[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 225 (Friday, November 20, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 74304]
[FR Doc No: 2020-25600]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 73

[Docket No. FDA-2017-C-6238]

Colorcon, Inc.; Filing of Color Additive Petition

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notification of petition.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing
that we have filed a petition, submitted by Colorcon, Inc., proposing
that the color additive regulations be amended to expand the safe use
of calcium carbonate to include use in dietary supplement tablets and
capsules.

DATES: The color additive petition was filed on October 15, 2020.

ADDRESSES: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the
docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document into
the ``Search'' box and follow the prompts, and/or go to the Dockets
Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,
240-402-7500.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Kampmeyer, Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus
Dr., College Park, MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under section 721(d)(1) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 379e(d)(1)), we are giving notice
that we have filed a color additive petition (CAP 0C0318), submitted by
Colorcon, Inc., 275 Ruth Rd., Harleysville, PA 19438. The petition
proposes to amend the color additive regulations in 21 CFR 73.70,
``Calcium carbonate,'' to expand the use of calcium carbonate to
include use in dietary supplement tablets and capsules, including
coatings and printing inks, in amounts consistent with good
manufacturing practice.
    The petitioner has claimed that this action is categorically
excluded under 21 CFR 25.32(k) because the substance is intended to
remain in food through ingestion by consumers and is not intended to
replace macronutrients in food. In addition, the petitioner has stated
that, to their knowledge, no extraordinary circumstances exist. If FDA
determines a categorical exclusion applies, neither an environmental
assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. If FDA
determines a categorical exclusion does not apply, we will request an
environmental assessment and make it available for public inspection.

    Dated: November 16, 2020.
Lauren K. Roth,
Acting Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-25600 Filed 11-19-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 127 (Monday, July 2, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39182-39183]
[FR Doc No: C1-2012-9978]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 141 and 142

[Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0090; FRL-9660-4]
RIN 2040-AF10

Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation
(UCMR 3) for Public Water Systems

Correction

    In rule document 2012-9978 appearing on pages 26072-26101 in the
issue of Wednesday, May 2, 2012, make the following correction:
    On pages 26072-26073, the table entitled ``EXHIBIT 1--APPLICABILITY
OF UCMR 3 TO WATER UTILITIES BY SYSTEM TYPE AND SIZE'' should read as
set forth below:

Exhibit 1--Applicability of UCMR 3 to Water Utilities by System Type and
                                  Size
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            System size \1\
                             -------------------------------------------
         System Type           Serving
                                     10,000           Serving <= 10,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      UCMR 3 Assessment Monitoring
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CWS & NTNCWS................  Requires all systems  Requires 800
                               to monitor for List   randomly selected
                               1 chemicals.          systems to monitor
                                                     for List 1
                                                     chemicals. EPA will
                                                     pay for the
                                                     analysis of
                                                     samples.
TNCWS.......................  No requirements.....  No Requirements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         UCMR 3 Screening Survey
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CWS & NTNCWS................  Requires all systems  Requires 480
                               serving more than     randomly selected
                               100,000, and 320      systems to monitor
                               randomly selected     for List 2
                               systems serving       chemicals. EPA will
                               10,001 to 100,000     pay for the
                               to monitor for List   analysis of
                               2 chemicals.          samples.
TNCWS.......................  No requirements.....  No Requirements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        UCMR 3 Pre-Screen Testing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CWS, TNCWS & NTNCWS.........  No requirements.....  Requires 800
                                                     randomly selected
                                                     systems to permit
                                                     EPA to sample and
                                                     analyze List 3
                                                     microbes. The
                                                     selected systems
                                                     will be served by
                                                     non-disinfecting
                                                     ground water wells
                                                     in vulnerable
                                                     areas. EPA will pay
                                                     for the analysis of
                                                     samples.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on the retail population, as indicated by SDWIS/Fed on
  December 31, 2010.

[FR Doc. C1-2012-9978 Filed 6-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 137 (Monday, July 18, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42149-42150]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17957]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64864; File No. SR-DTC-2011-06]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rules Relating to the
Early Redemption of Certificates of Deposit

 July 12, 2011.
    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 July 1, 2011, The Depository Trust Company (``DTC'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule
change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been
prepared primarily by DTC. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The purpose of DTC's proposed rule change is to amend its
Redemption Service Guide as it relates to the early redemption of
certain Certificates of Deposit held at DTC.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The text of the proposed rule change is attached as Exhibit
5 to DTC's filing, which is available at http://www.dtcc.com/downloads/legal/rule_filings/2010/dtc/2011-06.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In its filing with the Commission, DTC included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. DTC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these
statements.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Commission has modified the text of the summaries
prepared by DTC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Recently, several issuers of Certificates of Deposit (``CDs'') have
contacted DTC in an attempt to redeem or call their CDs prior to the
maturity date. The master certificate of these CDs did not expressly
specify that they were callable or subject to redemption. In some
instances, the issuer offered to pay DTC participants the principal
plus interest through the date of maturity. In other instances, the
issuer offered to pay principal plus interest only through the date of
redemption. Because the master certificates did not expressly indicate
the CDs could be redeemed early, a number of DTC participants expressed
their concerns that the CDs had been sold to investors without
disclosing the possibility of early redemption.
    Over the past several months, DTC has worked with the industry,
including the Retail Fixed Income Committee of The Securities Industry
and Financial Markets Association (``SIFMA''), to better understand the
issues related to the early termination of CDs that do not contain
express early termination provisions. As a result of these
consultations, DTC is now proposing to amend its Redemption Service
Guide to state that DTC will not process early redemptions or calls on
CDs unless (i) There is an explicit provision in the master certificate
that permits early termination by the issuer and specifies the payment
to be made in connection therewith or (ii) written consent to an early
redemption in a form designed by DTC is obtained by the issuer from all
of the holders of the CD. Furthermore, in the event that an issuer
sends such payment to DTC in contravention of the proposed rule, DTC
will return the payment to the issuer, less any costs associated with
facilitating the attempted redemption and return of funds.
    The proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the
Act, as amended, (``Act'') and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to DTC because it clarifies the terms and conditions under
which DTC will permit the early redemption of certain CDs and thus
facilitates the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
transactions involving these CDs.

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    DTC does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any
burden on competition.

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

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been
solicited or received. DTC will notify the Commission of any written
comments received by DTC.

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

    Within forty-five days of the date of publication of this notice in
the Federal Register or within such longer period (i) As the Commission
may designate up to ninety days of such date if it finds such longer
period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or
(ii) as to which the self-regulatory organization consents, the
Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-DTC-2011-06 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submission should refer to File Number SR-DTC-2011-06. 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 Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090, on official business days between the
hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filings will also be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of DTC and
on DTC's Web site at http://www.dtcc.com/downloads/legal/rule_filings/2011/dtc/2011-06.pdf. 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-DTC-2011-06 and should be submitted on or before [insert date 21
days from publication in the Federal Register].

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-17957 Filed 7-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 248 (Monday, December 29, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78081-78082]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30258]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG15-29-000.
    Applicants: Iberdrola Arizona Renewables, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Facts of Iberdrola
Arizona Renewables, LLC.
    Filed Date: 12/10/14.
    Accession Number: 20141210-5218.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/31/14.

    Docket Numbers: EG15-30-000.
    Applicants: Cross & Company, PLLC.
    Description: Molex Incorporated Notice of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 12/18/14.
    Accession Number: 20141218-5102.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/8/15

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2302-005.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Mexico.
    Description: Supplement to August 18, 2014 Notice of Change in
Status of Public Service Company of New Mexico.
    Filed Date: 12/17/14.
    Accession Number: 20141217-5201.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/7/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2916-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Report Filing: 2014-12-18_SA 2698 OTP-Courtenay Wind
Farm GIA_Response (J262/J263) to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 12/18/14.
    Accession Number: 20141218-5154.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/8/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2936-000.
    Applicants: Sunbury Generation LP.
    Description: Report Filing: Sunbury PJM Refund Response to be
effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 12/18/14.
    Accession Number: 20141218-5001.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/8/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-631-000.
    Applicants: Crawfordsville Energy, LLC.
    Description: Supplement to December 15, 2014 Crawfordsville Energy,
LLC tariff filing.
    Filed Date: 12/17/14.
    Accession Number: 20141217-5120.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/7/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-645-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Service
Agreement No. 4053; Queue No. Z2-088 to be effective 11/18/2014.
    Filed Date: 12/17/14.
    Accession Number: 20141217-5161.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/7/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-646-000.
    Applicants: AEP Generation Resources Inc.
    Description: Request seeking Commission authorization for extension
of an ongoing affiliate power sales agreement of AEP Generation
Resources Inc.
    Filed Date: 12/15/14.
    Accession Number: 20141215-5326.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/5/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-647-000.
    Applicants: Kay Wind, LLC.
    Description: Initial rate filing per 35.12 Kay Wind MBR Tariff
Revised to be effective 2/16/2015.
    Filed Date: 12/18/14.
    Accession Number: 20141218-5075.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/8/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-648-000.
    Applicants: South Carolina Electric & Gas Company.
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: NAESB Transmission Service
Products--Attachment O to be effective 2/2/2015.
    Filed Date: 12/18/14.
    Accession Number: 20141218-5132.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/8/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-649-000.
    Applicants: The Connecticut Light and Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):
Revision to Market Based Rate Tariff NUSCO Electric Rate Schedule, FERC
No. 7 to be effective 2/16/2015.
    Filed Date: 12/18/14.
    Accession Number: 20141218-5182.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/8/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-650-000.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Service
Agreement No. 318 Modifications, NITS with NTUA to be effective 12/1/
2014.
    Filed Date: 12/18/14.
    Accession Number: 20141218-5183.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/8/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-651-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Hampshire.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):
Revision to Market Based Rate Tariff NUSCO Electric Rate Schedule, FERC
No. 7 to be effective 2/16/2015.
    Filed Date: 12/18/14.
    Accession Number: 20141218-5184.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/8/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 18, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-30258 Filed 12-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 28 (Monday, February 11, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9774-9775]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03076]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0111; Notice 1]

Michelin North America, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Receipt of Petition.

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

SUMMARY: Michelin North America, Inc. (Michelin),\1\ has determined
that certain BF Goodrich brand tires manufactured between June 12, 2011
and April 21, 2012, do not fully comply with paragraph S5.5(b) of
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 139, New Pneumatic
Radial Tires for Light Vehicles. Michelin has filed an appropriate
report dated July 16, 2012, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Michelin North America, Inc, is a manufacturer of
replacement equipment and is registered under the laws of the state
of New York.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see implementing rule
at 49 CFR Part 556), Michelin submitted a petition for an exemption
from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301
on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety.
    This notice of receipt of Michelin's petition is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    Vehicles Involved: Affected are approximately 1,300 g-Force Sport
Comp2, size 205/45ZR17 88W, BF Goodrich brand tires manufactured
between June 12, 2011 and April 21, 2012.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, these provisions
only apply to the subject 1,300 \2\ tires that Michelin no longer
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Michelin's petition, which was filed under 49 CFR Part 556,
requests an agency decision to exempt Michelin as an equipment
manufacturer from the notification and recall responsibilities of 49
CFR Part 573 for the 1,300 affected tires. However, a decision on
this petition will not relieve vehicle distributors and dealers of
the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, introduction or
delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of the
noncompliant vehicles under their control after Michelin notified
them that the subject noncompliance existed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Noncompliance: Michelin explains that the noncompliance is that,
due to a mold labeling error, the subject tires sidewall markings on
the opposite side of the full DOT TIN are lacking the designation
``Extra Load'' and thus do not conform to the requirements of 49 CFR
571.139 paragraph S5.5(b).
    Rule Text: Paragraph S5.5 of FMVSS No. 139 requires in pertinent
part:

    S5.5 Tire markings. Except as specified in paragraphs (a)
through (i) of S5.5, each tire must be marked on each sidewall with
the information specified in S5.5(a) through (d) and on one side-
wall with the information specified in S5.5(e) through (i) according
to the phase-in schedule specified in S7 of this standard. The
markings must be placed between the maximum section width and the
bead on at least one sidewall, unless the maximum section width of
the tire is located in an area that is not more than one-fourth of
the distance from the bead to the shoulder of the tire. If the
maximum section width that falls within that area, those markings
must appear between the bead and a point one-half the distance from
the bead to the shoulder of the tire, on at least one sidewall. The
markings must be in letters and numerals not less than 0.078 inches
high and raised above or sunk below the tire surface not less than
0.015 inches * * *
    (b) The tire size designation as listed in the documents and
publications specified in S4.1.1 of this standard * * *

Summary of Michelin's Analysis and Arguments

    Michelin believes that while the noncompliant tires lack the
marking ``Extra Load'' on the sidewall opposite of the full DOT TIN as
required by FMVSS No. 139, it is inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety for the following reasons:
    1. The subject tires meet or exceed all applicable FMVSS
performance standards.

    2. Associated with the designation ``Extra Load'' is a higher
maximum load and a possible higher maximum inflation pressure. Each of
the subject tires has been marked on both sidewalls with a maximum load
of 560 kg (1235 lbs) which, under the ETRTO standard, corresponds to an
Extra Load (or Reinforced) tire of the size 205/45ZR17 and load index
of 88. The maximum inflation pressure marked beneath each maximum load
is 340 kPa (50 psi), which is consistent with an Extra Load tire.
    3. Per FMVSS No. 139 and ETRTO standards, the marking ``Extra
Load'' alerts the installer to the fact that the subject tire has a
higher load carrying capacity than the standard load tire of the same
dimension. In the absence of the ``Extra Load'' mark, an installer
could fit the subject tire to a vehicle which requires a standard load
tire. But since the subject tire has the performance capacity of an
Extra Load tire, the load requirement of the standard load fitment
would be exceeded.
    4. The subject tire is also a directional tire for which there is
no intended outboard sidewall, that is, the preferred direction of
rotation is marked on the sidewall, and when the subject tires are
mounted on a vehicle, the left side tires on the vehicle will show the
full DOT TIN and no Extra Load designation after the tire size. While
this may cause some confusion for the operator, the marked maximum load
capacity of 560 kg (1235 lbs) will be visible on the outboard facing
sidewall of all four tires, and will confirm the same maximum load
capacity of each fitted tire.
    5. All other sidewall markings are consistent with the requirements
of FMVSS No. 139 for a passenger category tire and the non-conformity
of the subject tires has no impact on the load carrying capacity of the
tire on a motor vehicle, nor on motor vehicle safety.
    Michelin has additionally informed NHTSA that it has corrected
future production and that all other tire labeling information is
correct.
    In summation, Michelin believes that the described noncompliance of
its tires is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that its
petition, to exempt it from providing recall notification of
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be granted.

Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the docket and
notice number cited at the beginning of this notice and be submitted by
any of the following methods:
    a. By mail addressed to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
    b. By hand delivery to U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Section is open on
weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except Federal Holidays.
    c. Electronically: by logging onto the Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) Web site at http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the
online instructions for submitting comments. Comments may also be faxed
to 1-202-493-2251.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that your comments were received, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that
all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
    Documents submitted to a docket may be viewed by anyone at the
address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by following the online
instructions for accessing the dockets. DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement is available for review in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78).
    The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received
before the close of business on the closing date indicated below will
be filed and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the extent possible. When the petition is granted or
denied, notice of the decision will be published in the Federal
Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.

DATES: Comment Closing Date: March 13, 2013.

    Authority:  (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
CFR 1.95 and 501.8)

    Issued On: February 1, 2013.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2013-03076 Filed 2-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request EPA, Office of Prevention, Pesticides & Toxic Substances 2. OMB control number b. G None a. 2 0 7 0  0 0 3 8 __ __ __ __

3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. O Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. O Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes O No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. O Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title TSCA Section 5( a)( 2) Significant New Use Rules for Existing Chemicals ( Renewal)

8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) EPA ICR # 1188.08 ; EPA Form 7710 25 9. Keywords Environmental Protection; Hazardous Substances; Reporting Requirements; Significant New Use 10. Abstract Section 5 of the Toxic Substances Control Act ( TSCA) provides EPA with a regulatory mechanism to monitor and, if necessary, control significant new uses of chemical substances. Once a use is designated as a significant new use, a person must notify EPA, at least 90 days in advance, of their intent to commence that use.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. P Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 5 b. Total annual responses 5 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 0 % c. Total hours requested 861 d. Current OMB inventory 1,020 e. Difference  159 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 2. Adjustment  159 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 0 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 0 c. Total annualized cost requested 0 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 0 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 2. Adjustment 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. P Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. Q Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. O Reporting 1. O On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. Q Semi annually 6. Q Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. Q Other ( describe) 17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes O No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Angela F. Hofmann, Director, Regulatory Coordination Staff Phone: 202 564 0258 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( i) Why the information is being collected; ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( i) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official Angela F. Hofmann, Director Regulatory Coordination Staff ( OPPTS) Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information ( OEI) Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95


maintaining and supporting MEO Ports versus FIX Ports, the Exchange
allocates a materially higher percentage of Allocated Shared expense to
MEO Ports versus FIX Ports.
Cost Analysis--Additional Discussion
    In conducting its Cost Analysis, the Exchange did not allocate any
of its expenses in full to any core services (including physical
connectivity or FIX and MEO Ports) and did not double- count any
expenses. Instead, as described above, the Exchange allocated
applicable cost drivers across its core services and used the same Cost
Analysis to form the basis of this proposal and the filings the
Exchange submitted proposing fees for proprietary data feeds offered by
the Exchange. For instance, in calculating the Human Resources expenses
to be allocated to physical connections based upon the above described
methodology, the Exchange has a team of employees dedicated to network
infrastructure and with respect to such employees the Exchange
allocated network infrastructure personnel with a high percentage of
the cost of such personnel (60%) to 1Gb and 10Gb ULL connectivity given
their focus on functions necessary to provide physical connections. The
salaries of those same personnel were allocated only 25% to FIX and MEO
Ports and the remaining 15% was allocated to transactions and market
data. The Exchange did not allocate any other Human Resources expense
for providing physical connections to any other employee group, outside
of a smaller allocation of 37% for 1Gb and 10Gb ULL connectivity of the
cost associated with certain specified personnel who work closely with
and support network infrastructure personnel. In contrast, the Exchange
allocated much smaller percentages of costs (less than 21%) across a
wider range of personnel groups in order to allocate Human Resources
costs to providing FIX and MEO Ports. This is because a much wider
range of personnel are involved in functions necessary to offer,
monitor and maintain FIX and MEO Ports but the tasks necessary to do so
are not a primary or full-time function.
    In total, the Exchange allocated 47.6% of its personnel costs to
providing physical connections and 22.4% of its personnel costs to
providing FIX and MEO Ports, for a total allocation of 70% Human
Resources expense to provide these specific connectivity services. In
turn, the Exchange allocated the remaining 30% of its Human Resources
expense to membership (less than 1%) and transactions and market data
(9.5%). Thus, again, the Exchange's allocations of cost across core
services were based on real costs of operating the Exchange and were
not double-counted across the core services or their associated revenue
streams.
    As another example, the Exchange allocated depreciation expense to
all core services, including physical

connections and FIX and MEO Ports, but in different amounts. The
Exchange believes it is reasonable to allocate the identified portion
of such expense because such expense includes the actual cost of the
computer equipment, such as dedicated servers, computers, laptops,
monitors, information security appliances and storage, and network
switching infrastructure equipment, including switches and taps that
were purchased to operate and support the network. Without this
equipment, the Exchange would not be able to operate the network and
provide connectivity services to its Equity Members and non-Equity
Members and their customers. However, the Exchange did not allocate all
of the depreciation and amortization expense toward the cost of
providing connectivity services, but instead allocated approximately
85% of the Exchange's overall depreciation and amortization expense to
connectivity services (76.185% attributed to 1Gb and 10Gb ULL physical
connections and 8.6% to FIX and MEO Ports). The Exchange allocated the
remaining depreciation and amortization expense (approximately 15%)
toward the cost of providing transaction services, membership services
and market data.
    The Exchange notes that its revenue estimates are based on
projections across all potential revenue streams and will only be
realized to the extent such revenue streams actually produce the
revenue estimated. The Exchange does not yet know whether such
expectations will be realized. For instance, in order to generate the
revenue expected from connectivity, the Exchange will have to be
successful in retaining existing clients that wish to maintain physical
connectivity and/or FIX and MEO Ports or in obtaining new clients that
will purchase such services. Similarly, the Exchange will have to be
successful in retaining a positive net capture on transaction fees in
order to realize the anticipated revenue from transaction pricing.
    The Exchange notes that the Cost Analysis is based on the
Exchange's 2023 fiscal year of operations and projections. It is
possible however that such costs will either decrease or increase. To
the extent the Exchange sees growth in use of connectivity services it
will receive additional revenue to offset future cost increases.
    However, if use of connectivity services is static or decreases,
the Exchange might not realize the revenue that it anticipates or needs
in order to cover applicable costs. Accordingly, the Exchange is
committing to conduct a one-year review after implementation of these
fees. The Exchange expects that it may propose to adjust fees at that
time, to increase fees in the event that revenues fail to cover costs
and a reasonable mark-up of such costs. Similarly, the Exchange would
propose to decrease fees in the event that revenue materially exceeds
our current projections. In addition, the Exchange will periodically
conduct a review to inform its decision making on whether a fee change
is appropriate (e.g., to monitor for costs increasing/decreasing or
subscribers increasing/decreasing, etc. in ways that suggest the then-
current fees are becoming dislocated from the prior cost-based
analysis) and would propose to increase fees in the event that revenues
fail to cover its costs, or decrease fees in the event that revenue or
the mark-up materially exceeds our current projections. In the event
that the Exchange determines to propose a fee change, the results of a
timely review, including an updated cost estimate, will be included in
the rule filing proposing the fee change. More generally, the Exchange
believes that it is appropriate for an exchange to refresh and update
information about its relevant costs and revenues in seeking any future
changes to fees, and the Exchange commits to do so.
Projected Revenue
    The proposed fees will allow the Exchange to cover certain costs
incurred by the Exchange associated with providing and maintaining
necessary hardware and other network infrastructure as well as network
monitoring and support services; without such hardware, infrastructure,
monitoring and support the Exchange would be unable to provide the
connectivity services. Much of the cost relates to monitoring and
analysis of data and performance of the network via the subscriber's
connection(s). The above cost, namely those associated with hardware,
software, and human capital, enable the Exchange to measure network
performance with nanosecond granularity. These same costs are also
associated with time and money spent seeking to continuously improve
the network performance, improving the subscriber's experience, based
on monitoring and analysis activity. The Exchange routinely works to
improve the performance of the network's hardware and software. The
costs associated with maintaining and enhancing a state-of-the-art
exchange network is a significant expense for the Exchange, and thus
the Exchange believes that it is reasonable and appropriate to help
offset those costs by amending fees for connectivity services.
Subscribers, particularly those of 10Gb ULL connectivity, expect the
Exchange to provide this level of support to connectivity so they
continue to receive the performance they expect. This differentiates
the Exchange from its competitors. As detailed above, the Exchange has
five primary sources of revenue that it can potentially use to fund its
operations: transaction fees, fees for connectivity services,
membership and regulatory fees, and market data fees. Accordingly, the
Exchange must cover its expenses from these five primary sources of
revenue.
     The Exchange's Cost Analysis estimates the annual cost to
provide 10Gb ULL connectivity services at $17,726,799. Based on current
10Gb ULL connectivity services usage, the Exchange would generate
annual revenue of approximately $9,144,000. This represents a negative
margin when compared to the cost of providing 10Gb ULL connectivity
services, which will decrease over time.\115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ Assuming the U.S. inflation rate continues at its current
rate, the Exchange believes that the projected profit margins in
this proposal will decrease; however, the Exchange cannot predict
with any certainty whether the U.S. inflation rate will continue at
its current rate or its impact on the Exchange's future profits or
losses. See, e.g., https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates/ (last visited April 18, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Exchange's Cost Analysis estimates the annual cost to
provide 1Gb connectivity services at $604,851. Based on current 1Gb
connectivity services usage, the Exchange would generate annual revenue
of approximately $312,000. This represents a negative margin when
compared to the cost of providing 1Gb connectivity services, which will
decrease over time.\116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Exchange's Cost Analysis estimates the annual cost to
provide FIX Port services at $911,998. Based on current FIX Port
services usage, the Exchange would generate annual revenue of
approximately $388,800. This represents a negative margin when compared
to the cost of providing FIX Port services, which will decrease over
time.\117\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Exchange's Cost Analysis estimates the annual cost to
provide MEO Port services at $3,039,995. Based on current MEO Port
services usage, the Exchange would generate annual revenue of
approximately $1,296,000. This represents a negative margin when
compared to the cost of providing MEO Port services, which will
decrease over time.\118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Even if the Exchange earns those amounts or incrementally more, the
Exchange believes the proposed fees are

fair and reasonable because they will not result in excessive pricing
that deviates from that of other exchanges or supra-competitive profit,
when comparing the total expense of the Exchange associated with
providing 1Gb and 10Gb ULL connectivity and FIX and MEO Port services
versus the total projected revenue of the Exchange associated with
those services. In fact, the Exchange will generate negative margins on
those connectivity and port services even with the proposed fees.
* * * * *
    MIAX Pearl Equities has operated at a cumulative net annual loss
since it launched operations in 2020.\119\ The Exchange has operated at
a net loss due to a number of factors, one of which is choosing to
forgo revenue by offering certain products, such as connectivity, at
lower rates than other exchanges to attract order flow and encourage
market participants to experience the high determinism, low latency,
and resiliency of the Exchange's trading systems. The Exchange should
not now be penalized for seeking to raise its fees in light of
necessary technology changes and its increased costs after offering
such products as discounted prices. Therefore, the Exchange believes
the proposed fees are reasonable because they are based on both
relative costs to the Exchange to provide dedicated 1Gb and 10Gb ULL
connectivity as well as FIX and MEO Ports, the extent to which the
product drives the Exchange's overall costs and the relative value of
the product, as well as the Exchange's objective to make access to its
Systems broadly available to market participants. The Exchange also
believes the proposed fees are reasonable because they are designed to
generate annual revenue to recoup the Exchange's costs of providing
dedicated 1Gb and 10Gb ULL connectivity as well as FIX and MEO Ports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ The Exchange has incurred a cumulative loss of $79 million
since its inception in 2020. See Exchange's Form 1/A, Application
for Registration or Exemption from Registration as a National
Securities Exchange, filed July 28, 2021, available at https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/vprr/2100/21000461.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that its revenue estimate is based on
projections and will only be realized to the extent customer activity
actually produces the revenue estimated. As a competitor in the hyper-
competitive exchange environment, and an exchange focused on driving
competition, the Exchange does not yet know whether such projections
will be realized. For instance, in order to generate the revenue
expected from 1Gb and 10Gb ULL connectivity as well as FIX and MEO
Ports, the Exchange will have to be successful in retaining existing
clients that wish to utilize 1Gb and 10Gb ULL connectivity as well as
FIX and MEO Ports and/or obtaining new clients that will purchase such
access. To the extent the Exchange is successful in encouraging new
clients, the Exchange does not believe it should be penalized for such
success. To the extent the Exchange has mispriced and experiences a net
loss in clients, the Exchange could experience a net reduction in
revenue. While the Exchange believes in transparency around costs and
potential revenue, the Exchange does not believe that these estimates
should form the sole basis of whether or not a proposed fee is
reasonable or can be adopted.
    The Exchange is part of a holding company that operates four
exchange markets and, therefore, the Exchange and its affiliated
markets must allocate shared costs across all of those markets
accordingly, pursuant to the above-described allocation methodology. In
contrast, the Investors Exchange LLC (``IEX'') and MEMX, which are
currently each operating only one exchange, in their recent non-
transaction fee filings can allocate the entire amount of that same
cost to a single exchange. This can result in lower profit margins for
the non-transaction fees proposed by IEX and MEMX because the single
allocated cost does not experience the efficiencies and synergies
associated with shared costs across multiple platforms. The Exchange
and its affiliated markets must share a single cost, which results in
cost efficiencies that cause a broader gap between the allocated cost
amount and projected revenue, even though the fee levels being proposed
are lower or similar to competing markets (as described above). To the
extent that the application of a cost-based standard results in
Commission Staff making determinations as to the appropriateness of
certain profit margins, the Commission Staff must consider whether the
proposed fee level is comparable to, or on parity with, the same fee
charged by competing exchanges and how different cost allocation
methodologies (such as across multiple markets) may result in different
profit margins for comparable fee levels. If it is the case that the
Commission Staff is making determinations as to appropriate profit
margins, the Exchange believes that Staff should be clear to all market
participants as to what they determine is an appropriate profit margin
and should apply such determinations consistently and, in the case of
certain legacy exchanges, retroactively, if such standards are to avoid
having a discriminatory effect.
    Further, the proposal reflects the Exchange's efforts to control
its costs, which the Exchange does on an ongoing basis as a matter of
good business practice. A potential profit margin should not be judged
alone based on its size, but is also indicative of costs management and
whether the ultimate fee reflects the value of the services provided.
For example, a profit margin on one exchange should not be deemed
excessive where that exchange has been successful in controlling its
costs, but not excessive where on another exchange where that exchange
is charging comparable fees but has a lower profit margin due to higher
costs. Doing so could have the perverse effect of not incentivizing
cost control where higher costs alone could be used to justify fees
increases.
The Proposed Pricing Is Not Unfairly Discriminatory and Provides for
the Equitable Allocation of Fees, Dues, and Other Charges
    The Exchange believes that the proposed fees are reasonable, fair,
equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory because they are designed to
align fees with services provided and will apply equally to all
subscribers.
1Gb and 10Gb ULL Connectivity
    The Exchange believes that the proposed fees are equitably
allocated among users of the network connectivity and port
alternatives, as the users of 10Gb ULL connections consume
substantially more bandwidth and network resources than users of 1Gb
ULL connection. Specifically, the Exchange notes that 10Gb ULL
connection users account for more than 99% of message traffic over the
network, driving other costs that are linked to capacity utilization,
as described above, while the users of the 1Gb ULL connections account
for less than 1% of message traffic over the network. In the Exchange's
experience, users of the 1Gb connections do not have the same business
needs for the high-performance network as 10Gb ULL users.
    The Exchange's high-performance network and supporting
infrastructure (including employee support), provides unparalleled
system throughput with the network ability to support access to several
distinct equities markets. To achieve a consistent, premium network
performance, the Exchange must build out and maintain a network that
has the capacity to handle the message rate requirements of its most
heavy network

consumers. These billions of messages per day consume the Exchange's
resources and significantly contribute to the overall network
connectivity expense for storage and network transport capabilities.
The Exchange must also purchase additional storage capacity on an
ongoing basis to ensure it has sufficient capacity to store these
messages to satisfy its record keeping requirements under the Exchange
Act.\120\ Thus, as the number of messages an entity increases, certain
other costs incurred by the Exchange that are correlated to, though not
directly affected by, connection costs (e.g., storage costs,
surveillance costs, service expenses) also increase. Given this
difference in network utilization rate, the Exchange believes that it
is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory that the 10Gb
ULL users pay for the vast majority of the shared network resources
from which all market participants' benefit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ 17 CFR 240.17a-1 (recordkeeping rule for national
securities exchanges, national securities associations, registered
clearing agencies and the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FIX and MEO Ports
    To achieve a consistent, premium network performance, the Exchange
must build out and maintain a network that has the capacity to handle
the message rate requirements of its most heavy network consumers.
Billions of messages per day consume the Exchange's resources and
significantly contribute to the overall network connectivity expense
for storage and network transport capabilities. The Exchange must also
purchase additional storage capacity on an ongoing basis to ensure it
has sufficient capacity to store these messages as part of it
surveillance program and to satisfy its record keeping requirements
under the Exchange Act.\121\ Thus, as the number of connections an
Equity Member has increases, the related pull on Exchange resources
also increases. The Exchange sought to design the proposed pricing
structure to set the amount of the fees to relate to the number of
connections a firm purchases, while continuing to provide the first
five (5) ports for free. The more connections purchased by an Equity
Member likely results in greater expenditure of Exchange resources and
increased cost to the Exchange. The Exchange further believes that the
proposed fees are reasonable, equitably allocated and not unfairly
discriminatory because, for the flat fee, the Exchange provides each
Equity Member their first five (5) ports for free, unlike other equity
exchanges referenced above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ 17 CFR 240.17a-1 (recordkeeping rule for national
securities exchanges, national securities associations, registered
clearing agencies and the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Intra-Market Competition
    The Exchange believes the proposed fees will not result in any
burden on intra-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed fees
will allow the Exchange to recoup some of its costs in providing 1Gb
and10Gb ULL connectivity as well as FIX and MEO Ports at below market
rates to market participants since the Exchange launched operations. As
described above, the Exchange has operated at a cumulative net annual
loss since it launched operations in 2020 \122\ due to providing a low-
cost alternative to attract order flow and encourage market
participants to experience the high determinism and resiliency of the
Exchange's trading Systems. To do so, the Exchange chose to waive the
fees for some non-transaction related services and Exchange products or
provide them at a very lower fee, which was not profitable to the
Exchange. This resulted in the Exchange forgoing revenue it could have
generated from assessing any fees or higher fees. The Exchange could
have sought to charge higher fees at the outset, but that could have
served to discourage participation on the Exchange. Instead, the
Exchange chose to provide a low-cost exchange alternative to the
industry, which resulted in lower initial revenues. Examples of this
are 1Gb and 10Gb ULL connectivity as well as FIX and MEO Ports, for
which the Exchange only now seeks to adopt fees at a level similar to
or lower than those of other equity exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \122\ See supra note 119.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed fee
increase for the 1Gb or 10Gb ULL connection change would place certain
market participants at the Exchange at a relative disadvantage compared
to other market participants or affect the ability of such market
participants to compete. The proposed fees would apply uniformly to all
market participants regardless of the number of connections they choose
to purchase. The proposed fees do not favor certain categories of
market participants in a manner that would impose an undue burden on
competition.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would
place certain market participants at the Exchange at a relative
disadvantage compared to other market participants or affect the
ability of such market participants to compete. In particular, Exchange
personnel has been informally discussing potential fees for
connectivity services with a diverse group of market participants that
are connected to the Exchange (including large and small firms, firms
with large connectivity service footprints and small connectivity
service footprints, as well as extranets and service bureaus) for
several months leading up to that time. The Exchange does not believe
the proposed fees for connectivity services would negatively impact the
ability of Equity Members, non-Equity Members (extranets or service
bureaus), third-parties that purchase the Exchange's connectivity and
resell it, and customers of those resellers to compete with other
market participants or that they are placed at a disadvantage.
    The Exchange does anticipate, however, that some market
participants may reduce or discontinue use of connectivity services
provided directly by the Exchange in response to the proposed fees. In
fact, as mentioned above, one MIAX Pearl Options Market Maker
terminated their MIAX Pearl Options membership on January 1, 2023 as a
direct result of the proposed fee changes for that market.\123\ The
Exchange does not believe that the proposed fees for connectivity
services place certain market participants at a relative disadvantage
to other market participants because the proposed connectivity pricing
is associated with relative usage of the Exchange by each market
participant and does not impose

a barrier to entry to smaller participants. The Exchange believes its
proposed pricing is reasonable and, when coupled with the availability
of third-party providers that also offer connectivity solutions, that
participation on the Exchange is affordable for all market
participants, including smaller trading firms. As described above, the
connectivity services purchased by market participants typically
increase based on their additional message traffic and/or the
complexity of their operations. The market participants that utilize
more connectivity services typically utilize the most bandwidth, and
those are the participants that consume the most resources from the
network. Accordingly, the proposed fees for connectivity services do
not favor certain categories of market participants in a manner that
would impose a burden on competition; rather, the allocation of the
proposed connectivity fees reflects the network resources consumed by
the various size of market participants and the costs to the Exchange
of providing such connectivity services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ The Exchange acknowledges that IEX included in its
proposal to adopt market data fees after offering market data for
free an analysis of what its projected revenue would be if all of
its existing customers continued to subscribe versus what its
projected revenue would be if a limited number of customers
subscribed due to the new fees. See Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 94630 (April 7, 2022), 87 FR 21945 (April 13, 2022) (SR-IEX-
2022-02). MEMX did not include a similar analysis in either of its
recent non-transaction fee proposals. See, e.g., supra note 53. The
Exchange does not believe a similar analysis would be useful here
because it is amending existing fees, not proposing to charge a new
fee where existing subscribers may terminate connections because
they are no longer enjoying the service at no cost. In addition,
despite the potential for existing subscribers to terminate
connections due to the proposal, the Exchange anticipates its number
of subscribers to remain generally static, resulting in an
immaterial difference between a best case and worst case scenario.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Inter-Market Competition
    The Exchange also does not believe that the proposed rule change
will result in any burden on inter-market competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As
discussed above, market participants are not forced to connect to all
exchanges. There is no reason to believe that our proposed price
increase will harm another exchange's ability to compete. There are
other markets of which market participants may connect to trade
equities at higher rates than the Exchange's. There is also a range of
alternative strategies, including routing to the exchange through
another participant or market center or accessing the Exchange
indirectly. Market participants are free to choose which exchange or
reseller to use to satisfy their business needs. Accordingly, the
Exchange does not believe its proposed fee changes impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.
* * * * *
    In conclusion, as discussed thoroughly above, the Exchange
regrettably believes that the application of the Revised Review Process
and Staff Guidance has adversely affected inter-market competition
among legacy and non-legacy exchanges by impeding the ability of non-
legacy exchanges to adopt or increase fees for their market data and
access services (including connectivity and port products and services)
that are on parity or commensurate with fee levels previously
established by legacy exchanges. Since the adoption of the Revised
Review Process and Staff Guidance, and even more so recently, it has
become extraordinarily difficult to adopt or increase fees to generate
revenue necessary to invest in systems, provide innovative trading
products and solutions, and improve competitive standing to the benefit
of non-legacy exchanges' market participants. Although the Staff
Guidance served an important policy goal of improving disclosures and
requiring exchanges to justify that their market data and access fee
proposals are fair and reasonable, it has also negatively impacted non-
legacy exchanges in particular in their efforts to adopt or increase
fees that would enable them to more fairly compete with legacy
exchanges, despite providing enhanced disclosures and rationale under
both competitive and cost basis approaches provided for by the Revised
Review Process and Staff Guidance to support their proposed fee
changes.

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

    The Exchange received one comment letter on the Initial Proposal
and one comment letter on the Second Proposal from the same
commenter.\124\ In their letters, the sole commenter seeks to
incorporate comments submitted on previous Exchange proposals to which
the Exchange has previously responded. To the extent the sole commenter
has attempted to raise new issues in its letters, the Exchange believes
those issues are not germane to this proposal in particular, but rather
raise larger issues with the current environment surrounding exchange
non-transaction fee proposals that should be addressed by the
Commission through rule making, or Congress, more holistically and not
through an individual exchange fee filing. Among other things, the
commenter is requesting additional data and information that is both
opaque and a moving target and would constitute a level of disclosure
materially over and above that provided by any competitor exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ See letter from Brian Sopinsky, General Counsel,
Susquehanna International Group, LLP (``SIG''), to Vanessa
Countryman, Secretary, Commission, dated February 7, 2023 and letter
from Gerald D. O'Connell, SIG, to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary,
Commission, dated March 21, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\125\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \126\ thereunder.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change,
the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such
action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether
the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \125\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \126\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-PEARL-2023-18 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-PEARL-2023-18. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public

Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 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. Do not include personal identifiable
information in submissions; you should submit only information that you
wish to make available publicly. We may redact in part or withhold
entirely from publication submitted material that is obscene or subject
to copyright protection. All submissions should refer to File Number
SR-PEARL-2023-18 and should be submitted on or before May 30, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \127\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\127\
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-09679 Filed 5-5-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 3, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31232-31233]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14288]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83542; File No. SR-BX-2014-048]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq BX; Order Granting an
Extension to Limited Exemptions From Rule 612(c) of Regulation NMS in
Connection With the Exchange's Retail Price Improvement Program Until
December 31, 2018

June 28, 2018.
    On November 28, 2014 the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') issued an order pursuant to its authority under Rule
612(c) of Regulation NMS (``Sub-Penny Rule'') \1\ that granted Nasdaq
BX, Inc. (``BX'' or ``Exchange'') a limited exemption from the Sub-
Penny Rule in connection with the operation of the Exchange's Retail
Price Improvement Program (the ``RPI Program'').\2\ The limited
exemption was granted concurrently with the Commission's approval of
the Exchange's proposal to adopt its RPI Program for a one-year pilot
term.\3\ On November 20, 2015, the Commission extended the temporary
exemption until December 2016 concurrently with an immediately
effective filing that extended the operation of the RPI Program until
December 1, 2016.\4\ On December 1, 2016, the Commission extended the
temporary exemption until December 1, 2017 concurrently with an
immediately effective filing that extended the operation of the RPI
Program until December 1, 2017.\5\ On December 1, 2017, the Commission
again extended the temporary exemption until June 30, 2018 concurrently
with an immediately effective filing that extended the operation of the
RPI Program until December 1, 2017.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 17 CFR 242.612(c).
    \2\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73702, 79 FR 72049
(December 4, 2014) (SRBX-2014-048) (``RPI Approval Order'').
    \3\ See id.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76490 (November 20,
2015), 80 FR 74165 (November 27, 2015) (SR-BX-2015-073).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79446 (December 1,
2016), 81 FR 88290 (December 7, 2016) (SR-BX-2016-065).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82192 (December 1,
2017), 82 FR 57809 (December 7, 2017) (SR-BX-2017-055).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now seeks to extend the exemption until December 31,
2018.\7\ The Exchange's request was made in conjunction with an
immediately effective filing that extends the operation of the RPI
Program through the same date.\8\ In its request to extend the
exemption, the Exchange notes that given the gradual implementation of
the RPI Program and the preliminary participation and results,
extending the exemption would provide additional opportunities for
greater participation and assessment of the results.\9\ Accordingly,
the Exchange has asked additional time to allow it and the Commission
to analyze data concerning the RPI Program, which the Exchange
committed to provide to the Commission.\10\ For this reason and the
reasons stated in the RPI Approval Order originally granting the
limited exemption, the Commission, pursuant to its authority under Rule
612(c) of Regulation NMS, finds that pursuant to its authority under
Rule 612(c) of Regulation NMS, extending the exemption is appropriate
in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Letter from Jeffrey S. Davis, Vice President and Deputy
General Counsel and Secretary, Nasdaq BX, Inc. to Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission dated June
21, 2018 (``BX Letter'').
    \8\ See SR-BX-2018-026.
    \9\ See, e.g., BX Letter at 3; RPI Approval Order, supra note 2.
    \10\ See, e.g., id.; RPI Approval Order, supra note 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, it is hereby ordered that, pursuant to Rule 612(c) of
Regulation NMS, the Exchange is granted a limited exemption from Rule
612 of Regulation NMS that allows the Exchange to accept and rank
orders priced equal to or greater than $1.00 per share in increments of
$0.001, in connection with the operation of its RPI Program, until
December 31, 2018.
    The limited and temporary exemption extended by this Order is
subject to modification or revocation if at any time the Commission
determines that such action is necessary or appropriate in furtherance
of the purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Responsibility
for compliance with any applicable provisions of the Federal securities
laws must rest with the

persons relying on the exemptions that are the subject of this Order.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(83).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-14288 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 152 (Friday, August 7, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47554-47555]
[FR Doc No: 2015-19473]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Release Certain Properties From all Terms,
Conditions, Reservations and Restrictions of a Quitclaim Deed Agreement
Between the City of Zephyrhills and the Federal Aviation Administration
for the Zephyrhills Municipal Airport, Zephyrhills, FL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA hereby provides notice of intent to release
approximately 3.99 acres at the Zephyrhills Municipal Airport,
Zephyrhills, FL from the conditions, reservations, and restrictions as
contained in a Quitclaim Deed agreement between the FAA and the City of
Zephyrhills, dated May 15, 1947. The release of property will allow the
City of Zephyrhills to dispose of the property for other than
aeronautical purposes. The property is located on the northeast corner
of airport property at 39301 South Avenue, Zephyrhills, FL 33647. The
parcel is currently designated as non-aeronautical use. The property
will be released of its federal obligations for industrial purposes.
The fair market value of this parcel has been determined to be
$200,000.
    Documents reflecting the Sponsor's request are available, by
appointment only, for inspection at the Zephyrhills Municipal Airport
and the FAA Airports District Office.

DATES: Comments are due on or before September 8, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Documents are available for review at the Zephyrhills
Municipal Airport, and the FAA Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine
National Drive, Suite 400, Orlando, FL 32822. Written comments on the
Sponsor's request must be delivered or mailed to: Marisol C. Elliott,
Program Manager, Orlando Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine

National Drive, Suite 400, Orlando, FL 32822-5024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marisol C. Elliott, Program Manager,
Orlando Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite
400, Orlando, FL 32822-5024.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 125 of The Wendell H. Ford Aviation
Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21) requires the
FAA to provide an opportunity for public notice and comment prior to
the ``waiver'' or ``modification'' of a sponsor's Federal obligation to
use certain airport land for non-aeronautical purposes.

    Issued in Orlando, Florida on July 31, 2015.
Rebecca R. Henry,
Acting Manager, Orlando Airports District Office Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 2015-19473 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 a.m.]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P