United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Environmental Information ( OEI)

November 18, 2004 Memo For Docket SUBJECT: Memorandum for the Cross Media Electronic Reporting Rule ( CROMERR) Docket ( Docket Number: OEI 2003 0001), documenting revisions to the final rule resulting from review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.

FROM: Evi Huffer Co Chair, CROMERR Workgroup Office of Information Collection ( 2823T)

TO: Public Docket Number OEI 2003 0001 The purpose of this memorandum is to document revisions to the Final Cross Media Electronic Reporting Rule ( CROMERR) based on the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) review. Pursuant to Executive Order ( EO) 12866, EPA provided to OMB a draft of the final rule, as well as the cost benefit analysis ( CBA), for its review. OMB completed its review on November 18, 2004 and released it to EPA for finalization. Based on OMB review, no substantial revisions were made to the final rule. The following revisions were made to the final rule CBA to address OMB's comments.

( 1) Under Section 2.1.1 of the CBA, EPA added an explanation for its choice of 10 year period for analysis:

EPA has chosen a 10 year period for the regulatory impact analysis, because we believe that this is roughly the time frame for EPA and our authorized or delegated State, Tribal and local government programs to achieve full implementation of electronic reporting under CROMERR. Accordingly, looking at the out years beyond the 10 year time frame would not provide any additional analytic information about CROMERR's impacts.

( 2) Throughout the document, EPA changed the " As Is" scenario to " Baseline" scenario.

( 3) To address OMB questions regarding some basic assumptions, we added notes to more clearly explain those assumptions. Such as adding an explanation that the " dollars" referred to in the CBA tables and discussions were in terms of " 2003" dollars.

( 4) To respond to OMB's concern that the reason for CROMERR be clearly articulated under the 1.0 Introduction, we added a new section titled 1.2 Problem Statement, which discussed EPA's primary purpose in developing CROMERR:

The primary purpose of CROMERR is to set standards for electronic reporting as it is implemented by State, Tribal or local governments administer environmental programs under EPA authorization or delegation. EPA has been motivated to set such standards primarily by considering: the roles that many electronically submitted documents would likely play in environmental program management, including compliance monitoring and enforcement; EPA's statutory obligation to ensure that authorized or delegated programs maintain the enforceability of environmental law and regulations; and the consequent need to ensure that enforceability is not compromised as authorized or delegated program make the transition from paper to electronic submission of compliance or enforcement related documents.

Concerning this last point, in many respects electronic submission enhances a document's utility for environmental programs: it significantly reduces the resources and time involved in making the content available to its users, and can greatly facilitate data quality assurance and analysis. Nonetheless, the federal government's experience with prosecuting computer related crimes has shown us that electronic submissions may also be open to challenge, primarily with respect to their authenticity   and particularly where they are used to establish the actions and intentions of the submitters. We have to consider such uses in the case of environmental reporting, especially where electronic submissions are made to report on an entity's compliance status and where the submission includes a responsible individual's certification to the truth of what is reported. For such cases, EPA has identified a programmatic need to be able to authenticate the submission content and the certification   for example, to be able to address issues of fraud or false reporting where they arise   and it is primarily to address this problem of authentication that EPA is setting standards for electronic reporting through CROMERR.

The point of these standards is to assure the authenticity of electronic documents submitted in lieu of paper reports, so that they are able to play the same role as their paper counterparts in providing evidence of what was reported and of what an identified individual certified to with respect to the report. For example, in the case of paper submissions, the evidence surrounding a handwritten signature is normally sufficient to demonstrate that the signature is authentic and rebut any attempt by the signatory to repudiate it   and EPA intends the CROMERR standards ensure that electronic signatures have a corresponding level of non repudiation. Since these evidentiary issues typically arise in the context of judicial or other legal proceedings, electronic documents need to have the same " legal dependability" as their paper counterparts. The over arching standard here is that any electronic document used as evidence to prosecute an environmental crime or to enforce against a civil violation must have no less evidentiary value than its paper equivalent. For example, where there is a question of deliberate falsification of compliance data, whether the submission was electronic or paper, it must be possible to establish the signatory's identity beyond a reasonable doubt. Hence, in general, the goal of the CROMERR standards is to ensure that a system used to receive electronic documents is capable of reliably generating evidence for use in private litigation, in civil enforcement proceedings, and in criminal proceedings in which the standard for conviction is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the electronic document was actually signed by the individual identified as the signatory and that the data it contains was not submitted in error.

( 5) EPA also added a new section titled Consideration of Alternatives at 1.3 to address OMB concerns. This section discusses the alternatives EPA considered in developing the regulatory approach taken in the final rule.

EPA considered both a more stringent and a less stringent alternative to the regulatory approach taken in final CROMERR. The more stringent alternative is reflected in the electronic provisions published, August 31, 2001, in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for CROMERR. The proposed version of CROMERR is more stringent by virtue of setting much more prescriptive, detailed requirements that acceptable electronic document receiving systems would have to satisfy. For example, proposed § 3.2000( d) set very specific requirements for submitter identity management that a system would have to satisfy, including detailed requirements for renewal of registration and revocation of registration under specified circumstances. Again, § 3.2000( e) set very detailed requirements for the signature/ certification scenario that a system would have to provide for, specifying the exact sequence of steps to be followed in electronically signing a submission, and requiring such features as on screen, scroll through presentation of the data to be submitted for review of the signatory prior to signing ( § 3.2000( e)( 1)( i)). EPA received significant public comment on this approach, both from States and from regulated companies, and there were at least three closely related themes. The first was that such prescriptive requirements would greatly limit the flexibility of States to implement electronic reporting in cost effective way. Many of the comments pointed that such requirements would render the investments that States had already made in electronic reporting infrastructure virtually worthless, would prohibit their use of COTS products, and would require, instead, the development of very costly customized systems that might be both difficult and expensive to operate and maintain. The second theme was that many of the requirements   especially those specifying the signature/ certification scenario   were simply not appropriate to many cases where electronic reporting would occur. Some commenters cited examples where very large data files would be transferred, rendering on screen review impractical; others pointed out that company business processes involved in internal review, approval and certification of regulatory submissions was simply not compatible with the specified scenario. Third and finally, many of these commenters expressed skepticism that these very detailed requirements represented the only possible approach to ensuring the legal dependability of electronic submissions and signatures. In considering such comments, EPA has concluded that, given our inexperience with electronic reporting, we simply lack a basis for certainty that any particular set of function based requirements at the level of specificity reflected in proposed CROMERR is ( or is not) necessary for legally dependable electronic submissions. Given the evidently high cost   to both States and regulated entities   that such requirements would impose, we decided it would be better to focus on criteria that directly articulate these basic issues, that is, the underlying goal of assuring legal dependability, including the authenticity of electronic documents and the nonrepudiation of electronic signatures. Accordingly, we are setting standards in terms of general system performance goals that are less stringent by virtue of allowing much greatly flexibility in how such goals are met in specific implementations.

In writing these general performance goals, EPA also considered a less stringent alternative that would have refrained from specifying performance in terms of establishing the identity of an individual to whom a signature device or credential ( e. g. a PIN, password, or PKI certificate) is issued. With reference to the final CROMERR provisions, this less stringent alternative would have omitted § 3.2000( b)( 5)( vii) identityproofing provisions. In terms of regulatory impact, this would be a significant reduction in stringency, insofar as most of CROMERR's burden on regulated entities is associated with have to register to obtain a signature device or credential, and any identity proofing requirement raises at least the aggregate burden substantially. EPA rejected this alternative, because we believe that it would seriously   perhaps fatally   undermine the rule's ability to assure the legal dependability of electronic submissions. It is a basic principle of electronic authentication ( E authentication)   whether in the context of validating an individual's signature, or for other purposes   that our confidence that the individual being authenticated is who we believe him or her to be depends critically on the degree of trust we can place in the credential the individual presents. Trust is largely a function of the identity proofing process conducted when the individual registered for the credential in the first place   the process must have been sufficiently stringent and credible. If we did not establish with sufficient certainty who this individual was when we issued the credential, then we cannot we certain who is using the credential in a specific instance where it is presented. Where the credential is used to create an electronic signature, then, inadequate identity proofing would mean that we cannot be certain who the signatory is   that is, no specific individual would be bound with any certainty by the signature   and this would render the signature virtually worthless for any legal purpose. In view of this, EPA felt that, notwithstanding the cost, it was necessary to specify that identity proofing be conducted. Additionally, for electronic documents of particular legal importance to environmental programs   identified as the " priority reports"   we felt that is was necessary to specify, at least to a degree, how the identity proofing had to be performed. We believe we need this additional specification for cases where signatory identity may be a legal issue, so that we are assured that electronic reporting implementations give us clear and predictable methods to establish this identity that conform to the standard practices of electronic commerce.

( 6) Finally, to address OMB concerns, EPA revised the 5.0 Qualitative Benefits section. Specifically, we included a paragraph on the benefits from greater enforcement certainty and deleted the following paragraphs: Responds to federal requirements; Consistent with emerging industry commercial practices; sound environmental practice; more rapid environmental compliance reporting; simplifies facility reporting; and Serves as foundation for further process reengineering. The following is the new paragraph:

More Enforcement Certainty. The purpose of CROMERR is primarily to ensure that as State, Tribal or local governments implement electronic reporting for the EPAauthorized or delegated programs they administer, the electronic documents that receive are as legally dependable as their paper counterparts, especially for purposes of providing evidence in the context of legal proceedings of who attested by signature to the truth and accuracy of what data. The requirements set by CROMERR are specifically designed to provide for this legal dependability, and they will do so in at least by providing:

  standards for valid electronic signatures and authentic electronic documents   to be admitted as evidence in a judicial proceeding, electronic signatures and documents may need to be shown to satisfy standards of validity and authenticity. Absent clearly identifiable standards, it may be difficult to environmental litigators to make such a showing. CROMERR will provide such standards.   assurance that electronic documents can be authenticated   to provide evidence of what an individual submitted and/ or attested to, there must be clear and straightforward methods of showing that the electronic document an environmental agency received is in fact what the individual submitted. CROMERR requirements for electronic document receiving systems will ensure that these systems receive and maintain electronic documents so as to ensure that such authentication methods are available.   assurance that electronic signatures resist repudiation by the signatory   in at least some enforcement proceedings, a critical issue is whether a particular individual is responsible for the content of a submitted document, and the issue turns on whether that individual was the signatory of the certification statement. If the individual in question is able to repudiate his or her electronic signature   that is, successfully deny that it was his or hers  then the enforcement case may collapse. CROMERR requirements for electronic signatures, and for the identity proofing needed to issue a signature device or credential, are designed to ensure that signatories are not able to repudiate signatures that they create, that is, that there is sufficient evidence to show when an individual has created a signature.

By providing for these and other facets of an electronic document's legal dependability, CROMERR provides certainty that EPA and its authorized or delegated programs can continue to ensure compliance with environmental laws and statutes by being able to hold individuals responsible for being truthful when they report on their companies' compliance status. By the same token, CROMERR also provides certainty that when EPA or its authorized or delegated programs discover actionable cases of false or fraudulent reporting that they will have the documentary evidence they need to bring such cases into court.


[Federal Register: May 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 90)]
[Notices]
[Page 26181-26182]
[DOCID:fr08my08-140]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57768; File No. SR-DTC-2007-10]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company;
Order Granting Accelerated Approval of an Amended Proposed Rule Change
To Implement the New Issue Information Dissemination Service for
Municipal Securities

May 2, 2008.

I. Introduction

    On August 16, 2007, The Depository Trust Company (``DTC'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') and on
September 12, 2007,\1\ March 3, 2008,\2\ and April 9, 2008 \3\ amended
proposed rule change SR-DTC-2007-10 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'').\4\ Notice of the proposal
was published in the Federal Register on October 3, 2007,\5\ March 24,
2008,\6\ and April 16, 2008.\7\ The Commission received no comment
letters. For the reasons discussed below, the Commission is approving
the proposed rule change on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The amendment changed a misplaced word in a footnote.
    \2\ The amendment changed the implementation date of the service
and made other technical changes.
    \3\ The amendment changed the implementation date of the
service.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \5\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56552 (September 27,
2007), 72 FR 56407.
    \6\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57513 (March 17, 2008),
73 FR 15548.
    \7\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57647 (April 10, 2008),
73 FR 20727.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description

    The New Issue Identification Dissemination Service (``NIIDS'') is
designed to improve the process by which municipal securities new issue
information is provided by underwriters to information vendors. NIIDS
will provide for the collection of information about new issues from
underwriters or their representatives in an electronic format and for
making that data available immediately to information vendors. NIIDS is
designed to enable the dissemination of new issue information as
quickly and efficiently as possible after the information is made
available by underwriters.
    Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (``MSRB'') Rule G-14
generally requires municipal securities dealers to report municipal
securities transactions to the MSRB within 15 minutes of the time of
the trade.\8\ Inter-dealer trades eligible for comparison by a clearing
agency are required to be submitted to the MSRB through the National
Securities Clearing Corporation's (``NSCC'') Real Time Trade Matching
System (``RTTM'') within the 15 minute time frame in Rule G-14. NSCC
requires certain securities information in order to process and to
report transactions involving those securities. Therefore, it is
necessary that dealers trading newly issued municipal securities have
the securities information needed for trade submission by the time the
trade is required to be reported.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ MSRB Rule G-14, RTRS Procedures (a)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to current practice in the municipal securities market,
each information vendor works separately to obtain information from
offering documents and from underwriters. Each information vendor's
success in obtaining information about newly issued municipal
securities depends in large part upon the voluntary cooperation of the
underwriters. It is not unusual for information vendors to have
inconsistent information or for some information vendors to receive
information before others. Consequently, critical new issue information
may be missing, inaccurate, or both in the automated trade processing
systems used by dealers to report trades in new issues. This can result
in the late submission of trade reports or in trade reports that must
be canceled and resubmitted or amended because they contain inaccurate
data.
    To address concerns that dealers often lack timely access to
electronically formatted accurate securities information necessary to
process and report municipal securities transactions in real-time, MSRB
Rule G-14 provides for reporting of trades within three-hours of the
time of trade for a dealer trading in ``when, as, and if issued''
municipal securities if the dealer is not a syndicate manager or
syndicate member for the issue, has not traded the issue in the
previous year, and does not have the CUSIP information or indicative
data for that issue in their securities master file (``Reporting
Exemption'').\9\ The Reporting Exemption will expire in 2008. In order
to prepare for the Reporting Exemption's expiration, the Securities
Industry and Financial Markets Association asked DTC to include a
centralized automated mechanism for the real-time collection and
dissemination of the required information as part of the planned
reengineering of DTC's underwriting system. In response to this
request, DTC built NIIDS to help make the collection and dissemination
of municipal securities new issue information more efficient for the
industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ MSRB Rule G-14, RTRS Procedures (a)(ii)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NIIDS Process

    To commence the process, the Dissemination Agent for a new issue
municipal security must input the key data elements required for the
reporting, comparison, confirmation, and settlement of trades in
municipal securities (``NIIDS Data Elements'') into NIIDS. The
inputting will constitute a request that DTC make the information
available to the industry through NIIDS. DTC will not confirm the
accuracy of the NIIDS Data Elements and will act only as a conduit to
pass along such information to data vendors.\10\ DTC anticipates the
data vendors will then disseminate the information to the industry
thereby enabling dealers to make timely and accurate reporting of their
municipal trades. DTC will record the name of the Dissemination Agent
that inputs the NIIDS Data Elements and the time such information is
submitted. DTC will begin disseminating the data when it has received
authorization from the Dissemination Agent through NIIDS. In addition,
NIIDS will contain the contact information for the Dissemination Agent
that populated the NIIDS Data Elements for each issue to enable users
of the data to contact them with questions or comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Data vendors or others that wish to receive NIIDS Data
Elements must register in advance with DTC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DTC is providing NIIDS to the industry in order to facilitate the
collection and dissemination of municipal securities new issue
information. As DTC is only a conduit of the information and does not
confirm the validity of any of the NIIDS Data Elements, use of NIIDS by
any party will constitute an agreement that DTC shall not be liable for
any loss or damages in relation to its collection and dissemination of
NIIDS Data Elements. Each NIIDS user will agree to indemnify

and hold harmless DTC and its affiliates from and against any and all
losses, damages, liabilities, costs, judgments, charges, and expenses
arising out of or relating to the use of NIIDS.

Optional Use of NIIDS

    The MSRB would like dealers to be able to use NIIDS before
requiring them to so by rule.\11\ The MSRB has filed with the
Commission a proposed rule change that ultimately would require
underwriters to use NIIDS in 2008.\12\ DTC intends to provide the
municipal securities industry the opportunity to start using NIIDS on
May 5, 2008. Mandated use of NIIDS for municipal securities is expected
to commence September 2, 2008. DTC believes that the municipal
securities industry will use NIIDS during the period NIIDS is optional
(``Optional Period'') in order to become accustomed to it. This may
result in Dissemination Agents inputting incomplete or inaccurate NIIDS
Data Elements while getting acquainted with NIIDS. Therefore, no one
should rely on the accuracy of the NIIDS Data Elements during the
Optional Period but rather should continue to also use existing
authorized sources of such information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The MSRB received comment on its proposed rules that would
require underwriters of municipal securities to participate in
NIIDS. See Comments on MSRB Notice 2007-10 (March 5, 2007) at http:/
/www.msrb.org/msrb1/rules/RFC/2007/2007-10/2007-
10CommentLetters.asp.
    \12\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57131 (January 11,
2008), 73 FR 3295 (January 17, 2008) [SR-MSRB-2007-08].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DTC will not charge a service fee to underwriters that input or
receive information through NIIDS. Additionally, DTC will not charge a
service fee to information vendors that receive information through
NIIDS for further dissemination. DTC will charge a connectivity fee to
underwriters, service providers, and information vendors that use
NIIDS.

III. Discussion

    Section 19(b) of the Act directs the Commission to approve a
proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that
such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the
Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such
organization.\13\ Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires that the
rules of a clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions.\14\ The
Commission finds that DTC's rule change implementing NIIDS is
consistent with this requirement because by automating, standardizing,
and centralizing the collection and dissemination of new issue
information for municipal securities NIIDS should make the reporting
and clearance and settlement of trades in municipal securities more
timely and accurate. As a result, DTC's proposed rule change should
promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \15\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes there is good cause for approving the
proposed rule change prior to the thirtieth day after the date of
publication of notice of filing because by so approving the proposed
rule change DTC will be able to provide a longer Optional Period for
users to use and become accustom to NIIDS before its use is mandated
and will allow DTC to implement NIIDS according to its system
implementation schedule.

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
in particular Section 17A of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\16\ that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-DTC-2007-10) be and
hereby is approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-10213 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: November 10, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 217)]
[Notices]
[Page 68429]
[DOCID:fr10no05-94]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[RT01-99-000, RT01-99-001, RT01-99-002; RT01-99-003; RT01-86-000, RT01-
86-001; RT01-86-002; RT01-95-000, RT01-95-001; RT01-95-002; RT01-2-000,
RT01-2-001, RT01-2-002; RT01-2-003; RT01-98-000; and RT02-3-000]

Regional Transmission Organizations; Bangor Hydro-Electric
Company, et al.; New York Independent System Operator, Inc., et al.;
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., et al.; PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; ISO
New England, Inc.; New York Independent System Operator, Inc.; Notice

November 3, 2005.
    Take notice that PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., New York Independent
System Operator, Inc. and ISO New England, Inc. have posted on their
internet websites charts and information updating their progress on the
resolution of ISO seams.
    Any person desiring to file comments on this information should
file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). All such comments should be filed on or before the comment
date. Comments may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of
paper; see 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the
Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission
strongly encourages electronic filings.
    Comment Date: November 23, 2005.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-6199 Filed 11-9-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 110 (Friday, June 7, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26632-26634]
[FR Doc No: 2019-12044]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 239

[FRL-9994-84-Region 2]

The Territory of the United States Virgin Islands: Notification
of Tentative Determination of Adequacy of the U.S. Virgin Islands
Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Permit Program; Public Hearings and
Public Comment Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) has requested that EPA consider
approving its Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle D
municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLF) Permit Program and with this
action, EPA is proposing a Tentative Determination of Adequacy of the
USVI MSWLF Permit Program. Although RCRA does not require EPA to hold a
hearing on any determination to approve a State/Tribe's MSWLF program,
the Region has scheduled three public hearings on this tentative

determination. Details appear below in the DATES section.

DATES: All comments on EPA's tentative determination of adequacy of the
USVI RCRA Subtitle D MSWLF Permit Program must be received by the close
of business on Friday, August 2, 2019. One public hearing will be held
on St. Croix, USVI on Tuesday, July 23, 2019; a second hearing will
take place on St. Thomas, USVI on Wednesday, July 24, 2019; a third
hearing will take place on St. John, USVI on Thursday, July 25, 2019.
Each hearing will begin at 6 p.m. The Government of the USVI is
expected to participate in the public hearings held by EPA on this
matter.

ADDRESSES: Copies of key documents concerning this matter are available
between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. at the following addresses for
inspection and copying: U.S. EPA Region 2 Library, 290 Broadway, 16th
Floor, New York, New York, 10007-1866, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; the
USVI Department of Planning and Natural Resources, Division of
Environmental Protection, 2607 Tutu Park Mall, St. Thomas, USVI 00802,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; the Elaine Ione Strauve Public Library,
Enighed Estate, St. John, USVI 00831, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; the
USVI Department of Planning and Natural Resources, Division of
Environmental Protection, 45 Estate Mars Hill, Frederiksted, St. Croix,
USVI, 00840, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; the USEPA Caribbean
Environmental Protection Division (CEPD) City View Plaza II--Suite 7000
#48 Rd. 165 km 1.2 Guaynabo, PR 00968-8069. Written comments should be
sent to Judy-Ann Mitchell, Acting Deputy Division Director, Land,
Chemicals, and Redevelopment Division, USEPA Region 2, 290 Broadway,
New York, NY 10007 or via email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The St.
Croix public hearing on Tuesday, July 23, 2019 will be held at the
Florence A. Williams Public Library, 1122 King Street, Christiansted,
St. Croix, USVI 00823; the St. Thomas public hearing on Wednesday, July
24, 2019 will held at the Department of Planning and Natural Resources
Charles W. Turnbull Regional Public Library Auditorium, 2607 Tutu Park
Mall, St. Thomas, USVI 00802; the St. John public hearing on Thursday,
July 25 will be held at the Cleone H. Creque Legislative Conference
Room, St. John Legislative Annex, Cruz Bay, St. John, USVI 00830.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy-Ann Mitchell, Acting Deputy
Division Director, Land, Chemicals, and Redevelopment Division, U.S.
EPA Region 2, 290 Broadway, New York, New York, 10007-1866, telephone
(212) 637-3721<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

    The RCRA, as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of
1984, requires States to develop and implement permit programs or other
systems of prior approval to ensure that MSWLFs which may receive
hazardous household waste or small quantity generator waste will comply
with the revised Federal MSWLF Criteria. The RCRA requires the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to determine whether States have
adequate ``permit'' programs for MSWLFs. Pursuant to the RCRA, the term
``State'' includes the territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands. To
implement these statutory provisions, EPA promulgated a State
Implementation final rule, which provides criteria and procedures for
making adequacy determinations of State municipal landfill permit
programs. The EPA approval of state MSWLF programs provides Directors
of approved states with various flexibilities including the authority
to approve expansion of an existing landfill or siting a new landfill
in a seismic zone, application of alternative daily cover, and
alternate financial assurance mechanisms. The EPA notes that federal
landfill criteria apply to all permitted and unpermitted MSWLF
facilities.
    On October 9, 1991, EPA promulgated revised criteria for MSWLFs (40
CFR part 258). Subtitle D of RCRA, as amended by the Hazardous and
Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), requires States to develop
permitting programs or other systems of prior approval to ensure that
MSWLFs comply with the Federal Criteria under part 258. RCRA also
requires in Section 4005(c)(1)(C), 42 U.S.C. 6945(c)(1)(C) that EPA
determine whether State MSWLF permit programs are adequate to comply
with the revised Federal Criteria. Title 40 CFR part 239 specifies the
minimum requirements which State landfill permit programs must satisfy
to be determined by EPA to be adequate, including: The state must have
legally adopted enforceable standards for new and existing MSWLFs that
are technically comparable to EPA's revised MSWLF landfill criteria;
the state must have an adequate compliance monitoring program and the
legal authority to issue permits or other forms of prior approval to
all new and existing MSWLFs in its jurisdiction; the State must provide
for public participation in permit issuance and enforcement as required
in section 7004(b) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6974(b); and the State must also
demonstrate that it has sufficient compliance monitoring and
enforcement authorities to take specific action against any owner or
operator that fails to comply with applicable regulations or its
landfill permit.
    The EPA Regions are authorized to determine whether a State has
submitted an ``adequate'' program based on the statute and the
regulations summarized above. EPA expects States to meet all these
requirements for its MSWLF program before it gives full approval of the
adequacy of a MSWLF program.
    As a general matter, the Agency believes that approvals of state
programs have an important benefit. Approved State permit programs
establish procedures for interaction between a state and an owner/
operator regarding site-specific permit conditions. Only those owners/
operators located in States with approved permit programs can use the
site-specific flexibility provided by part 258 to the extent that the
State permit program allows such flexibility. EPA notes that regardless
of the approval status of a State and the permit status of any
facility, the federal landfill criteria apply to all permitted and
unpermitted MSWLF facilities. EPA also notes that Section 4005(a) of
RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6945(a), provides that citizens may use the citizen
suit provisions of Section 7002 of RCRA to enforce the Federal MSWLF
criteria in 40 CFR part 258 independent of any State enforcement
program.

B. Territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands

    The USVI originally applied for a determination of adequacy under
RCRA in October 1993. EPA reviewed the application and published in the
Federal Register a Tentative Determination of Adequacy on June 16,
1995. However, the public hearings and public comments contained many
adverse statements concerning deficiencies in the USVI solid waste
program; in addition, the USVI did not promulgate revised solid waste
regulations that could meet EPA approval. Accordingly, EPA did not
publish a Final Determination of Adequacy. Based on continuing
deficiencies in the USVI solid waste management program, on May 8, 2000
(65 FR 26546) EPA published in the Federal Register a Tentative
Determination of Inadequacy and held two public hearings on St. Thomas
and St. Croix. After review of public comments, EPA decided not to
proceed with a Final Determination of Inadequacy and to allow the USVI

additional time to develop its solid waste management program, which
EPA believes has now occurred.
    The EPA has continued to work with the USVI both on its day-to-day
landfill operation practices and the development of appropriate solid
waste regulations. In addition, in 2004 the USVI established the Waste
Management Authority and in recent years has pursued various efforts to
improve its solid waste management program. Also, scheduling the work
for the final closure of both the Anguilla and Bovoni landfills is now
under the supervision of a federal judge and the Department of Justice,
pursuant to federal Consent Decrees, which became effective in 2013 and
2014.
    The USVI submitted program application material to EPA in 2008, and
in 2017 and 2018 submitted additional information that EPA requested.
EPA has reviewed all relevant materials concerning the USVI's MSWLF
program, including revised solid waste regulations, and has made a
tentative determination that all portions of the U.S. Virgin Islands'
MSWLF permit program now are adequate to assure compliance with the
revised Federal Criteria, except that correction of a technical/
typographical error in a section of the Virgin Islands solid waste
regulations needs to be made.
    The USVI Attorney General has certified that the current laws and
regulations, which are part of the Virgin Islands solid waste
management program, are in full force and effect, and that an
appropriate correction to the solid waste regulations is being
processed. The Attorney General will update its certification when the
correction of the regulations has been officially promulgated.
    The USVI application materials for this program adequacy
determination are available for public review in the locations
described in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

C. Comment Period/Final Determination

    EPA will consider all public comments received during the public
comment period and public hearings, including any comments offered by
the Virgin Islands government, and make a final determination on
whether to approve the Virgin Islands' RCRA Subtitle D MSWLF Permit
Program. EPA will give notice of its final determination in the Federal
Register. The document will include a summary of the reasons for the
final determination, and a summary of responses to all major comments
received at the public hearings and during the public comment period.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 239

    State solid waste program application, Requirements for adequate
permit programs, EPA adequacy determination procedures.

    Dated: May 9, 2019.
Peter D. Lopez,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2019-12044 Filed 6-6-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 170 (Thursday, September 1, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54384-54385]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22289]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0537; FRL-9457-6]

California State Implementation Plan, South Coast Air Quality
Management District; Withdrawal of Direct Final Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On July 15, 2011 (76 FR 41717), EPA published a direct final
approval of a revision to the California State Implementation Plan
(SIP). This revision concerned South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD) Rule 1143, Consumer Paint Thinner & Multi-Purpose
Solvents and Rule 1144, Metal Working Fluids & Direct-Contact
Lubricants. The direct final action was published without prior
proposal because EPA anticipated no adverse comment. The direct final
rule stated that if adverse comments were received by August 15, 2011,
EPA would publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register. EPA
received timely adverse comments. Consequently, with this revision we
are withdrawing the direct final approval of SCAQMD Rules 1143 and
1144. EPA will either address the comments in a subsequent final action
based on the parallel proposal also published on July 15, 2011 (76 FR
41745), or repropose an alternative action. As stated in the parallel
proposal, EPA will not institute a second comment period on a
subsequent final action. Accordingly, the amendment to 40 CFR 52.220
published in the Federal Register on July 15, 2011, (76 FR 41717) which
was to become effective on September 13, 2011 is withdrawn.

DATES: Effective Date: The amendment to 40 CFR 52.220 which published
at 76 FR 41717 on July 15, 2011 is withdrawn as of September 1, 2011.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0537 for
this action. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
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 at http://www.regulations.gov,
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), 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: Adrianne Borgia, EPA Region IX, (415)
97-3576<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: August 19, 2011.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Accordingly, the amendment to 40 CFR 52.220 published in the
Federal Register on July 15, 2011, (76 FR 41717) is withdrawn as of
September 1, 2011.

[FR Doc. 2011-22289 Filed 8-31-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 201 (Thursday, October 17, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55638-55643]
[FR Doc No: 2019-22697]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87294; File No. SR-CboeEDGA-2019-015]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Introduce a Small Retail Broker Distribution Program

October 11, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 1, 2019, Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'' or ``EDGA'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. (``EDGA'' or the ``Exchange'') is filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') a
proposed rule change to introduce a Small Retail Broker Distribution
Program. The text of the proposed changes to the fee schedule are
enclosed as Exhibit 5. [sic]
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/regulation/rule_filings/edga/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to introduce a pricing
program that would allow small retail brokers that purchase top of book
market data from the Exchange to benefit from discounted fees for
access to such market data. The Small Retail Broker Distribution
Program (the ``Program'') would reduce the distribution and
consolidation fees paid by small broker-dealers that operate a retail
business. In turn, the Program may increase retail investor access to
real-time U.S. equity quote and trade information, and allow the
Exchange to better compete for this business with competitors that
offer similar optional products. The Exchange initially filed to
introduce the Program on August 1, 2019 (``Initial Proposal'') to
further ensure that retail investors served by smaller firms have cost
effective access to its market data products, and as part of its
ongoing efforts to improve the retail investor experience in the public
markets. The Initial Proposal was published in the Federal Register on
August 20, 2019,\3\ and the Commission received no commenter letters on
the proposal. The Program remained in effect until the fee change was
temporarily suspended pursuant to a suspension order (the ``Suspension
Order'').\4\ The Suspension Order also instituted proceedings to
determine whether to approve or disapprove the Initial Proposal.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 86676 (August 14,
2019), 84 FR 43218 (August 20, 2019) (SR-CboeEDGA-2019-013).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87165 (September 30,
2019) (SR-CboeEDGA-2019-013) (Federal Register publication pending).
    \5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Current Fees
    The Cboe One Summary Feed is a top of book data feed that provides
real-time U.S. equity quote and trade information to investors based on
equity orders submitted to the Exchange and its affiliated equities
exchanges--i.e., Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc., Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc., and
Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. Specifically, the Cboe One Summary Feed is a
data feed that contains the aggregate best bid and offer of all
displayed orders for securities traded on the Exchange and its
affiliated exchanges. The Cboe One Summary Feed also contains the
individual last sale information for the Exchange and each of its
affiliated exchanges, and consolidated volume for all listed equity
securities. The fee for external distribution of the Cboe One Summary
Feed is $5,000 per month, and external distributors are also liable for
a Data Consolidation Fee of $1,000 per month, and User fees equal to
$10 per month for each Professional User, and $0.25 per month for each
Non-Professional User.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchange also offers an Enterprise license for the Cboe
One Summary Feed at a cost of $50,000 per month. An Enterprise
license permits distribution to an unlimited number of Professional
and Non-Professional Users, keeping costs down for firms that
provide access to a large number of subscribers.

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

Small Retail Broker Eligibility Requirements
    The Exchange proposes to introduce a Program that would reduce
costs for small retail brokers that provide top of book data to their
clients. In order to be approved for the Small Retail Broker
Distribution Program, Distributors would have to provide Cboe One
Summary Feed Data to a limited number of clients with which the firm
has established a brokerage relationship, and would have to provide
such data primarily to Non-Professional Data Users. Specifically,
distributors would have to attest that they meet the following
criteria: (1) Distributor is a broker-dealer distributing Cboe One
Summary Feed Data to Non-Professional Data Users with whom the broker-
dealer has a brokerage relationship; (2) More than 50% of the
Distributor's total Data User population must consist of Non-
Professional Data Users, inclusive of those not receiving Cboe One
Summary Feed Data; and (3) Distributor distributes Cboe One Summary
Feed Data to no more than 5,000 Non-Professional Data Users.
    These proposed requirements for participating in the Program are
designed to ensure that the benefits provided by the Program inure to
the benefit of small retail brokers that provide Cboe One Summary Feed
Data to a limited number of subscribers. As explained later in this
filing, distributors that provide EDGA Exchange Data to a larger number
of subscribers can benefit from the current pricing structure through
scale, due to subscriber fees that are significantly lower than those
charged by the Exchange's competitors, and an Enterprise license that
caps the total fees to be paid by firms that distribute market data to
a sizeable customer base. The Exchange believes that offering similarly
attractive pricing to small retail brokers, including regional firms
both inside and outside of the U.S. that may not have the same
established client base as the larger retail brokers, would make the
Exchange's data a more competitive alternative for those firms, and
would help ensure that such information is widely available to a larger
number of retail investors globally. The Program would also be
available to retail brokers more generally, regardless of size, that
wish to trial the Cboe One Summary Feed with a limited number of
subscribers before potentially expanding distribution to additional
clients, potentially further increasing the accessibility of the
Exchange's market data to retail investors. The Program would be
exclusive to the Cboe One Summary Feed, which is a top of book
offering, as retail investors typically do not need or use depth of
book data to facilitate their equity investments, and their brokers
typically do purchase such market data on their behalf.
Discounted Fees
    Distributors that participate in the Program would be liable for
lower distribution and consolidation fees for access to the Cboe One
Summary Data Feed.\7\ The distribution fee charged for the Cboe One
Summary Feed would be lowered by 30% from the current $5,000 per month
to $3,500 per month for distributors that meet the requirements of the
Program. In addition, the Data Consolidation Fee charged for the Cboe
One Summary Feed would be lowered by 65% from the current $1,000 per
month to $350 per month. User fees for any Professional or Non-
Professional Users that access Cboe One Summary Feed data from a
distributor that participates in the Program would remain at their
current levels as the current subscriber charges are already among the
most competitive in the industry.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ New external distributors of the Cboe One Summary Feed are
not currently charged external distributor fees for their first
month of service. This would continue to be the case for external
distributors that participate in the Program.
    \8\ By comparison, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'')
charges a subscriber fee for Nasdaq Basic that adds up to $26 per
month for Professional Subscribers and $1 per month for Non-
Professional Subscribers (Tapes A, B, and C). See Nasdaq Equity
Rules, Equity 7, Pricing Schedule, Section 147(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that these fees, which represent a
significant cost savings for small retail brokers, would help ensure
that retail investors continue to have fair and efficient access to
U.S. equity market data. While retail investors normally pay a fixed
commission when buying or selling equities, and do not typically pay
separate fees for market data, the Exchange believes that the proposed
reduction in fees would make the Exchange's data more competitive with
other available alternatives, and may encourage retail brokers to make
such data more readily available to their clients. In sum, the Exchange
believes that the proposed fee reductions may facilitate more cost
effective access to top of book data that is purchased on a voluntary
basis by retail brokers and provided to their retail investor clients.
Market Background
    The market for top of book data is highly competitive as national
securities exchanges compete both with each other and with the
securities information processors (``SIPs'') to provide efficient,
reliable, and low cost data to a wide range of investors and market
participants. In fact, Regulation NMS requires all U.S. equities
exchanges to provide their best bids and offers, and executed
transactions, to the two registered SIPs for dissemination to the
public. Top of book data is therefore widely available to investors
today at a relatively modest cost. National securities exchanges may
also disseminate their own top of book data, but no rule or regulation
of the Commission requires market participants to purchase top of book
data from an exchange.\9\ The Cboe One Summary Feed therefore competes
with the SIP and with similar products offered by other national
securities exchanges that offer their own competing top of book
products. In fact, there are ten competing top of book products offered
by other national securities exchanges today, not counting products
offered by the Exchange's affiliates.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ By contrast, Rule 603(c) of Regulation NMS (the ``Vendor
Display Rule'') effectively requires that SIP data or some other
consolidated display be utilized in any context in which a trading
or order-routing decision can be implemented.
    \10\ Competing top of book products include, Nasdaq Basic, BX
Basic, PSX Basic, NYSE BQT, NYSE BBO/Trades, NYSE Arca BBO/Trades,
NYSE American BBO/Trades, NYSE Chicago BBO/Trades, and IEX TOPS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to further increase the
competitiveness of the Exchange's top of book market data products
compared to competitor offerings that may currently be cheaper for
firms with a limited subscriber base that do not yet have the scale to
take advantage of the lower subscriber fees offered by the Exchange. In
turn, the Exchange believes that this change may benefit market
participants and investors by spurring additional competition and
increasing the accessibility of the Exchange's top of book data.
    As explained, the Exchange filed the Initial Proposal to introduce
the Program in August in order to provide an attractive pricing option
for small retail brokers. Although that filing was ultimately suspended
by the Commission, the Exchange believes that its experience in
offering the Program while it was in effect reflect the competitive
nature of the market for the creation and distribution of top of book
data. Specifically, after the Exchange initially reduced the fees
charged to small retail brokers under the Initial Proposal, it
successfully onboarded one new customer due to the attractive

pricing, and is currently in the process of onboarding another
customer.\11\ These customers are now able to offer high quality and
cost effective data to their retail investor clients. The Exchange has
also been discussing the Program with a handful of additional
prospective clients that are interested in providing top of book data
to retail investors. Without the proposed pricing discounts, the
Exchange believes that those customers and prospective customers may
not be interested in purchasing top of book data from the Exchange, and
would instead purchase such data from other national securities
exchanges or the SIPs, potentially at a higher cost than would be
available pursuant to the Program. The Program has therefore already
been successful in increasing competition for such market data, and
continued operation of the Program would serve to both reduce fees for
such customers and to provide alternatives to data and pricing offered
by competitors. Ultimately, the Exchange believes that it is critical
that it be allowed to compete by offering attractive pricing to
customers as increasing the availability of such products ensures
continued competition with alternative offerings. Such competition may
be constrained when competitors are impeded from offering alternative
and cost effective solutions to customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See e.g., Cboe Innovation Spotlight, ``dough--The
commission-free online broker with premium content and insights,''
available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_data_products/spotlight/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\12\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\13\ in particular, as it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its members and other recipients of
Exchange data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 11(A) of the Act.\14\ Specifically, the
proposed rule change supports (i) fair competition among brokers and
dealers, among exchange markets, and between exchange markets and
markets other than exchange markets, and (ii) the availability to
brokers, dealers, and investors of information with respect to
quotations for and transactions in securities. In addition, the
proposed rule change is consistent with Rule 603 of Regulation NMS,\15\
which provides that any national securities exchange that distributes
information with respect to quotations for or transactions in an NMS
stock do so on terms that are not unreasonably discriminatory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \15\ See 17 CFR 242.603.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted SROs and broker-
dealers increased authority and flexibility to offer new and unique
market data to the public. It was believed that this authority would
expand the amount of data available to consumers, and also spur
innovation and competition for the provision of market data. The
Exchange believes that the proposed fee change would further broaden
the availability of U.S. equity market data to investors, and in
particular retail investors, consistent with the principles of
Regulation NMS.
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment. Indeed,
there are thirteen registered national securities exchanges that trade
U.S. equities and offer associated top of book market data products to
their customers. The national securities exchanges also compete with
the SIPs for market data customers. The Commission has repeatedly
expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention
in determining prices, products, and services in the securities
markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted
the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues
and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system
``has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its
broader forms that are most important to investors and listed
companies.'' \16\ The proposed fee change is a result of the
competitive environment, as the Exchange seeks to amend its fees to
attract additional subscribers for its proprietary top of book data
offerings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed fee change would reduce fees charged to small retail
brokers that provide access to the Cboe One Summary Feed. The Cboe One
Summary Feed is a competitively-priced alternative to top of book data
disseminated by SIPs, or similar data disseminated by other national
securities exchanges.\17\ It provides subscribers with consolidated top
of book quotes and trades from four Cboe U.S. equities markets, which
together account for about 17% of consolidated U.S. equities trading
volume.\18\ The Cboe One Summary Feed is purchased by a wide variety of
market participants and vendors, including data platforms, websites,
fintech firms, buy-side investors, retail brokers, regional banks, and
securities firms inside and outside of the U.S. that desire low cost,
high quality, real-time U.S. equity market data. By providing lower
cost access to U.S. equity market data, the Cboe One Summary Feed
benefits a wide range of investors that participate in the national
market system. Reducing fees for broker-dealers that represent retail
investors and that may have more limited resources than some of their
larger competitors would further increase access to such data and
facilitate a competitive market for U.S. equity securities, consistent
with the goals of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See e.g., supra note 5 (discussing Nasdaq Basic).
    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the Exchange is not required to make any data, including top
of book data, available through its proprietary market data platform,
the Exchange believes that making such data available increases
investor choice, and contributes to a fair and competitive market.
Specifically, making such data publicly available through proprietary
data feeds allows investors to choose alternative, potentially less
costly, market data based on their business needs. While some market
participants that desire a consolidated display choose the SIP for
their top of book data needs, and in some cases are effectively
required to do so under the Vendor Display Rule, others may prefer to
purchase data directly from one or more national securities exchanges.
For example, a buy-side investor may choose to purchase the Cboe One
Summary Feed, or a similar product from another exchange, in order to
perform investment analysis. The Cboe One Summary Feed represents
quotes from four highly liquid equities markets. As a result, the Cboe
One Summary Feed is within 1% of the national best bid and offer
approximately 98% of the time,\19\ and therefore serves as a valuable
reference for investors that do not require a consolidated display that
contains quotations for all U.S. equities exchanges. Making alternative
products available to market participants ultimately ensures increased
competition in the marketplace, and constrains the ability of exchanges
to charge supracompetitive fees. In the event that a market participant
views one exchanges top of book data fees as more or less attractive
than the

competition they can and frequently do switch between competing
products. In fact, the competiveness of the market for such top of book
data products is one of the primary factors animating this proposed
rule change, which is designed to allow the Exchange to further compete
for this business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_data_services/cboe_one/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Indeed, the Exchange has already successfully onboarded one new
Distributor that has decided to purchase Cboe One Summary Data from the
Exchange rather than purchasing top of book data from a competitor
exchange, and is in the process of onboarding another new Distributor.
In addition, the Exchange is in discussions with a handful of other
Distributors that are interested in procuring market data from the
Exchange due to the attractive pricing offered pursuant to the Program.
Distributors can discontinue use at any time and for any reason,
including due to an assessment of the reasonableness of fees charged.
Further, firms have a wide variety of alternative market data products
from which to choose, such as similar proprietary data products offered
by other national securities exchanges. Making the Exchange's top of
book data available at a lower cost, ultimately serves the interests of
retail investors that rely on the public markets. The Exchange
understands that the Commission is interested in ensuring that retail
investors are appropriately served in the U.S. equities market. The
Exchange agrees that it is important to ensure that our markets
continue to serve the needs of ordinary investors, and the Program is
consistent with this goal.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed fees are reasonable as they
represent a significant cost reduction for smaller, primarily regional,
retail brokers that provide top of book data from EDGA and its
affiliated equities exchanges to their retail investor clients. The
market for top of book data is intensely competitive due to the
availability of substitutable products that can be purchased either
from other national securities exchanges, or from registered SIPs that
make such top of book data publicly available to investors at a modest
cost. The proposed fee reduction is being made to make the Exchange's
fees more competitive with such offerings for this segment of market
participants, thereby increasing the availability of the Exchange's
data products, and expanding the options available to firms making data
purchasing decisions based on their business needs. The Exchange
believes that this is consistent with the principles enshrined in
Regulation NMS to ``promote the wide availability of market data and to
allocate revenues to SROs that produce the most useful data for
investors.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Regulation NMS Adopting Release, supra note 12, at
37503.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today, the Cboe One Summary Feed is among the most competitively
priced top of book offerings in the industry due to modest subscriber
fees, and a lower Enterprise cap, both of which keep fees at a
relatively modest level for larger firms that provide market data to a
sizeable number of Professional or Non-Professional Users. Distributors
with a smaller user base, however, may choose to use competitor
products that have a lower distribution fee and higher subscriber fees.
The Program would help the Exchange compete for this segment of the
market, and may broaden the reach of the Exchange's data products by
providing an additional low cost alternative to competitor products for
small retail brokers. While such firms may already utilize similar
market data products from other sources, the Exchange believes that
offering its own data to small retail brokers at lower distribution and
data consolidation costs has the potential to increase choice for
market participants, and ultimately increase the data available to
retail investors when coupled with the Exchange's lower subscriber
fees.
    The Exchange also believes that the proposed fees are equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory as the proposed fee structure is designed
to decrease the price and increase the availability of U.S. equities
market data to retail investors. The Program is designed to reduce the
cost of top of book market data for broker-dealers that provide such
data to Non-Professional Data User clients that make up the majority of
the distributor's total subscriber population. While there is no
``exact science'' to choosing one eligibility threshold compared to
another, the Exchange believes that having more Non-Professional Data
Users than Professional Data User across a firm's entire business,
i.e., not limited exclusively to Data Users that are provided access to
the Exchange's data products, is indicative of a broker-dealer that is
primarily and actively engaged in the business of serving retail
investors. This understanding is confirmed by the current customers
that participate in or are soon to participate in the Program, each of
which are focused on providing trading services to ordinary investors.
As such, the Program would be broadly available to a wide range of
retail brokers that either purchase the Cboe One Summary Feed today, or
that may choose to switch from competing products due to the potential
cost savings. In addition to the subscribers that are participating and
are soon to participate in the Program, dozens of distributors that
currently purchase top of book data from one of the four Cboe U.S.
equities exchanges, and many more prospective customers, could benefit
from the Program. Each of these current or prospective retail broker
customers would receive the same benefits in terms of reduced
distribution and consolidation fees based on the product that they
purchase from the Exchange.
    The Commission has long stressed the need to ensure that the
equities markets are structured in a way that meets the needs of
ordinary investors. For example, the Commission's strategic plan for
fiscal years 2018-2022 touts ``focus on the long-term interests of our
Main Street investors'' as the Commission's number one strategic
goal.\21\ The Program would be consistent with the Commission's stated
goal of improving the retail investor experience in the public markets.
Furthermore, national securities exchanges commonly charge reduced fees
and offer market structure benefits to retail investors, and the
Commission has consistently held that such incentives are consistent
with the Act. The Exchange believes that the Program is consistent with
longstanding precedent indicating that it is consistent with the Act to
provide reasonable incentives to retail investors that rely on the
public markets for their investment needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Strategic
Plan, Fiscal Years 2018-2022, available at https://www.sec.gov/files/SEC_Strategic_Plan_FY18-FY22_FINAL_0.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, while the Program would be effectively limited to
smaller firms that distribute data to no more than 5,000 Non-
Professional Data Users, the Exchange does not believe that this
limitation makes the fees inequitable, unfairly discriminatory, or
otherwise contrary to the purposes of the Act. Large broker-dealers
and/or vendors that distribute the Exchange's data products to a
sizeable number of investors benefit from the current fee structure,
which includes lower subscriber fees and Enterprise licenses. Due to
lower subscriber fees, distributors that provide Cboe One Summary Feed
Data to more than 5,000 Non-Professional Data Users already enjoy cost
savings compared to competitor products. The Program would therefore
ensure that small retail brokers that distribute top of book data to
their retail investor customers could also benefit from reduced
pricing, and would aid in increasing the

competitiveness of the Exchange's data products for this key segment of
the market.
    The table below illustrates the impact of the proposed pricing on
firms that qualify for the Program, both compared to the Exchange's
current pricing, and compared to the fees charged for a competitor
product, i.e., Nasdaq Basic. As shown, Cboe One Summary Feed Data
provided pursuant to the Program would be cheaper than Nasdaq Basic for
firms with more than 1,200 Non-Professional Users, and the benefits of
the pricing structure would continue to scale up to firms with 5,000
Non-Professional Users. After 5,000 Non-Professional Users the firm
would no longer be eligible for the Small Retail Broker Distribution
Program but would already enjoy significant cost savings compared to
Nasdaq Basic under the current pricing structure. The Exchange
therefore believes that the Program would allow the Exchange to better
compete with competitors for smaller firms that currently pay a lower
fee under, for example, the Nasdaq Basic pricing model, while also
ensuring that larger firms continue to receive attractive pricing that
is already cheaper than top of book data offered by the main competitor
product. The Exchange believes this supplemental information further
validates its assessment that the proposed fee reduction is reasonable,
equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory. Without the proposed fee
reduction, small retail brokers that would otherwise qualify for the
reduced fees proposed would be subject to either higher fees for
accessing Exchange top of book data, or may switch to competitor
offerings that are also less cost effective, but at current fees
levels, cheaper than the current Cboe One Summary fee.
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN17OC19.001

BILLING CODE 8011-01-C

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange
operates in a highly competitive environment, and its ability to price
these data products is constrained by: (i) Competition among exchanges
that offer similar data products to their customers; and (ii) the
existence of inexpensive real-time

consolidated data disseminated by the SIPs. Top of book data is
disseminated by both the SIPs and the thirteen equities exchanges.
There are therefore a number of alternative products available to
market participants and investors. In this competitive environment
potential subscribers are free to choose which competing product to
purchase to satisfy their need for market information. Often, the
choice comes down to price, as broker-dealers or vendors look to
purchase the cheapest top of book data product, or quality, as market
participants seek to purchase data that represents significant market
liquidity. In order to better compete for this segment of the market,
the Exchange is proposing to reduce the cost of top of book data
provided by small retail brokers to their retail investor clients. The
Exchange believes that this would facilitate greater access to such
data, ultimately benefiting the retail investors that are provided
access to such market data.
    The Exchange does not believe that this price reduction would cause
any unnecessary or inappropriate burden on intermarket competition as
other exchanges and data vendors are free to lower their prices to
better compete with the Exchange's offering. Indeed, as explained in
the basis section of this proposed rule change, the Exchange's decision
to lower its distribution and consolidation fees for small retail
brokers is itself a competitive response to different fee structures
available on competing markets. The Exchange therefore believes that
the proposed rule change is pro-competitive as it seeks to offer
pricing incentives to customers to better position the Exchange as it
competes to attract additional market data subscribers. The Exchange
also believes that the proposed reduction in fees for small retail
brokers would not cause any unnecessary or inappropriate burden on
intramarket competition. Although the proposed fee discount would be
largely limited to small retail broker subscribers, larger broker-
dealers and vendors can already purchase top of book data from the
Exchange at prices that represent a significant cost savings when
compared to competitor products that combine higher subscriber fees
with lower fees for distribution. In light of the benefits already
provided to this group of subscribers, the Exchange believes that
additional discounts to small retail brokers would increase rather than
decrease competition among broker-dealers that participate on the
Exchange. Furthermore, as discussed earlier in this proposed rule
change, the Exchange believes that offering pricing benefits to brokers
that represent retail investors facilitates the Commission's mission of
protecting ordinary investors, and is therefore consistent with the
Act.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \22\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \23\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \23\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CboeEDGA-2019-015 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-CboeEDGA-2019-015. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CboeEDGA-2019-015 and should be
submitted on or before November 7, 2019.

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

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

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-22697 Filed 10-16-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 2, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 39)]
[Notices]
[Page 9097-9098]
[DOCID:fr02mr09-38]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0092]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration
Staff; Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Automated Blood
Cell Separator Device Operating by Centrifugal or Filtration Separation
Principle

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY:  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information,
including each proposed extension of an existing collection of
information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the
notice. This notice solicits comments on the collection of information
concerning class II special controls for automated blood cell separator
device operating by centrifugal or filtration separation principle.

DATES:  Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of
information by May 1, 2009.

ADDRESSES:  Submit electronic comments on the collection of information
to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the
collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Jonna Capezzuto, Office of
Information Management (HFA-710), Food and Drug Administration, 5600
Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information,
before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with
this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection
of information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Class II
Special Controls Guidance Document: Automated Blood Cell Separator
Device Operating by Centrifugal or Filtration Separation Principle (OMB
Control Number 0910-0594)--Extension

    Under the Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-629, 104
Stat. 4511), FDA may establish special controls, including performance
standards, postmarket surveillance, patient registries, guidelines, and
other appropriate actions it believes necessary to provide reasonable
assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. The special
control guidance serves to support the reclassification from class III
to class II of the automated blood cell separator device operating on a
centrifugal separation principle intended for the routine collection of
blood and blood components as well as the special control for the
automated blood cell separator device operating on a filtration
separation principle intended for the routine collection of blood and
blood components reclassified as class II (Sec.  864.9245 (21 CFR
864.9245)).
    For currently marketed products not approved under the premarket
approval process, the manufacturer should file with FDA for 3
consecutive years an annual report on the anniversary date of the
device reclassification from class III to class II or, on the
anniversary date of the section 510(k) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 360) clearance. Any subsequent change
to the device requiring the submission of a premarket notification in
accordance with section 510(k) of the act should be included in the
annual report. Also, a manufacturer of a device determined to be
substantially equivalent to the centrifugal or filtration-based
automated cell separator device intended for the routine collection of
blood and blood components, should comply with the same general and
special controls.
    The annual report should include, at a minimum, a summary of
anticipated and unanticipated adverse events that have occurred and
that are not required to be reported by manufacturers under Medical
Device Reporting (MDR) (part 803 (21 CFR part 803)). The reporting of
adverse device events summarized in an annual report will alert FDA to
trends or clusters of events that might be a safety issue otherwise
unreported under the MDR regulation.
    Reclassification of this device from class III to class II for the
intended use of routine collection of blood and blood components
relieves manufacturers of the burden of complying with the premarket
approval requirements of section 515 of the act (21 U.S.C. 360e), and
may permit small potential competitors to enter the marketplace by
reducing the burden. Although the special control guidance recommends
that manufacturers of these devices file with FDA an annual report for
3 consecutive years, this would be less burdensome than the current
postapproval under part 814, subpart E (21 CFR part 814, subpart E),
including

the submission of periodic reports under Sec.  814.84.
    Collecting or transfusing facilities and manufacturers have certain
responsibilities under the Federal regulations. For example, collecting
or transfusing facilities are required to maintain records of any
reports of complaints of adverse reactions (21 CFR 606.170), while the
manufacturer is responsible for conducting an investigation of each
event that is reasonably known to the manufacturer and evaluating the
cause of the event (Sec.  803.50(b)). In addition, manufacturers of
medical devices are required to submit to FDA individual adverse event
reports of death, serious injury, and malfunctions (Sec.  803.50).
    In the special control guidance document, FDA recommends that
manufacturers include in their three annual reports a summary of
adverse reactions maintained by the collecting or transfusing facility
or similar reports of adverse events collected in addition to those
required under the MDR regulation. The MedWatch medical device
reporting code instructions (http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/mdr/373.html)
contains a comprehensive list of adverse events associated with device
use, including most of those events that we recommend summarizing in
the annual report.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                 Table 1.--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Reporting         No. of        Annual Frequency      Total Annual
  Activity      Respondents        per Response          Responses        Hours per  Response     Total Hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual                       4                  1                     4                     5                 20
 Report
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Based on FDA records, there are approximately four manufactures of
automated blood cell separator devices. We estimate that the
manufacturers will spend approximately 5 hours preparing and submitting
the annual report.
    Other burden hours required for Sec.  864.9245 are reported and
approved under OMB control number 0910-0120 (premarket notification
submission 501(k), 21 CFR part 807, subpart E), and OMB control number
0910-0437 (MDR).

    Dated: February 20, 2009.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. E9-4315 Filed 2-27-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S