[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 28, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38451-38452]
[FR Doc No: 2022-13747]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2022-0035]

Guidance on Development and Implementation of Railroad Capital
Projects

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed guidance.

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

SUMMARY: FRA proposes guidance on the development and implementation of
railroad capital projects that are funded, in whole or in part, by FRA.
FRA seeks comment from the public on the content and application of the
proposed guidance (``guidance''), which is available for review at
https://regulations.gov under docket number FRA-2022-0035.

DATES: Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until August 12,
2022.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to docket number FRA-2022-0035 and be
submitted at https://regulations.gov. Search by using the docket number
and follow the instructions for submitting comments. All submissions
must include the agency name and docket number FRA-2022-0035.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, please
contact David Valenstein, Senior Advisor, Office of Infrastructure
Investment, by email: [email protected] or by telephone: 202-
493-6368.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FRA has identified the time-sensitive need
to establish clear practices and procedures for the development and
implementation of railroad capital projects through the issuance of
agency guidance. Over the next five years, the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) (Pub. L. 117-58, also known as the
``Bipartisan Infrastructure Law'') will provide unprecedented Federal
funding for rail improvement projects in America. FRA intends for its
final guidance to assist project sponsors in developing effective
capital projects and to enhance the management of capital projects to
meet budgets and schedules.
    The audience of the guidance includes project sponsors and
partners, as well as the wide range of professionals who contribute to
the planning, development, and implementation of railroad capital
projects. The guidance: (1) defines the stages in the railroad capital
project lifecycle and project development process from inception to
operation; (2) describes the project management tools, processes, and
documentation that FRA may require when providing grants that fund the
development or implementation of a railroad capital project; (3)
differentiates between Non-Major projects and Major projects by
defining a ``Major Project'' as a railroad capital project with an
estimated total project cost equal to or greater than $300 million and
with at least $100 million in total Federal assistance.
    FRA intends to strongly encourage project sponsors to follow the
guidance when developing, implementing, and managing railroad capital
projects. FRA may use the guidance to inform its grant application
reviews and decisions in accordance with a process described in a
notice of funding opportunity for the relevant grant program, and may
require compliance with the guidance as part of grant agreements
funding railroad capital projects in accordance with 2 CFR parts 200
and 1201. The practices contained in the guidance draw from FRA's
experience and from established

programs of other DOT operating administrations that have enhanced the
delivery of major highway and transit projects.
    FRA is seeking feedback on the following items:
     Definitions established in the guidance, particularly the
definitions of a Major Project and a Project Sponsor. FRA is proposing
a Major Project definition that is similar to the definition used by
the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). FRA's definition of Project
Sponsor accounts for the range of public and private applicants
eligible for FRA grant programs.
     The potential application of this guidance to railroad
projects receiving financing or funding under the credit and grant
programs administered by the DOT.
     Project Lifecycle Stages, including the FRA Project
Lifecycle Model and terminology in relationship to past FRA programs
and to the project lifecycle models of the FTA and Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA). FRA proposes a model consisting of six stages:
(1) Systems Planning, (2) Project Planning, (3) Project Development,
(4) Final Design, (5) Construction, and (6) Operation. FRA proposes
these terms for their clarity over other terminology such as FRA's past
term PE/NEPA for the third stage. FHWA has described a normal lifecycle
for highway projects following five phases: (1) planning, (2)
preliminary design and environmental review, (3) final design and
right-of-way acquisition, (4) construction, and (5) operation.\1\ FTA
follows another similar model for the Capital Investment Grant Program
which requires three steps after completion of planning: (1) Project
Development, (2) Engineering, and (3) Construction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ https://highways.dot.gov/public-roads/julyaugust-2004/life-cycle-continuum, Accessed April 21, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The completion measures for the Project Planning, Project
Development, Final Design, and Construction lifecycle stages,
particularly the milestone activities relating to planning,
engineering/design, environmental review, and project management tools.
     The four project management tools featured and how they
are described, including the differences between Non-Major and Major
projects.
     The lifecycle progression of project delivery planning and
implementation including consideration of public-private partnerships
and innovative procurements. The lifecycle model describes initial
Project Sponsor consideration of delivery for Major Projects during the
Project Planning stage and progressive refinement in later stages.
     Any other suggestions for enhancing the guidance.

Privacy Act

    FRA is soliciting comments from the public to better inform its
guidance process. FRA posts these comments, without edit, including any
personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as
described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can
be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy. In order to facilitate comment
tracking and response, we encourage commenters to provide their name,
or the name of their organization; however, submission of names is
completely optional. Whether or not commenters identify themselves, all
timely comments will be fully considered. If you wish to provide
comments containing proprietary or confidential information, please
contact the agency for alternate submission instructions.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Paul Nissenbaum,
Associate Administrator, Office of Railroad Policy and Development.
[FR Doc. 2022-13747 Filed 6-27-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 11 (Thursday, January 16, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2809-2812]
[FR Doc No: 2020-00651]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2019-0221 (Notice No. 2019-12)]

Hazardous Materials: Information Collection Activities

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, PHMSA
invites comments on four Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control
numbers pertaining to hazardous materials transportation. PHMSA intends
to request renewal for these four control numbers from OMB.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before
March 16, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Docket Number
PHMSA-2019-0221 (Notice No. 2019-12) by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management System; U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Routing
Symbol M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: To the Docket Management System; Room W12-
140 on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
Docket Number (PHMSA-2019-0221) for this notice at the beginning of the
comment. To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four
methods. All comments received will be posted without change to the
Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) and will include any personal
information you provide.
    Requests for a copy of an information collection should be directed
to Steven Andrews or Shelby Geller, Standards and Rulemaking Division,
(202) 366-8553, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    Docket: For access to the dockets to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or DOT's Docket
Operations Office (see ADDRESSES).
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Confidential Business Info: Confidential Business Information (CBI)
is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and
actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly

designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your
submission containing CBI as ``PROPIN.'' PHMSA will treat such marked
submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed
in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be
sent to Steven Andrews or Shelby Geller, Standards and Rulemaking
Division and addressed to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Any commentary that PHMSA
receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in
the public docket for this rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Andrews or Shelby Geller,
Standards and Rulemaking Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 1320.8 (d), title 5, Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) requires PHMSA to provide interested members of the
public and affected agencies an opportunity to comment on information
collection and recordkeeping requests. This notice identifies
information collection requests that PHMSA will be submitting to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for renewal and extension. These
information collections are contained in 49 CFR 171.6 of the Hazardous
Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171-180). PHMSA has revised
burden estimates, where appropriate, to reflect current reporting
levels or adjustments based on changes in proposed or final rules
published since the information collections were last approved. The
following information is provided for each information collection: (1)
Title of the information collection, including former title if a change
is being made; (2) OMB control number; (3) summary of the information
collection activity; (4) description of affected public; (5) estimate
of total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden; and (6) frequency
of collection. PHMSA will request a 3-year term of approval for each
information collection activity and will publish a notice in the
Federal Register alerting the public upon OMB's approval.
    PHMSA requests comments on the following information collections:

    Title: Inspection and Testing of Portable Tanks and Intermediate
Bulk Containers.
    OMB Control Number: 2137-0018.
    Summary: This information collection consolidates provisions for
documenting qualifications, inspections, tests, and approvals
pertaining to the manufacture and use of portable tanks and
intermediate bulk containers under various provisions of the HMR. It is
necessary to ascertain whether portable tanks and intermediate bulk
containers have been qualified, inspected, and retested in accordance
with the HMR. The information is used to verify that certain portable
tanks and intermediate bulk containers meet required performance
standards prior to their being authorized for use. Additionally, it is
used to document periodic requalification and testing to ensure the
packagings have not deteriorated due to age or physical abuse to a
degree that would render them unsafe for the transportation of
hazardous materials. The following information collections and their
burdens are associated with this OMB Control Number:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Total annual      Hours per     Total annual
             Information collection                 Respondents      responses       response      burden hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design Qualification Testing for IBCs--                       13             494               3           1,482
 Applications for the Certification Mark........
Periodic Design Requalification Testing of IBCs--             13             494               3           1,482
 Submission of Changes to Test Frequency to the
 Associate Administrator........................
Applications for Approval of Equivalent                        5               5               3              15
 Packaging--IBCs................................
Reporting Requirements for Retest and Inspection           1,000         100,000            0.25          25,000
 of IBCs........................................
Recordkeeping for IBC Testing...................             150             150            0.25              38
Manufacturers Data Report (ASME) for Portable                 50          50,000            0.25          12,500
 Tanks..........................................
Approval Applications for Specification UN                    13             494               3           1,482
 Portable Tank Design...........................
Applications for Modifications to Portable Tank               13             494               3           1,482
 Designs........................................
Portable Tanks--Approval Agency Retention of                  13             494            0.25             124
 Documents......................................
Portable Tanks--Manufacturers Retention of                    50          50,000            0.25          12,500
 Documents......................................
Recordkeeping for the Testing of Portable Tanks.             150             150            0.25              38
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Affected Public: Manufacturers and owners of portable tanks and
intermediate bulk containers.
    Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden:
    Number of Respondents: 1,470.
    Total Annual Responses: 202,775.
    Total Annual Burden Hours: 56,142.
    Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

    Title: Hazardous Materials Incident Reports.
    OMB Control Number: 2137-0039.
    Summary: This collection is applicable upon occurrence of an
incident as prescribed in 49 CFR 171.15 and 171.16. A Hazardous
Materials Incident Report, DOT Form F 5800.1, must be completed by a
person in physical possession of a hazardous material at the time a
hazardous material incident occurs in transportation, such as a release
of materials, serious accident, evacuation, or closure of a main
artery. Incidents meeting criteria in 49 CFR 171.15 also require a
telephonic report. This information collection enhances the Agency's
ability to evaluate the effectiveness of its regulatory program,
determine the need for regulatory changes, and address emerging
hazardous materials transportation safety issues. The requirements
apply to all interstate and intrastate carriers engaged in the
transportation of hazardous materials by rail, air, water, and highway.
The following information collections and their burdens are associated
with this OMB Control Number:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Total annual      Hours per     Total annual
             Information collection                 Respondents      responses       response      burden hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Telephone Notifications.........................             733             733            0.08              58
Incident Reports Paper--Written.................             803           3,420             1.6           5,473
Incident Reports--Electronic....................             803          16,737             0.8          13,390
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Affected Public: Shippers and carriers of hazardous materials.
    Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden:
    Number of Respondents: 2,339.
    Total Annual Responses: 20,890.
    Total Annual Burden Hours: 18,921.
    Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

    Title: Cargo Tank Motor Vehicles in Liquefied Compressed Gas
Service.
    OMB Control Number: 2137-0595.
    Summary: These information collection and recordkeeping
requirements pertain to the manufacture, certification, inspection,
repair, maintenance, and operation of certain DOT specification and
non-specification cargo tank motor vehicles used to transport liquefied
compressed gases. These requirements are intended to ensure cargo tank
motor vehicles used to transport liquefied compressed gases are
operated safely, and to minimize the potential for catastrophic
releases during unloading and loading operations. They include: (1)
Requirements for operators of cargo tank motor vehicles in liquefied
compressed gas service to develop operating procedures applicable to
unloading operations and carry the operating procedures on each
vehicle; (2) inspection, maintenance, marking, and testing requirements
for the cargo tank discharge system, including delivery hose
assemblies; and (3) requirements for emergency discharge control
equipment on certain cargo tank motor vehicles transporting liquefied
compressed gases that must be installed and certified by a Registered
Inspector.
    The following information collections and their burdens are
associated with this OMB Control Number:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Total annual      Hours per     Total annual
             Information collection                 Respondents      responses       response      burden hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marking New/Repaired Hoses with Unique                     6,800          12,172           0.083           1,010
 Identifier.....................................
Monthly Hose Inspections Record.................           6,800         439,960             0.1          43,996
Record of Monthly Piping Tests Record...........           6,800         400,112             0.2          80,022
Hose Pressure Test Marking Record...............           6,800          12,172           0.083           1,010
Annual Hose Test Record.........................           6,800          36,652            0.42          15,393
Cargo Tanks in Other Than Metered Delivery                   150             900               8           7,200
 Service--Design Certification for Automatic
 Shutoff........................................
Cargo Tanks in Other Than Metered Delivery                   150             900               8           7,200
 Service--Instillation of Shutoff System by a
 Registered Inspector...........................
Cargo Tank Motor Vehicles in Metered Delivery                150           3,300               8          26,400
 Service--Certification of Remote Control
 Equipment by a Registered Inspector............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Affected Public: Carriers in liquefied compressed gas service,
manufacturers and repairers.
    Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden:
    Number of Respondents: 6,950.
    Total Annual Responses: 906,168.
    Total Annual Burden Hours: 182,232.
    Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

    Title: Inspection and Testing of Meter Provers.
    OMB Control Number: 2137-0620.
    Summary: This information collection and recordkeeping burden
results from the requirements pertaining to the use, inspection, and
maintenance of mechanical displacement meter provers (meter provers)
used to check the accurate flow of liquid hazardous materials into bulk
packagings, such as portable tanks and cargo tank motor vehicles, under
the HMR. These meter provers are used to ensure that the proper amount
of liquid hazardous materials is being loaded and unloaded. These meter
provers consist of a gauge and several pipes that always contain small
amounts of the liquid hazardous material in the pipes as residual
material and, therefore, must be inspected and maintained in accordance
with the HMR to ensure they are in proper calibration and working
order. These meter provers are not subject to the specification testing
and inspection requirements in 49 CFR part 178. However, these meter
provers must be visually inspected annually and hydrostatic pressure
tested every 5 years in order to ensure they are properly working as
specified in 49 CFR 173.5a of the HMR. Therefore, this information
collection requires that:
    (1) Each meter prover must undergo and pass an external visual
inspection annually to ensure that the meter provers used in the flow
of liquid hazardous materials into bulk packagings are accurate and in
conformance with the performance standards in the HMR.
    (2) Each meter prover must undergo and pass a hydrostatic pressure
test at least every 5 years to ensure that the meter provers used in
the flow of liquid hazardous materials into bulk packagings are
accurate and in conformance with the performance standards in the HMR.
    (3) Each meter prover must successfully complete the test and
inspection and must be marked in accordance with 49 CFR 180.415(b) and
173.5a.
    (4) Each owner must retain a record of the most recent visual
inspection and pressure test until the meter prover is requalified.
    The following information collections and their burdens are
associated with this OMB Control Number:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Total annual      Hours per     Total annual
             Information collection                 Respondents      responses       response      burden hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Visual Inspection........................             250             250             0.5             125
Hydrostatic Pressure Test (Every 5 Years).......             250             250             0.2              50
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Affected Public: Owners of meter provers used to measure liquid
hazardous materials flow into bulk packagings such as cargo tanks and
portable tanks.
    Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden:
    Number of Respondents: 250.
    Total Annual Responses: 500.
    Total Annual Burden Hours: 175.
    Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 13, 2020.
William S. Schoonover,
Associate Administrator of Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 2020-00651 Filed 1-15-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 133 (Monday, July 13, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40057-40058]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16999]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CP15-521-000; PF13-4-000]

Gulf LNG Liquefaction Company, LLC, Gulf LNG Energy, LLC, Gulf
LNG Pipeline LLC; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on June 19, 2015, Gulf LNG Liquefaction Company,
LLC (Gulf Liquefaction), Gulf LNG Energy, LLC (Gulf Energy), and Gulf
LNG Pipeline LLC (Gulf Pipeline) (collectively, Applicants) 569
Brookwood Village, Suite 749, Birmingham, Alabama 35209, filed an
application pursuant to section 3(a) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and
Part 153 of the Commission's Regulations, requesting authorization to
construct and operate the Gulf LNG Liquefaction Project (Project) at
Gulf Energy's liquefied natural gas terminal located near Pascagoula,
Jackson County, Mississippi. The Project consists of new natural gas
liquefaction and export facilities. Additionally, within the same
application, Gulf Pipeline filed pursuant to section 7(c) of the NGA
and Part 157 of the Commission's Regulations to make modifications to
the terminal's sendout pipeline to allow for bi-directional flow. The
filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, contact FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-
free<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Glenn A. Sheffield, Director of Rates and Regulatory Affairs, Gulf LNG
Liquefaction Company, LLC, 569 Brookwood Village, Suite 749,
Birmingham, Alabama 35209, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Tina S. Hardy, Manager IC-
Regulatory, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Specifically, Gulf Liquefaction proposes under section 3 to
construct two 5 million ton per annum liquefaction trains,
pretreatment, ancillary and support facilities, two marine off loading
facilities, and an extension of the storm surge protection facilities.
These facilities will enable Gulf Liquefaction to liquefy and export up
to 1.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day. Gulf Energy proposes
under section 3 to make modifications to their terminal to accommodate
Gulf Liquefaction's operations and Gulf Pipeline proposes interconnect
modifications under section 7 to allow bi-directional flow of natural
gas to the terminal.
    On May 21, 2014, the Commission staff granted the Applicants'
request to use the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Pre-Filing
Process and assigned Docket No. PF13-4-000 to staff activities
involving the proposed facilities. Now, as of the filing of this
application on June 19, 2015, the NEPA Pre-Filing Process for this
project has ended. From this time forward, this proceeding will be
conducted in Docket No. CP15-521-000, as noted in the caption of this
Notice.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule will serve to
notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of
all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal
authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission
staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 5 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.

    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    Motions to intervene, protests and 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: July 22, 2015.

    Dated: July 1, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-16999 Filed 7-10-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

 	     WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

				                                         oFFICE PREVENTION,

				PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

MEMORANDUM
    January 31, 2009

SUBJECT:	Summary of Ecotoxicity Data for Garlic Oil (Allium sativum) for
the Registration Review Decision Document.

EPA Reg No.:               47319-4

Registration Review

Case#:		          4007

CAS No.:	           8000-78-0

PC Code:	           128827

FROM:	Miachel Rexrode, Ph.D., Senior Biologist          /s/
01/31/2009

Biochemical Pesticides Branch

Biopesticide & Pollution Prevention Division (7511P)

TO:		Cheryl Greene, Regulatory Action Leader       /s/

Biochemical Pesticides Branch

Biopesticide & Pollution Prevention Division (7511P)

ACTION REQUESTED

The following is a preliminary ecotoxicity assessment for Garlic Oil
(Allium sativum)

in order to support of the Registration Review Work Plan.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Executive Summary

Based on the available information for Garlic Oil, the Agency does not
foresee the need for additional ecotoxicity data for a new risk
assessment. EPA has waived all hazard and exposure data on this
chemical. The unique characteristics of this product, it’s non-toxic
mode of action, and biodegradability (low to no persistence) should
minimize the risks to all non-targets, including threatened and
endangered species.

I. Background

Garlic is the fresh or dehydrated bulb or cloves obtained from Allium
sativum. The proposed active ingredient is either a powder or a
distilled extract from garlic cloves and is used as a bird and insect
repellent on various crops that include fruit, nut and citrus trees,
vegetables, vine crops, berries, grains, roses, flowers, and shrubs. The
Agency believes that there is a category of pesticide active ingredients
for which a broadly reduced data set is sometimes warranted. In
considering garlic oil, the Agency considers this compound as eligible
for this broad waiver of the generic data requirements pertaining to
ecotoxicity and fate. The conclusions that have led to this decision
include the following:

1) Garlic is widely distributed and commercially available in the food
industry for flavoring and seasoning.

2) Garlic is generally recognized as safe (GRAS) under 21 CFR 182.10
(spices and natural seasoning) and 182.20 (essential oils, oleoresins,
and natural extractives).

3) Garlic (powder or distilled extract) is used as a bird and insect
repellent on various crops, orchards, and ornamentals. The active
ingredient has a non-toxic mode of action for target pests.

4) Garlic extract appears to be non-persistent in the environment.

5) No adverse effects reports have been submitted to the Agency
regarding garlic toxicity to humans or the environment.

II. Ecotoxicity Profile

Avian Toxicity Studies

The unique characteristics of this product, it’s non-toxic mode of
action, and biodegradability (low to no persistence) should minimize the
risks to all avian species. Data Waived.

Fish Toxicity Studies

The unique characteristics of this product are that it has a non-toxic
mode of action, and biodegradability (low to no persistence) should
minimize the risks to all fish species. Data Waived.

Aquatic Invertebrate Toxicity Studies

The unique characteristics of this product are that it has a non-toxic
mode of action, and biodegradability (low to no persistence) should
minimize the risks to all aquatic invertebrate species. Data Waived.

Endangered Species

The unique characteristics of this product are that it has a non-toxic
mode of action, and biodegradability (low to no persistence) should
minimize the risks to all endangered species. No Effect


[Federal Register: September 25, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 187)]
[Notices]
[Page 55575-55577]
[DOCID:fr25se08-93]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58568; File No. SR-CHX-2008-12)

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed
Rule Change Consolidating Into a Single Rule Certain Requirements for
Securities Traded on the Exchange Pursuant to Unlisted Trading
Privileges

September 17, 2008.
    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 September 15, 2008, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange''
or ``CHX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange.
This order provides notice of the proposed rule change and approves the
proposal on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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

    The CHX proposes to amend its rules to add and consolidate into a
single rule certain requirements for products traded on the Exchange
pursuant to unlisted trading privileges (``UTP'') that have been
established in various new products proposals previously approved by
the Commission. The text of the proposed rule change is available on
the Exchange's Web site (http://www.chx.com) 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 CHX included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule changes and
discussed any comments it received on the proposal. The text of these
statements may be examined at the places specified in Item III below.
The CHX 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 Exchange proposes to amend its rules to add and consolidate
into a single rule certain requirements for products traded on the
Exchange pursuant to UTP that have been established in various new
products proposals previously approved by the Commission. The Exchange
proposes to add CHX Article 22, Rule 6 to set forth rules regarding the
extension of UTP to a security that is listed on another national
securities exchange. Any such security will be subject to all Exchange
trading rules applicable to NMS Stocks, unless otherwise noted. The
Exchange will file with the Commission a Form 19b-4(e) with respect to
any such security that is a ``new derivative securities product'' as
defined in Rule 19b-4(e) under the Act.\3\ In addition, any new
derivative securities product traded on the Exchange pursuant to
proposed CHX Article 22, Rule 6 will be subject to the following
criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed CHX Article 22, Rule 6(a)(i) provides that the Exchange
will distribute an information circular prior to the commencement of
trading in such new derivative securities product which generally will
include the same information as the information circular provided by
the listing exchange, including: (1) The special risks of trading the
new derivative securities product; (2) the Exchange's rules that will
apply to the new derivative securities product, including the

suitability rule; (3) information about the dissemination of value of
the underlying assets or indexes; and (4) the risk of trading during
irregular trading hours due to the lack of calculation or dissemination
of the Intraday Indicative Value or a similar value.
    Proposed CHX Article 22, Rule 6(a)(ii) reminds Participants that
they are subject to the prospectus delivery requirements under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended (``Securities Act''), unless the new
derivative securities product is the subject of an order by the
Commission exempting the product from certain prospectus delivery
requirements under Section 24(d) of the Investment Company Act of 1940
(``1940 Act'') and the product is not otherwise subject to prospectus
delivery requirements under the Securities Act. The Exchange will
inform its Participants regarding the application of the provisions of
this subparagraph to a particular series of exchange-traded funds
governed by the 1940 Act by means of an information circular.
    Proposed CHX Article 22, Rule 6(a)(iii) addresses trading halts in
the new derivative securities products traded on the Exchange pursuant
to UTP. Proposed CHX Article 22, Rule 6(a)(iii) provides that the
Exchange, upon notification by the listing market of a halt due to a
temporary interruption in the calculation or wide dissemination of the
Intraday Indicative Value (or a similar value) or the value of the
underlying index or instrument, will immediately halt trading in that
product on the Exchange. If the Intraday Indicative Value (or a similar
value) or the value of the underlying index or instrument continues not
to be calculated or widely available as of trading on the Exchange on
the next business day, the Exchange shall not commence trading of the
product that day. If an interruption in the calculation or wide
dissemination of the Intraday Indicative Value (or a similar value) or
the value of the underlying index or instrument continues, the Exchange
may resume trading in the product only if calculation and wide
dissemination of the Intraday Indicative Value (or a similar value) or
the value of the underlying index or instrument resumes or trading in
such series resumes in the listing market.
    Additionally, proposed CHX Article 22, Rule 6(a)(iii) provides that
for a new derivative securities product where a net asset value (and,
in the case of managed fund shares or actively managed exchange-traded
funds, a ``disclosed portfolio'') is disseminated, the Exchange will
immediately halt trading such security upon notification by the listing
market that the net asset value and, if applicable, such disclosed
portfolio is not being disseminated to all market participants at the
same time. The Exchange will resume trading in the new derivative
securities product only when the net asset value and, if applicable,
such disclosed portfolio is disseminated to all market participants at
the same time or trading in the new derivative securities product
resumes on the listing market.
    CHX represents that the Exchange's surveillance procedures for new
derivative securities products traded on the Exchange pursuant to UTP
will be similar to the procedures used for equity securities traded on
the Exchange and will incorporate and rely upon existing Exchange
surveillance systems. The Exchange will closely monitor activity in new
derivative securities products traded on the Exchange pursuant to UTP
and deter any potential improper trading activity. Proposed CHX Article
22, Rule 6(b) also provides that the Exchange will enter into a
comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement (``CSSA'') with a market
trading components of the index or portfolio on which the new
derivative securities product is based to the same extent as the
listing exchange's rules require the listing market to enter into a
CSSA with such market.
    Finally, proposed CHX Article 22, Rule 6(c) provides for
restrictions for Participants registered as Market Makers (``Restricted
Market Maker'') in an new derivative securities product that derives
its value from one or more currencies, commodities, or derivatives
based on one or more currencies or commodities, or is based on a basket
or index comprised of currencies or commodities (collectively,
``Reference Assets''). Specifically, proposed CHX Article 22, Rule
6(c)(i) provides a Restricted Market Maker in an new derivative
securities product is prohibited from acting or registering as a market
maker in any Reference Asset of that new derivative securities product
or any derivative instrument based on a Reference Asset of that new
derivative securities product (collectively, with Reference Assets,
``Related Instruments''). Proposed CHX Article 22, Rule 6(c)(ii)
provides a Restricted Market Maker shall, in a manner prescribed by
CHX, file with CHX and keep current a list identifying any accounts
(``Related Instrument Trading Accounts'') for which Related Instruments
are traded: (a) In which the Restricted Market Maker holds an interest;
(b) over which it has investment discretion; or (c) in which it shares
in the profits and/or losses. In addition, a Restricted Market Maker
may not have an interest in, exercise investment discretion over, or
share in the profits and/or losses of a Related Instrument Trading
Account which has not been reported to CHX as required by this Rule.
Proposed CHX Article 22, Rule 6(c)(iii) provides that in addition to
the existing obligations under CHX rules regarding the production of
books and records, a Restricted Market Maker shall, upon request by
CHX, make available to CHX any books, records, or other information
pertaining to any Related Instrument Trading Account or to the account
of any registered or non-registered employee affiliated with the
Restricted Market Maker for which Related Instruments are traded.
Finally, proposed CHX Article 22, Rule 6(c)(iv) provides that a
Restricted Market Maker shall not use any material nonpublic
information in connection with trading a Related Instrument.
2. Statutory Basis
    The CHX believes the proposal is consistent with the requirements
of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable
to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the
requirements of Section 6(b).\4\ The proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act because it would promote just and
equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to, and perfect the
mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, protect investors and the public interest by allowing the
CHX to add and consolidate into a single rule certain requirements for
products traded on the Exchange pursuant to UTP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition.

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. 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CHX-2008-12 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CHX-2008-12. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of CHX. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CHX-2008-12 and should be
submitted on or before October 16, 2008.

IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
the Proposed Rule Change

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\5\
In particular, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent
with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and in general to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposal would consolidate into a single rule various
provisions related to UTP that have been established in other new
products proposals previously approved by the Commission. Proposed CHX
Rule 6 is closely modeled after similar rules of other national
securities exchanges \6\ and does not raise any novel issues. The
Commission finds good cause for approving the proposed rule change
prior to the 30th day after the date of publication of the notice of
filing thereof in the Federal Register. Accelerated approval of this
proposal will expedite the trading of additional products by the
Exchange, subject to consistent and reasonable standards. Therefore,
the Commission finds good cause, consistent with Section 19(b)(2) of
the Act, to approve the proposed rule change on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 57806 (May 9,
2008), 73 FR 28541 (May 16, 2008) (SR-Phlx-2008-34) (approving
amendment to Phlx Rule 136 and adoption of Phlx Rule 803(o)) and
57448 (March 6, 2008), 73 FR 13597 (March 13, 2008) (SR-NSX-2008-05)
(approving NSX Rule 15.9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\7\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CHX-2008-12) is hereby
approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-22463 Filed 9-24-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: November 21, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 226)]
[Notices]
[Page 70692-70693]
[DOCID:fr21no08-106]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent to Rule on Application 08-21-C-00-ORD To Impose
and Use the Revenue From a Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) at Chicago
O'Hare International Airport, Chicago, IL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Intent to Rule on Application.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the
application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC at Chicago O'Hare
International Airport under the

provisions of the 49 U.S.C. 40117 and Part 158 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (14 CFR part 158).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before date which is 30 days
after date of publication in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the application may be mailed or delivered in
triplicate to the FAA at the following address: James G. Keefer,
Federal Aviation Administration, Manager, Chicago Airports District
Office, 2300 E. Devon, Room 320, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be
mailed or delivered to Richard L. Rodriguez, Commissioner of the City
of Chicago Department of Aviation at the following address: Chicago
O'Hare International Airport, 10510 West Zemke Road, P.O. Box 66142,
Chicago, Illinois 60666.
    Air carriers and foreign air carriers may submit copies of written
comments previously provided to the City of Chicago Department of
Aviation under section 158.23 of Part 158.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James G. Keefer, Federal Aviation
Administration, Manager, Chicago Airports District Office, 2300 E.
Devon, Room 320, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Review of Application: Any person may inspect the application in
person at the Chicago Airports District Office, 2300 E. Devon, Room
320, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018. Please call<PHONE_NUMBER> to set up
an appointment. The application may also be viewed at http://
www.aql.faa.qov/OMP/PFC/PFC.htm.
    In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application,
notice and other documents germane to the application in person at the
City of Chicago Department of Aviation, 10510 West Zemke Road, Chicago,
Illinois 60666. Please contact Michael Zonsius at<PHONE_NUMBER> to set
up an appointment.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA proposes to rule and invites public
comment on the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC at
Chicago O'Hare International Airport under the provisions of the 49
U.S.C. 40117 and Part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR
part 158).
    On September 16, 2008, the City of Chicago Department of Aviation
submitted an application to impose and use revenues from a PFC at
Chicago O'Hare International Airport.
    On October 16, 2008, the FAA determined that the application to
impose and use the revenue from a PFC submitted by City of Chicago
Department of Aviation was not substantially complete within the
requirements of section 158.25 of Part 158. The City of Chicago
supplemented the application on October 29, 2008. The FAA will approve
or disapprove the application, in whole or in part, no later than
February 26, 2009.
    The following is a brief overview of the application.
    PFC application number: 08-21-C-00-ORD.
    Proposed charge effective date: December 1, 2024.
    Proposed charge expiration date: February 1, 2026. Level of the
proposed PFC: $ 4.50.
    Total estimated PFC revenue: $182,278,173.
    Brief description of proposed project(s): Airfield Design
(completion phase) and Western Terminal Area Planning.
    Class or classes of air carriers which the public agency has
requested not be required to collect PFCs: Air taxi.

    Issued in Des Plaines, Illinois, on November 13, 2008.
Elliott Black,
Manager, Planning/Programming Branch, Airports Division, Great Lakes
Region.
 [FR Doc. E8-27548 Filed 11-20-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


                            Responsiveness Summary
            Deletion of Surface Soil from National Priorities List
                    Pacific Coast Pipe Lines Superfund Site

Introduction

	A Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion for the Pacific Coast Pipe Lines Superfund Site was published in the Federal Register on December 26, 2017 (82 FR 60943-60946). The publication of this notice was intended to inform the public that EPA planned to delete the surface soil portion of the site from the National Priorities List (NPL), and provide a 30-day public comment period on the proposed deletion. The closing date for comments on the Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion was January 25, 2018. Eight written comments were received: five supporting EPA's decision, two opposing, and one that was not related to the proposed partial deletion. These comments are available in the Information Repositories. All public comments were considered in EPA's final decision to delete the Site from the NPL.

Responsiveness Summary

	The Responsiveness Summary has been prepared to provide responses to comments submitted to EPA during the 30-day public comment period regarding the Notice of Intent to Delete (82 FR 60943-60946) the Pacific Coast Pipe Lines (PCPL) Superfund Site. The original comments are summarized below and available at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1989-0011, with the support materials under document type "Public Submissions", and at the information repositories at the following addresses:

Superfund Records Center, 75 Hawthorne Street Room 3110, San Francisco, California, Hours: 8:00 AM  -  4:00 PM;<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Site Repository: Fillmore Library, 502 2[nd] Street, Fillmore, California. Call<PHONE_NUMBER> for hours of operation.

Summary of Adverse Comments:
 The soil portion of the site should be kept on the National Priorities List (list of Superfund sites) (two commenters).
 Concerns raised by the commenters include: contaminated soil remains on the property; contaminated soil was disposed on-site in consolidation areas; EPA needs to let the public know where the consolidation areas are and where benzene is in the groundwater; residents could be exposed to contaminated soil in the future because of a natural disaster.
EPA's Response:
 The remedial action objectives and associated cleanup levels established in the Record of Decision Amendment (2011) are intended to protect human health and the environment. Confirmation sampling indicates that all contaminants of concern in the PCPL Site's soil are below the cleanup levels specified in the ROD Amendment. Although the surface soil still contains low levels of lead and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons at concentrations that EPA does not consider safe for residential use, the surface soil has been cleaned up to a level that allows for commercial and recreational use of the former refinery, which are the permissible future land uses (see further discussion below). Soil containing higher concentrations of contamination were excavated from across the PCPL Site and deposited at a minimum depth of ten feet below ground surface in two on-site consolidation areas that are under multi-layer engineered caps, designed to prevent leaching of contaminants into groundwater. At these depths, the more highly contaminated soil that was found at the PCPL Site is secure and poses no threat to human health or the environment.
 The Final Soil Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring Plan establishes an inspection, monitoring, and maintenance program and a schedule of activities.
 There are land use covenants to ensure that cap integrity will be maintained and that future use of the property is restricted to commercial and recreational uses. EPA, DTSC, and Texaco, Inc. developed a land use covenant to restrict the use of the Site. This covenant was recorded at the Ventura County Recorder's Office on August 19, 2016, and "runs with the land," meaning the restrictions are binding on current and subsequent property owners.
 Because the site is not available for unlimited use or unrestricted exposure, EPA will review the effectiveness of the soil cleanup at the PCPL Site every five years to determine whether the cleanup remains protective of human health and the environment.
 The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) establishes criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In consultation with California's Department of Toxic Substances Control, EPA has determined that the criterion for delisting the PCPL Site has been met: the responsible party, Texaco, Inc., has implemented all appropriate response actions for surface soil set forth in the 2011 ROD Amendment (which selected the remedy for contaminated soils at the PCPL Site), and no further response action for soil is necessary.
 Deleting the surface soil portion of the PCPL Site from the NPL does not prohibit EPA from taking actions, as appropriate, to protect human health and the environment, including during natural disasters. Nor does it release responsible parties from legal liability for response actions at the PCPL Site that are necessary to protect human health and the environment. All releases deleted from the NPL are eligible for further remedial actions if warranted and, in the event there is a significant release from the surface soil portion of the PCPL Site in the future, EPA can restore it to the NPL.
 The locations of the two plumes of benzene in groundwater and the two consolidation areas are shown in the PCPL Soil Remedial Action Report 2016, Figures 2 and 3, respectively. This report was included in the online deletion docket at Regulations.gov and included in the PCPL Site information repositories as a supporting document.  It is also available at the EPA website www.epa.gov/superfund/pacificcoastpipeline under Site Documents & Data. The groundwater cleanup continues at the PCPL Site and is not affected by this partial deletion.

. Summary of Supportive Comments:
 Several commenters stated that partial deletion of the soils portion of the PCPL Site could benefit local government and residents by reducing the perceived stigma of a Superfund site designation. The partial deletion could also benefit nearby property values, facilitate recreation activities and access, and provide beneficial reuse opportunities for the community.
 A business leasing the PCPL Site states that reduced liability insurance costs and reduced investor concerns could result from the partial deletion of the PCPL Site.

In addition, one comment received discussed California wildfires and air pollution. It was not considered to be related to the proposed deletion of the PCPL Site.


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 224 (Wednesday, November 20, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64160-64164]
[FR Doc No: 2019-25107]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87541; File No. SR-NYSECHX-2019-20]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Chicago, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the
Fee Schedule of NYSE Chicago, Inc. in Connection With the Exchange's
Transition to Trading to the Pillar Trading Platform

November 14, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on November 12, 2019 the NYSE Chicago, Inc. (``NYSE
Chicago'' or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
self-regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule of NYSE Chicago,
Inc. (the ``Fee Schedule'') in connection with the Exchange's
transition to trading to the Pillar trading platform. The Exchange
proposes to implement the fee change effective November 12, 2019. The
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    On November 4, 2019, the Exchange transitioned to trading on
Pillar.\4\ Pillar is an integrated trading technology platform designed
to use a single specification for connecting to the equities and
options markets operated by the Exchange and its affiliates, NYSE Arca,
Inc. (``NYSE Arca''), NYSE American, LLC (``NYSE American''), NYSE
National, Inc. (``NYSE National''), and New York Stock Exchange LLC
(``NYSE''). With Pillar, the Exchange transitioned its cash equities
trading platform to a fully automated price-time priority allocation
model that trades all Regulation National Market System (``NMS'')
Stocks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Trader Update, available at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/notifications/trader-update/NYSEChicago_Migration_update_9.4.pdf. See also Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 87264 (October 9, 2019), 84 FR 55345 (October 16,
2019) (SR-NYSECHX-2019-08).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In connection with this transition, the Exchange proposes to amend
the Fee Schedule for trading on the Pillar platform, and to eliminate
certain other fees that would no longer be applicable. The Exchange
proposes to implement

the fee changes effective November 12, 2019.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange originally filed to amend the Fee Schedule on
November 4, 2019 (SR-NYSECHX-2019-18). SR-NYSECHX-2019-18 was
subsequently withdrawn and replaced by this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment. The
Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over
regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services
in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, the Commission
highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and
SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the
market system ``has been remarkably successful in promoting market
competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors
and listed companies.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the Commission itself recognized, the market for trading
services in NMS stocks has become ``more fragmented and competitive.''
\7\ Indeed, equity trading is currently dispersed across 13
exchanges,\8\ 31 alternative trading systems,\9\ and numerous broker-
dealer internalizers and wholesalers, all competing for order flow.
Based on publicly-available information for August 2019, no single
exchange has more than 19% market share (whether including or excluding
auction volume).\10\ Therefore, no exchange possesses significant
pricing power in the execution of equity order flow. More specifically,
in September 2019, the Exchange had 0.47% market share of executed
volume of non-auction equity trading.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808, 84 FR 5202,
5253 (February 20, 2019) (File No. S7-05-18) (Transaction Fee Pilot
for NMS Stocks Final Rule).
    \8\ See Cboe U.S Equities Market Volume Summary at https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share. See generally https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/divisionsmarketregmrexchangesshtml.html.
    \9\ See FINRA ATS Transparency Data, available at https://otctransparency.finra.org/otctransparency/AtsIssueData. A list of
alternative trading systems registered with the Commission is
available at https://www.sec.gov/foia/docs/atslist.htm.
    \10\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Equities Market Volume
Summary, available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/.
    \11\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
move order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of
products. While it is not possible to know a firm's reason for shifting
order flow, the Exchange believes that one such reason is because of
fee changes at any of the registered exchanges or non-exchange venues
to which a firm routes order flow.
Proposed Rule Change
    Pursuant to Section E.1 of the Fee Schedule, the Exchange currently
charges a fee for removing liquidity and provides a credit for adding
liquidity for orders in Tape A, B and C securities. For each of Tape A,
B and C securities with a share price equal to or greater than $1.00,
the Exchange charges a fee of $0.0030 per share for orders that remove
liquidity and provides a credit of $0.0020 per share for orders that
provide liquidity. For each of Tape A, B and C securities with a share
price less than $1.00, the Exchange charges a fee that is equal to
0.10% of trade value \12\ for orders that remove liquidity and provides
a credit of $0.0009 per share for orders that provide liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ ``Trade value'' means a dollar amount equal to the price
per share multiplied by the number of shares executed. See Fee
Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes the following transaction fees for trading on
its Pillar trading platform. For each of Tape A, B and C securities
with a share price equal to or greater than $1.00, the Exchange
proposes a fee of $0.0010 per share for orders that remove liquidity
and for orders that add liquidity. For each of Tape A, B and C
securities with a share price less than $1.00, the Exchange proposes a
fee that is equal to 0.10% of trade value for orders that remove
liquidity and for orders that add liquidity.
    Section E.1 currently provides that the fees under this section are
for Matching System executions resulting from single-sided orders
submitted as at least a Round Lot. The Exchange proposes to remove
``submitted as at least a Round Lot'' from the text of the Fee Schedule
as the proposed fees would apply to all orders, including round lot and
odd lot orders. Further, as described below, the Exchange is proposing
to delete pricing applicable to odd lot orders from the Fee Schedule,
and as such, the proposed fees under Section E.1 would apply to odd lot
orders also.
    Additionally, with this proposed rule change, the Exchange would no
longer provide credits for orders that add liquidity. Accordingly, the
Exchange proposes to delete paragraphs (b) and (c) under Section E.1 as
each of those paragraphs refer to credits that would no longer be
payable by the Exchange. The Exchange also proposes to remove the
reference to ``credits attributed'' found in Section E.1 and the
reference to ``attributed credits pursuant to Section E.1(b) and (c)''
found in Section E.3(a)(2). The Exchange also proposes to amend the
text of paragraph (a) under Section E.1 to make clear that the both the
liquidity removing fee and the liquidity providing fee shall not be
charged to any Institutional Brokers, as Institutional Brokers are and
would continue to be subject to fees under Section E.3. Finally, the
Exchange proposes to delete the conditional requirement found in
Sections E.1 and E.3 of the Fee Schedule. Specifically, the Exchange
proposes to delete the term ``Subject to Section E.9 below'' from
Sections E.1 and E.3 because the Fee Schedule no longer has a Section
E.9. Section E.9 previously provided fees for certain executions that
resulted from a functionality that has since been decommissioned. The
Exchange inadvertently failed to previously delete reference to Section
E.9 found in Sections E.1 and E.3 from the Fee Schedule and proposes to
do so now.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85248 (March 5,
2019), 84 FR 8773 (March 11, 2019) (SR-NYSECHX-2019-01). See also
Exchange Act Release No. 84852 (December 19, 2018), 83 FR 66808
(December 27, 2018) (SR-CHX-2018-09).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section E.4 currently provides that a fee of $0.0040 per share
applies for the execution of orders submitted as odd lots during all
trading sessions.\14\ With this proposed rule change, the Exchange
would no longer distinguish between executions of round lot orders and
odd lot orders and would charge the same fee for all orders pursuant to
the proposed fees under Section E.1. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes
to remove the text within Section E.4 of the Fee Schedule in its
entirety, replacing it with ``Reserved.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54657 (October 26,
2006), 71 FR 64590 (November 2, 2006) (SR-CHX-2006-29). See also
Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 64953 (July 25, 2011), 76 FR
45626 (July 29, 2011) (SR-CHX-2011-19); 73814 (December 11, 2014),
79 FR 75203 (December 17, 2014) (SR-CHX-2014-19); and 77785 (May 9,
2016), 81 FR 29936 (May 13, 2016) (SR-CHX-2016-06).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section E.8 currently provides a formula-based order cancellation
fee which assesses a daily cancellation fee per trading account symbol,
if the order cancellation ratio exceeds a designated threshold.\15\
Historically, the

cancellation fee was adopted so the Exchange could recoup some of the
costs associated with administering and processing large numbers of
cancelled orders and to incent Participants to post marketable orders,
and thereby, promote liquidity and single-sided executions on the
Exchange. With this proposed rule change, the Exchange would no longer
assess the cancellation fee and proposes to remove the fee from the Fee
Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61392 (January 21,
2010), 75 FR 4436 (January 27, 2010) (SR-CHX-2010-02). See also
Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 62642 (August 4, 2010), 75 FR
48404 (August 10, 2010) (SR-CHX-2010-19); 68219 (November 13, 2012),
77 FR 69673 (November 20, 2012) (SR-CHX-2012-15); 69701 (June 5,
2013), 78 FR 35082 (June 11, 2013) (SR-CHX-2013-11); 69903 (July 1,
2013), 78 FR 40788 (July 8, 2013) (SR-CHX-2013-12; and 71404
(January 27, 2014), 79 FR 5476 (January 31, 2014) (SR-CHX-2014-01).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section I of the Fee Schedule currently provides listing fees
charged by the Exchange.\16\ More specifically, Section I.1 provides
fees for original listings; Section I.2 provides the fees for annual
maintenance; Section I.3 provides the fees for supplemental listings;
and Section I.4 provides miscellaneous fees related to listings on the
Exchange. On Pillar, the Exchange would no longer be a primary listing
venue and would no longer charge the listing fees found in Section I of
the Fee Schedule.\17\ Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to remove the
text within Section I of the Fee Schedule in its entirety, replacing it
with ``Reserved.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 54657 (October 26,
2006), 71 FR 64590 (November 2, 2006) (SR-CHX-2006-29); and 68620
(January 10, 2013), 78 FR 3485 (January 16, 2013) (SR-CHX-2012-20).
    \17\ See Trader Update, available at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/notifications/trader-update/NYSEChicago_Migration_update_9.4.pdf. See also Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 87264 (October 9, 2019), 84 FR 55345 (October 16,
2019) (SR-NYSECHX-2019-08).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\18\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\19\ in particular,
because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and other persons
using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposed Rule Change Is Reasonable
    As discussed above, the Exchange operates in a highly fragmented
and competitive market. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically,
in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market
forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized
that current regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably
successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that
are most important to investors and listed companies.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the Commission itself recognized, the market for trading
services in NMS stocks has become ``more fragmented and competitive.''
\21\ Indeed, equity trading is currently dispersed across 13
exchanges,\22\ 31 alternative trading systems,\23\ and numerous broker-
dealer internalizers and wholesalers, all competing for order flow.
Based on publicly-available information, no single exchange has more
than 19% market share (whether including or excluding auction
volume).\24\ Therefore, no exchange possesses significant pricing power
in the execution of equity order flow. More specifically, as noted
earlier, the Exchange averaged less than 1% market share of executed
volume of equity trades (excluding auction volume) \25\ for September
2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808, 84 FR 5202,
5253 (February 20, 2019) (File No. S7-05-18) (Final Rule).
    \22\ See Cboe Global Markets, U.S Equities Market Volume
Summary, available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share.
    \23\ See FINRA ATS Transparency Data, available at https://otctransparency.finra.org/otctransparency/AtsIssueData. A list of
alternative trading systems registered with the Commission is
available at https://www.sec.gov/foia/docs/atslist.htm.
    \24\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Equities Market Volume
Summary, available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/.
    \25\ See note 11, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
shift order flow, or discontinue to reduce use of certain categories of
products, in response to fee changes. With respect to non-marketable
orders which provide liquidity on an Exchange, Participants can choose
from any one of the 13 currently operating registered exchanges to
route such order flow. Accordingly, competitive forces reasonably
constrain exchange transaction fees that relate to orders that would
provide displayed liquidity on an exchange. Stated otherwise, changes
to exchange transaction fees can have a direct effect on the ability of
an exchange to compete for order flow.
    The Exchange believes that charging $0.0010 per share for
securities priced at or above $1.00 and 0.10% of the total dollar value
of the transaction for securities priced below $1.00 for executions on
the Exchange of single-sided orders that add liquidity and that remove
liquidity to the Exchange is reasonable because the proposed rate would
be comparable to the fee charged by other exchanges.\26\ With this
proposed rule change, the Exchange proposes to standardize the fee for
adding and removing liquidity for all orders executed by Participants
on the Exchange. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to amend the
rule text in Section E.1(a) to clarify that, with this proposed rule
change, all liquidity providing orders and all liquidity removing
orders executed by Participants on the Exchange would be charged the
same fee and that the liquidity removing fee and the liquidity
providing fee shall not be charged to any Institutional Brokers, as
Institutional Brokers are and would continue to be subject to fees
under Section E.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ IEX, for instance, charges a fee of $0.0009 per share for
providing non-displayed liquidity for securities priced at or above
$1.00 and 0.30% of TDV (i.e., the total dollar value of the
transaction calculated as the execution price) for securities priced
below $1.00. See Investors Exchange Fee Schedule, available at
https://iextrading.com/trading/fees/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes it is reasonable to charge odd lot orders the
same fee that is charged for round lot orders, and to delete the part
of the Fee Schedule that provided fees specifically for odd lot orders.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change, which would result in
lower fees for the execution of odd lot orders on the Exchange, would
provide an incentive to Participants to direct their odd lot order flow
to the Exchange. This in turn would provide the Exchange with potential
order flow as it transitions to the Pillar trading platform.
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to eliminate the
cancellation fee, and to delete the part of the Fee Schedule that
provided the cancellation fee. The cancellation fee was originally
introduced in response to capacity concerns stemming from Participants
generating significant order traffic that did not result in executed
trades due to orders being cancelled at high rates. In the time since
the cancellation fee was adopted, the fee has become less important as
the Exchange over time has generally improved its technology and the
Exchange believes that maintaining the fee is no longer necessary. The
Exchange believes that this fee may inadvertently discourage
Participants to enter additional orders on the Exchange.
    The Exchange believes it is reasonable to eliminate the listing
fees from the Fee Schedule, and to delete the part of the Fee Schedule
that provided the listing fees, because once the Exchange

transitions to Pillar, the Exchange would no longer be a primary
listing market and therefore, removal of the listing fees from the Fee
Schedule would increase transparency to the fees that would be
applicable on the Exchange and would reduce investor confusion.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal to delete obsolete text
under Sections E.1 and E.3 of the Fee Schedule would remove impediments
to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market and a
national market system and, in general, protect investors and the
public interest because the proposed fee change would remove text from
the Fee Schedule related to fees that no longer exist and therefore
reduce any potential ambiguity and provide clarification with respect
to fees that are applicable on the Exchange.
The Proposed Rule Change Is an Equitable Allocation of Fees and Credits
    The Exchange believes its proposal equitably allocates its fees
among its market participants.
    First, the Exchange is proposing to adopt a standardized rate for
orders that add liquidity and orders that remove liquidity. The
Exchange believes the proposed revised fee structure would simplify the
fees charged by the Exchange to Participants that transact on the
Exchange as all liquidity providing orders and all liquidity removing
orders executed by Participants on the Exchange would be charged the
same fee. As a result, the proposal should encourage Participants to
direct orders that add liquidity and remove liquidity, as the case may
be, thereby contributing to robust levels of trading, which would
benefit all market participants. The proposed change will encourage the
submission of a greater number of orders to a national securities
exchange, thus promoting price discovery and transparency and enhancing
order execution opportunities for Participants on the Exchange.
However, without having a view of Participant's activity on other
markets and off-exchange venues, the Exchange has no way of knowing
whether this proposed rule change would result in a change in trading
behavior by Participants. However, the Exchange believes that
standardizing the adding and removing fees by adopting a single fee
would result in a simpler fee structure which may provide an incentive
for Participants to continue to submit orders to the Exchange, and
thereby promote price discovery and increased execution opportunities
for all Participants. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change
would improve market quality for all market participants on the
Exchange and, as a consequence, attract more liquidity to the Exchange,
thereby improving market-wide quality and price discovery.
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change would improve market
quality for all market participants on the Exchange and, as a
consequence, attract more liquidity to the Exchange thereby improving
market-wide quality. The proposal neither targets nor will it have a
disparate impact on any particular category of market participant. The
Exchange believes that recalibrating the fees for orders that add and
that remove liquidity would continue to attract order flow and
liquidity to the Exchange for the benefit of investors generally.
    The Exchange further believes the proposed rule change to remove
sections related to fees for odd lot orders, cancellation fee and
listing fees from the Fee Schedule and the deletion of obsolete fees is
equitable because such fees are no longer applicable or would no longer
be applicable once the Exchange has transitioned to the Pillar trading
platform. The Exchange believes this will more clearly identify
currently applicable fees, which the Exchange believes removes
impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will eliminate confusion
regarding which fees apply to current trading, which ultimately
protects investors and the public interest.
The Proposed Rule Change Is Not Unfairly Discriminatory
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is not unfairly
discriminatory. In the prevailing competitive environment, Participants
are free to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe that
alternatives offer them better value.
    The proposal to adopt standardized fees for orders that add
liquidity and for orders that remove liquidity neither targets nor will
it have a disparate impact on any particular category of market
participant. The proposal does not permit unfair discrimination because
the proposed standardized fees would be applied to all similarly
Participants, who would all be eligible for the same fee on an equal
basis. Accordingly, no Participant already operating on the Exchange
would be disadvantaged by this allocation of fees.
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change to charge odd lot
orders the same fee that is charged to round lot orders, and to delete
the part of the Fee Schedule that provided fees specifically for odd
lot orders, is not unfairly discriminatory as the proposed fees for odd
lot orders would apply on an equal basis to all Participants that send
odd lot orders to the Exchange.
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change to eliminate the
cancellation fee, and to delete the part of the Fee Schedule that
provided the cancellation fee, is not unfairly discriminatory as the
proposed elimination of the fee would apply equally to all
Participants, who will no longer be subject to any cancellation fees,
resulting in lower fees for Participants.
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change to eliminate the
listing fees, and to delete the part of the Fee Schedule that provided
the listing fees, is not unfairly discriminatory as the proposed
elimination of the fee would apply equally to all Participants, who
will no longer be subject to any listing fees.
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change to delete references
to Section E.9 from the Fee Schedule, which no longer exists, is not
unfairly discriminatory because the proposed deletion would alleviate
confusion and maintain clarity in the Fee Schedule, and would apply to
all Participants on an equal basis.
    Finally, the submission of orders to the Exchange is optional for
Participants in that they could choose whether to submit orders to the
Exchange and, if they do, the extent of its activity in this regard.
The Exchange believes that it is subject to significant competitive
forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement regarding the
burden on competition. For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes
that the proposal is consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\27\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above, the Exchange believes
that the proposed changes would encourage the submission of orders to a
public exchange, thereby promoting market depth, price discovery and
transparency and enhancing order execution opportunities for
Participants. As a result, the Exchange believes that the proposed
change furthers the Commission's goal in adopting Regulation NMS of
fostering integrated competition among orders, which

promotes ``more efficient pricing of individual stocks for all types of
orders, large and small.'' \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \28\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808, 70 FR 37495,
37498-99 (June 29, 2005) (S7-10-04) (Final Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Intramarket Competition
    The proposed rule change is designed to attract order flow to the
Exchange, and thereby, increased liquidity. Greater liquidity benefits
all market participants on the Exchange by providing more trading
opportunities and encourages Participants, to send orders, thereby
contributing to robust levels of liquidity, which benefit all market
participants. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule
change will impair the ability of Participants to compete in the
financial markets. There are 13 exchanges, 31 alternative trading
systems, and numerous broker-dealer internalizers and wholesalers, all
competing for order flow from which Participants may choose to send
their quotes and trades. The Exchange also does not believe the
proposed rule change would impact intramarket competition as the
proposed rule change would apply to all Participants equally that
transact on the Exchange, and therefore the proposed change would not
impose a disparate burden on competition among market participants on
the Exchange.
Intermarket Competition
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which
market participants can readily choose to send their orders to other
exchange and off-exchange venues if they deem fee and rebate levels at
those other venues to be more favorable. As noted earlier, the
Exchange's market share of intraday trading (i.e., excluding auctions)
was 0.47% in September 2019. In such an environment, the Exchange must
continually adjust its fees and rebates to remain competitive with
other exchanges and with off-exchange venues. Because competitors are
free to modify their own fees and credits in response, and because
market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices,
the Exchange does not believe the proposed change can impose any burden
on intermarket competition.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change could promote
competition between the Exchange and other execution venues, including
those that currently offer similar order types and comparable
transaction pricing, by encouraging additional orders to be sent to the
Exchange for execution.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \29\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \30\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \30\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \31\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSECHX-2019-20 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSECHX-2019-20. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (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-NYSECHX-2019-20 and should be submitted
on or before December 11, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-25107 Filed 11-19-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P