to believe
that any previously trained employee does not have the understanding
and skill to use PPE properly. Circumstances where such retraining is
required include changes in the workplace that render prior training
obsolete, changes in the types of PPE used, and inadequacies in the
employee's knowledge or use of PPE that indicate the employee had not
retained the requisite understanding and skill.
    Paragraph (f)(4) requires that employers certify that employees
have received and understood the PPE training required in Sec.
1910.132(f). The training certification must include the name of the
employee(s) trained, the date(s) of training, and the subject of the
certification (i.e., a statement identifying the document as a
certification of training in the use of PPE).
    The training certification verifies that employees have received
the necessary training and know how to properly use PPE. OSHA
compliance officers may require employers to disclose the certification
records during an Agency inspection.
    The standards on PPE protection for the eyes and face (29 CFR
1910.133), head (29 CFR 1910.135, feet (29 CFR 1910.136)), and hands
(29 CFR 1910.138) do not contain any separate information collection
requirements.

Darrin A. King,
Acting Departmental Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. E6-18530 Filed 11-2-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P