[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 85 (Friday, May 2, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25059-25063]
[FR Doc No: 2014-10104]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0072; FRL- 9910-35-Region-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008
Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve two State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the
State of Maryland pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA). Whenever new or
revised National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are promulgated,
the CAA requires states to submit a plan for the implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of such NAAQS. The plan is required to
address basic program elements, including, but not limited to
regulatory structure, monitoring, modeling, legal authority, and
adequate resources necessary to assure attainment and maintenance of
the standards. These elements are referred to as infrastructure
requirements. The State of Maryland has made two submittals addressing
the infrastructure requirements for the 2008 lead (Pb) NAAQS.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 2, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2013-0072 by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0072, Cristina Fernandez, Associate
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Air Protection Division,
Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650
Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2013-0072. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal
are available at the Maryland Department of the Environment, 1800
Washington Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, Maryland 21230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ruth Knapp,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 3, 2013 and August 14, 2013, the
Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) submitted revisions to its
SIP to satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the

2008 Pb NAAQS. The August 2013 revision contained additional
information related to how Maryland addresses section 110(a)(2)(J) and
110(a)(2)(M).

I. Background

    On October 15, 2008, EPA substantially strengthened the primary and
secondary lead NAAQS (hereafter the ``2008 Pb NAAQS''), revising the
level of the primary (health-based) standard from 1.5 micrograms per
cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) to 0.15 [mu]g/m\3\, measured as total
suspended particles (TSP) and not to be exceeded with an averaging time
of a rolling three month period. EPA also revised the secondary
(welfare-based) standard to be identical to the primary standard, as
well as the associated ambient air monitoring requirements. See 40 CFR
50.16.
    Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs to provide
for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a new or
revised NAAQS within three years following the promulgation of such
NAAQS or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. The contents
of that submission may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances.
In particular, the data and analytical tools available at the time the
state develops and submits the SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affect
the content of the submission. The contents of such SIP submissions may
also vary depending upon what provisions the state's existing SIP
already contains.
    Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to
submit SIPs meeting the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2)
within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or
within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(1)
provides the procedural and timing requirements for SIPs and section
110(a)(2) requires states to address basic SIP elements such as
requirements for monitoring, basic program requirements and legal
authority that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS. More specifically, section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements
that states must meet for ``infrastructure'' SIP requirements related
to a newly established or revised NAAQS.
    For the 2008 Pb NAAQS, states typically have met many of the basic
program elements required in section 110(a)(2) of the CAA through
earlier SIP submissions in connection with previous Pb NAAQS.
Nevertheless, pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states have to
review and revise, as appropriate, their existing Pb NAAQS SIPs to
ensure that the SIPs are adequate to address the 2008 Pb NAAQS. To
assist states in meeting this statutory requirement, EPA issued
guidance on October 14, 2011, entitled, ``Guidance on Infrastructure
State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements Required Under sections
110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS)'' (hereafter the ``2011 Lead Infrastructure
Guidance''), which lists the basic elements that states should include
in their SIPs for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    On January 3, 2013, MDE provided a SIP revision to satisfy the
requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
This revision addresses the following infrastructure elements, which
EPA is proposing to approve: Section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D), (E),
(F), (G), (H), (K), and (L), or portions thereof. On August 14, 2013,
MDE provided a second revision which addresses the following
infrastructure elements which EPA is proposing to approve: Section
110(a)(2)(J) and (M) or portions thereof. This rulemaking action does
not include any proposed action on section 110(a)(2)(I) of the CAA
which pertains to the nonattainment requirements of part D, Title I of
the CAA, because this element is not required to be submitted by the
three year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, and
will be addressed in a separate process if necessary. A detailed
summary of EPA's review and rationale for approving Maryland's
submittal may be found in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for this
proposed rulemaking action, which is available online at
www.regulations.gov, Docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0072.

III. EPA's Approach To Review Infrastructure SIPs

    EPA is acting upon the SIP submissions from MDE that address the
infrastructure requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA for
the 2008 Pb NAAQS. The requirement for states to make a SIP submission
of this type arises out of section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to section
110(a)(1), states must make SIP submissions ``within 3 years (or such
shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the
promulgation of a national primary ambient air quality standard (or any
revision thereof),'' and these SIP submissions are to provide for the
``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. The
statute directly imposes on states the duty to make these SIP
submissions, and the requirement to make the submissions is not
conditioned upon EPA's taking any action other than promulgating a new
or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific
elements that ``[e]ach such plan'' submission must address.
    EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the
purpose of satisfying the requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) as
``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. Although the term ``infrastructure
SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to distinguish this
particular type of SIP submission from submissions that are intended to
satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as ``nonattainment
SIP'' or ``attainment plan SIP'' submissions to address the
nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of the CAA,
``regional haze SIP'' submissions required by EPA rule to address the
visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A, and
nonattainment new source review permit program submissions to address
the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.
    Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for
infrastructure SIP submissions and section 110(a)(2) provides more
details concerning the required contents of these submissions. The list
of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide
variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required
legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive program
provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both
authority and substantive program provisions.\1\ EPA therefore believes
that while the timing requirement in section 110(a)(1) is unambiguous,
some of the other statutory provisions are ambiguous. In particular,
EPA believes that the list of required elements for infrastructure SIP
submissions provided in section 110(a)(2) contains ambiguities
concerning what is required for inclusion in an infrastructure SIP
submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides that states
must provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority
under state and local law to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C)
provides that states must have a SIP-approved program to address
certain sources as required by part C of title I of the CAA; and
section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have legal authority
to address emergencies as well as contingency plans that are
triggered in the event of such emergencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following examples of ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA
to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) requirements
with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions for a given new or
revised NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is

that section 110(a)(2) requires that ``each'' SIP submission must meet
the list of requirements therein, while EPA has long noted that this
literal reading of the statute is internally inconsistent and would
create a conflict with the nonattainment provisions in part D of title
I of the CAA, which specifically address nonattainment SIP
requirements.\2\ Section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment SIP
requirements and part D addresses when attainment plan SIP submissions
to address nonattainment area requirements are due. For example,
section 172(b) requires EPA to establish a schedule for submission of
such plans for certain pollutants when the Administrator promulgates
the designation of an area as nonattainment, and section 107(d)(1)(B)
allows up to two years or in some cases three years, for such
designations to be promulgated.\3\ This ambiguity illustrates that
rather than apply all the stated requirements of section 110(a)(2) in a
strict literal sense, EPA must determine which provisions of section
110(a)(2) are applicable for a particular infrastructure SIP
submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See, e.g., ``Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine
Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions
to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOX SIP Call;
Final Rule,'' 70 FR 25162, at 25163-65, May 12, 2005, (explaining
relationship between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)
versus section 110(a)(2)(I)).
    \3\ EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 110(a)(2) is
heightened by the fact that various subparts of part D set specific
dates for submission of certain types of SIP submissions in
designated nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, e.g.,
that section 182(a)(1) provides specific dates for submission of
emissions inventories for the ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific
dates are necessarily later than three years after promulgation of
the new or revised NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another example of ambiguity within section 110(a)(1) and (2) with
respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to whether states must meet all
of the infrastructure SIP requirements in a single SIP submission, and
whether EPA must act upon such SIP submission in a single action.
Although section 110(a)(1) directs states to submit ``a plan'' to meet
these requirements, EPA interprets the CAA to allow states to make
multiple SIP submissions separately addressing infrastructure SIP
elements for the same NAAQS. If states elect to make such multiple SIP
submissions to meet the infrastructure SIP requirements, EPA can elect
to act on such submissions either individually or in a larger combined
action.\4\ Similarly, EPA interprets the CAA to allow it to take action
on the individual parts of one larger, comprehensive infrastructure SIP
submission for a given NAAQS without concurrent action on the entire
submission. For example, EPA has sometimes elected to act at different
times on various elements and sub-elements of the same infrastructure
SIP submission.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, e.g., ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation
Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to the New Source Review (NSR) State
Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,'' 78 FR
4339, January 22, 2013 (EPA's final action approving the structural
PSD elements of the New Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately
to meet the requirements of EPA's 2008 PM2.5 NSR rule),
and ``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
New Mexico; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport Requirements for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,'' 78 FR 4337, January 22, 2013
(EPA's final action on the infrastructure SIP for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS).
    \5\ On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, through the
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, made a SIP
revision to EPA demonstrating that the State meets the requirements
of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). EPA proposed action for
infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on January 23, 2012 (77 FR
3213) and took final action on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On
April 16, 2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 42997), EPA
took separate proposed and final actions on all other section
110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP elements of Tennessee's December 14,
2007 submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ambiguities within section 110(a)(1) and (2) may also arise with
respect to infrastructure SIP submission requirements for different
NAAQS. Thus, EPA notes that not every element of section 110(a)(2)
would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same way, for
each new or revised NAAQS. The states' attendant infrastructure SIP
submissions for each NAAQS therefore could be different. For example,
the monitoring requirements that a state might need to meet in its
infrastructure SIP submission for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(B)
could be very different for different pollutants, for example because
the content and scope of a state's infrastructure SIP submission to
meet this element might be very different for an entirely new NAAQS
than for a minor revision to an existing NAAQS.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS required the deployment of a system of new monitors to measure
ambient levels of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA notes that interpretation of section 110(a)(2) is also
necessary when EPA reviews other types of SIP submissions required
under the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP submissions, EPA
also has to identify and interpret the relevant elements of section
110(a)(2) that logically apply to these other types of SIP submissions.
For example, section 172(c)(7) requires that attainment plan SIP
submissions required by part D have to meet the ``applicable
requirements'' of section 110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment plan
SIP submissions must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A)
regarding enforceable emission limits and control measures and section
110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency resources and authority. By
contrast, it is clear that attainment plan SIP submissions required by
part D would not need to meet the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that
pertains to the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program
required in part C of title I of the CAA, because PSD does not apply to
a pollutant for which an area is designated nonattainment and thus
subject to part D planning requirements. As this example illustrates,
each type of SIP submission may implicate some elements of section
110(a)(2) but not others.
    Given the potential for ambiguity in some of the statutory language
of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is
appropriate to interpret the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1)
and section 110(a)(2) in the context of acting on a particular SIP
submission. In other words, EPA assumes that Congress could not have
intended that each and every SIP submission, regardless of the NAAQS in
question or the history of SIP development for the relevant pollutant,
would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in the same
way. Therefore, EPA has adopted an approach under which it reviews
infrastructure SIP submissions against the list of elements in section
110(a)(2), but only to the extent each element applies for that
particular NAAQS.
    Historically, EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make
recommendations to states for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases
conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some
cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and
applied to individual SIP submissions for particular elements.\7\ EPA
most recently issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs on September 13,
2013 (2013 Guidance).\8\ EPA developed this document to provide states
with up-to-date guidance for infrastructure SIPs for

any new or revised NAAQS. Within this guidance, EPA describes the duty
of states to make infrastructure SIP submissions to meet basic
structural SIP requirements within three years of promulgation of a new
or revised NAAQS. EPA also made recommendations about many specific
subsections of section 110(a)(2) that are relevant in the context of
infrastructure SIP submissions.\9\ The guidance also discusses the
substantively important issues that are germane to certain subsections
of section 110(a)(2). Significantly, EPA interprets section 110(a)(1)
and (2) such that infrastructure SIP submissions need to address
certain issues and need not address others. Accordingly, EPA reviews
each infrastructure SIP submission for compliance with the applicable
statutory provisions of section 110(a)(2), as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA requires EPA to
provide guidance or to promulgate regulations for infrastructure SIP
submissions. The CAA directly applies to states and requires the
submission of infrastructure SIP submissions, regardless of whether
or not EPA provides guidance or regulations pertaining to such
submissions. EPA elects to issue such guidance in order to assist
states, as appropriate.
    \8\ ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),''
Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013.
    \9\ EPA's September 13, 2013, guidance did not make
recommendations with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions to
address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA issued the guidance shortly
after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the D.C. Circuit
decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) which had
interpreted the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light
of the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, EPA elected not to
provide additional guidance on the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that time. As the guidance is neither binding
nor required by statute, whether EPA elects to provide guidance on a
particular section has no impact on a state's CAA obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of
section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submissions. Under this
element, a state must meet the substantive requirements of section 128,
which pertain to state boards that approve permits or enforcement
orders and heads of executive agencies with similar powers. Thus, EPA
reviews infrastructure SIP submissions to ensure that the state's SIP
appropriately addresses the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
and section 128. The 2013 Guidance explains EPA's interpretation that
there may be a variety of ways by which states can appropriately
address these substantive statutory requirements, depending on the
structure of an individual state's permitting or enforcement program
(e.g., whether permits and enforcement orders are approved by a multi-
member board or by a head of an executive agency). However they are
addressed by the state, the substantive requirements of section 128 are
necessarily included in EPA's evaluation of infrastructure SIP
submissions because section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) explicitly requires that
the state satisfy the provisions of section 128.
    As another example, EPA's review of infrastructure SIP submissions
with respect to the PSD program requirements in section 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the structural PSD program
requirements contained in part C and EPA's PSD regulations. Structural
PSD program requirements include provisions necessary for the PSD
program to address all regulated sources and NSR pollutants, including
Green House Gases (GHGs). By contrast, structural PSD program
requirements do not include provisions that are not required under
EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 but are merely available as an
option for the state, such as the option to provide grandfathering of
complete permit applications with respect to the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS. Accordingly, the latter optional provisions are types of
provisions EPA considers irrelevant in the context of an infrastructure
SIP action.
    For other section 110(a)(2) elements, however, EPA's review of a
state's infrastructure SIP submission focuses on assuring that the
state's SIP meets basic structural requirements. For example, section
110(a)(2)(C) includes, inter alia, the requirement that states have a
program to regulate minor new sources. Thus, EPA evaluates whether the
state has an EPA-approved minor new source review program and whether
the program addresses the pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In the
context of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, however, EPA
does not think it is necessary to conduct a review of each and every
provision of a state's existing minor source program (i.e., already in
the existing SIP) for compliance with the requirements of the CAA and
EPA's regulations that pertain to such programs.
    With respect to certain other issues, EPA does not believe that an
action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is necessarily the
appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in
a state's existing SIP. These issues include: (i) Existing provisions
related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup,
shutdown, or malfunction that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's
policies addressing such excess emissions (SSM); (ii) existing
provisions related to ``director's variance'' or ``director's
discretion'' that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to
allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public
process or not requiring further approval by EPA; and (iii) existing
provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with current
requirements of EPA's ``Final NSR Improvement Rule,'' 67 FR 80186,
December 31, 2002, as amended by 72 FR 32526, June 13, 2007 (``NSR
Reform''). Thus, EPA believes it may approve an infrastructure SIP
submission without scrutinizing the totality of the existing SIP for
such potentially deficient provisions and may approve the submission
even if it is aware of such existing provisions.\10\ It is important to
note that EPA's approval of a state's infrastructure SIP submission
should not be construed as explicit or implicit re-approval of any
existing potentially deficient provisions that relate to the three
specific issues just described.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to include a
new provision in an infrastructure SIP submission that contained a
legal deficiency, such as a new exemption for excess emissions
during SSM events, then EPA would need to evaluate that provision
for compliance against the rubric of applicable CAA requirements in
the context of the action on the infrastructure SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's approach to review of infrastructure SIP submissions is to
identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to that
submission. EPA believes that this approach to the review of a
particular infrastructure SIP submission is appropriate, because it
would not be reasonable to read the general requirements of section
110(a)(1) and the list of elements in 110(a)(2) as requiring review of
each and every provision of a state's existing SIP against all
requirements in the CAA and EPA regulations merely for purposes of
assuring that the state in question has the basic structural elements
for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have
grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and regulatory
requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include some outmoded
provisions and historical artifacts. These provisions, while not fully
up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the
purposes of ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of a new
or revised NAAQS when EPA evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure SIP
submission. EPA believes that a better approach is for states and EPA
to focus attention on those elements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA
most likely to warrant a specific SIP revision due to the promulgation
of a new or revised NAAQS or other factors.
    For example, EPA's 2013 Guidance gives simpler recommendations with
respect to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS pollutants to meet the
visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon
monoxide does not affect visibility. As

a result, an infrastructure SIP submission for any future new or
revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide need only state this fact in order to
address the visibility prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
    Finally, EPA believes that its approach with respect to
infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of
section 110(a)(1) and (2) because the CAA provides other avenues and
mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing
SIPs. These other statutory tools allow EPA to take appropriately
tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged
SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a ``SIP
call'' whenever the Agency determines that a state's SIP is
substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate
interstate transport, or to otherwise comply with the CAA.\11\ Section
110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in past actions, such as
past approvals of SIP submissions.\12\ Significantly, EPA's
determination that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission
is not the appropriate time and place to address all potential existing
SIP deficiencies does not preclude EPA's subsequent reliance on
provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of the basis for action to
correct those deficiencies at a later time. For example, although it
may not be appropriate to require a state to eliminate all existing
inappropriate director's discretion provisions in the course of acting
on an infrastructure SIP submission, EPA believes that section
110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases that EPA relies upon in
the course of addressing such deficiency in a subsequent action.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to address
specific existing SIP deficiencies related to the treatment of
excess emissions during SSM events. See ``Finding of Substantial
Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State
Implementation Plan Revisions,'' 74 FR 21639, April 18, 2011.
    \12\ EPA has used this authority to correct errors in past
actions on SIP submissions related to PSD programs. See ``Limitation
of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions
Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation
Plans; Final Rule,'' 75 FR 82536, December 30, 2010. EPA has
previously used its authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) to remove
numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it had
approved in error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38664, July 25, 1996 and 62 FR
34641, June 27, 1997 (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona,
California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062, November 16, 2004
(corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051, November 3, 2009
(corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).
    \13\ See, e.g., EPA's disapproval of a SIP submission from
Colorado on the grounds that it would have included a director's
discretion provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including
section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344, July 21, 2010
(proposed disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76 FR
4540, January 26, 2011 (final disapproval of such provisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the following infrastructure elements
or portions thereof of Maryland's January 3, 2013 and August 14, 2013
SIP revisions: Sections 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G),
(H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). Maryland's SIP revisions provide the basic
program elements specified in section 110(a)(2) necessary to implement,
maintain, and enforce the 2008 Pb NAAQS. EPA is soliciting public
comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will
be considered before taking final rulemaking action.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this proposed rule, which satisfies certain infrastructure
requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 2008 Pb NAAQS for
the State of Maryland, does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Lead, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: April 16, 2014.
W. C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2014-10104 Filed 5-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: February 27, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 39)]
[Notices]
[Page 10499-10500]
[DOCID:fr27fe08-85]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon written request, copies available from: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213

Extension:
    Rule 206(4)-6; SEC File No. 270-513; OMB Control No. 3235-0571

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collections of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit these
existing collections of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    The title for the collection of information is ``Rule 206(4)-6''
under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-1 et seq.)
(``Advisers Act'') and the collection has been approved under OMB
Control No. 3235-0571. The Commission adopted rule 206(4)-6 (17 CFR
275.206(4)-6), the proxy voting rule, to address an investment
adviser's fiduciary obligation to clients who have given the adviser
authority to vote their securities. Under the rule, an investment
adviser that exercises voting authority over client securities is
required to: (i) Adopt and implement policies and procedures that are
reasonably designed to ensure that the adviser votes securities in the
best interest of clients, including procedures to address any material
conflict that may arise between the interest of the adviser and the
client; (ii) disclose to clients how they may obtain information on how
the adviser has voted with respect to their securities; and (iii)
describe to clients the advisers' proxy voting policies and procedures
and, on request, furnish a copy of the policies and procedures to the
requesting client. The rule is designed to assure that advisers that
vote proxies for their clients vote those proxies in their clients'
best interest and provide

clients with information about how their proxies were voted.
    Rule 206(4)-6 contains ``collection of information'' requirements
within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The respondents are
investment advisers registered with the Commission that vote proxies
with respect to clients' securities. Advisory clients of these
investment advisers use the information required by the rule to assess
investment advisers' proxy voting policies and procedures and to
monitor the advisers' performance of its proxy voting activities. The
information also is used by the Commission staff in its examination and
oversight program. Without the information collected under the rules,
advisory clients would not have information they need to assess the
adviser's services and monitor the adviser's handling of their
accounts, and the Commission would be less efficient and effective in
its programs.
    The estimated number of investment advisers subject to the
collection of information requirements under the rule is 9,166. It is
estimated that each of these advisers is required to spend on average
10 hours annually documenting its proxy voting procedures under the
requirements of the proposed rule, for a total burden of 91,660 hours.
We further estimate that on average, approximately 101 clients of each
adviser, would request copies of the underlying policies and
procedures. We estimate that it would take these advisers 0.1 hours per
client to deliver copies of the policies and procedures, for a total
burden of approximately 92,577 hours. Accordingly, we estimate that
rule 206(4)-6 results in an annual aggregate burden of collection for
SEC-registered investment advisers by a total of 184,237 hours.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to R. Corey Booth, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O
Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send
an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: February 19, 2008.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-3623 Filed 2-26-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 236 (Friday, December 9, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75680-75683]
[FR Doc No: 2022-26745]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-96447; File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2022-053]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Its Fee Schedule

December 5, 2022.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on December 1, 2022, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGX'') 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 Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``EDGX'') proposes to
amend its Fee Schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is
provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/options/regulation/rule_filings/edgx/) [sic], at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary,
and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule applicable to its
equities trading platform (``EDGX Equities'') to (1) define the term
``Step-Up ADV'', and (2) introduce a new Retail Growth Tier 1 and
renumber the existing Retail Growth Tiers. The Exchange proposes to
implement these changes effective December 1, 2022.
    The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the
Exchange is only one of 16 registered equities exchanges, as well as a
number of alternative trading systems and other off-exchange venues
that do not have similar self-regulatory responsibilities under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''), to which market
participants may direct their order flow. Based on publicly available
information,\3\ no single registered equities exchange has more than
14% of the market share. Thus, in such a low-concentrated and highly
competitive market, no single equities exchange possesses significant
pricing power in the execution of order flow. The Exchange in
particular operates a ``Maker-Taker'' model whereby it pays rebates to
members that add liquidity and assesses fees to those that remove
liquidity. The Exchange's Fee Schedule sets forth the standard rebates
and rates applied per share for orders that provide and remove
liquidity, respectively. Additionally, in response to the competitive
environment, the Exchange also offers tiered pricing which provides
Members opportunities to qualify for higher rebates or reduced fees
where certain volume criteria and thresholds are met. Tiered pricing
provides an incremental incentive for Members to strive for higher tier
levels, which provides increasingly higher benefits or discounts for
satisfying increasingly more stringent criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Cboe Global Markets, U.S. Equities Market Volume
Summary, Month-to-Date (November 28, 2022), available at https://www.cboe.com/us/equities/market_statistics/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ``definitions'' section of the Exchange's Fee Schedule defines
various terms used throughout the Fee Schedule. The Exchange proposes
to adopt a new definition for the term ``Step-Up ADV''. Specifically,
as proposed ``Step-up ADV'' means ADV \4\ in the relevant baseline
months subtracted from current day ADV. Such definition would be
referenced in tiers designed to incentivize Members to grow their ADV
from the baseline month, such as the proposed Retail Growth Tier 1, as
discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``ADV'' means average daily volume calculated as the number
of shares added to, removed from, or routed by, the Exchange, or any
combination or subset thereof, per day. ADV is calculated on a
monthly basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under footnote 2 of the Fee Schedule, the Exchange currently offers
various Retail Volume Tiers, which provide an enhanced rebate for
Members' qualifying orders yielding fee codes ZA \5\ or ZO.\6\ Now, the
Exchange proposes to adopt a new Retail Growth Tier 1 and renumber the
existing Retail Growth Tiers. Specifically, the proposed Retail Growth
Tier 1 would provide a rebate of $0.0033 per share to qualifying orders
(i.e., orders yielding fee code ZA or ZO) in securities priced at or
above

$1 \7\ to Member Participant Identifiers (``MPIDs'') with a Step-Up ADV
from November 2022 greater than or equal to 0.05% of the TCV.\8\ The
proposed Retail Growth Tier 1 is designed to provide Members an
opportunity to receive an enhanced rebate by meeting the Retail Growth
Tier 1 criteria. Further, overall the Retail Growth Tiers are intended
to provide Members an opportunity to receive an enhanced rebate by
increasing their retail order flow to the Exchange, which further
contributes to a deeper, more liquid market and provides even more
execution opportunities for active market participants. Incentivizing
an increase in liquidity adding or removing volume, through enhanced
rebate opportunities, encourages liquidity adding Members on the
Exchange to contribute to a deeper, more liquid market, and liquidity
executing Members on the Exchange to increase transactions and take
execution opportunities provided by such increased liquidity, together
providing for overall enhanced price discovery and price improvement
opportunities on the Exchange. As such, increased overall order flow
benefits all Members by contributing towards a robust and well-balanced
market ecosystem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Orders yielding fee code ``ZA'' are retail orders adding
liquidity to EDGX.
    \6\ Orders yielding fee code ``ZO'' are retail orders adding
liquidity to EDGX in the pre and post market.
    \7\ The proposed Retail Growth Tier 1 would provide no enhanced
rebate for applicable orders in securities priced under $1. However,
orders yielding fee codes ZA and ZO in securities priced under $1
would continue to receive the standard rebate of $0.0003 per share.
    \8\ ``TCV'' means total consolidated volume calculated as the
volume reported by all exchanges and trade reporting facilities to a
consolidated transaction reporting plan for the month for which the
fees apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of section 6(b) of the
Act.\9\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \10\ requirements that the rules of
an exchange be 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 regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
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.
Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the section 6(b)(5) \11\ requirement that the rules of
an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers as well as section 6(b)(4) \12\
as it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees and other charges among its Members and other persons using
its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \11\ Id.
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or incentives to be insufficient. The proposal to adopt the
new Retail Growth Tier 1 reflects a competitive pricing structure
designed to incentivize market participants to direct their order flow
to the Exchange, which the Exchange believes would enhance market
quality to the benefit of all Members. Additionally, the Exchange notes
that relative volume-based incentives and discounts have been widely
adopted by exchanges,\13\ including the Exchange,\14\ and are
reasonable, equitable and non-discriminatory because they are open to
all Members on an equal basis and provide additional benefits or
discounts that are reasonably related to (i) the value to an exchange's
market quality and (ii) associated higher levels of market activity,
such as higher levels of liquidity provision and/or growth patterns.
Competing equity exchanges offer similar tiered pricing structures,
including schedules of rebates and fees that apply based upon members
achieving certain volume and/or growth thresholds, as well as assess
similar fees or rebates for similar types of orders, to that of the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See e.g., BZX Equities Fee Schedule, Footnote 1, Add/Remove
Volume Tiers.
    \14\ See e.g., EDGX Equities Fee Schedule, Footnote 1, Add/
Remove Volume Tiers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed tier is
reasonable because it will be available to all Members and provide all
Members with an additional opportunity to receive an enhanced rebate.
The Exchange further believes the proposed tier will provide a
reasonable means to encourage retail orders flow to the Exchange and to
incentivize Members to continue to provide retail volume to the
Exchange by offering them an additional opportunity to receive an
enhanced rebate on qualifying orders. An overall increase in activity
would deepen the Exchange's liquidity pool, offer additional cost
savings, support the quality of price discovery, promote market
transparency and improve market quality, for all investors.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change is reasonable as it
does not represent a significant departure from the criteria currently
offered in the Fee Schedule. Specifically, the proposed new tier has
criteria similar to the existing Retail Growth Tiers, albeit with less
stringent criteria that applies at the MPID level rather than the
Member level. Nonetheless, the Exchange believes that the enhanced
rebate under the proposed new tier is commensurate with the criteria
and the type of order flow associated with the applicable tier by
allowing for MPID level activity to become eligible for the rebate
instead of only Member level activity. The Exchange also believes that
the proposal represents an equitable allocation of fees and rebates and
is not unfairly discriminatory because all Members will be eligible for
the proposed new tier and have the opportunity to meet the tier's
criteria and receive the corresponding enhanced rebate if such criteria
is met. Without having a view of activity on other markets and off-
exchange venues, the Exchange has no way of knowing whether this
proposed rule change would definitely result in any Members qualifying
the new proposed tier. While the Exchange has no way of predicting with
certainty how the proposed changes will impact Member activity, based
on the prior months volume, the Exchange anticipates that at least one
MPID will be able to satisfy the criteria proposed under the proposed
new tier. The Exchange also notes that proposed change will not
adversely impact any Member's ability to qualify for enhanced rebates
offered under other tiers. Should a Member not meet the criteria of the
new tier, the Member will merely not receive that corresponding
enhanced rebate.
    Finally, the Exchange believes the proposal to define the term
``Step-Up ADV'' is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. Specifically, the proposal is
intended only to add clarity to the Exchange's Fee Schedule and
involves no substantive change.

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. Rather, as discussed above,
the Exchange believes that the proposed changes would

encourage the submission of additional order flow to a public exchange,
thereby promoting market depth, execution incentives and enhanced
execution opportunities, as well as price discovery and transparency
for all Members. As a result, the Exchange believes that the proposed
changes further the Commission's goal in adopting Regulation NMS of
fostering competition among orders, which promotes ``more efficient
pricing of individual stocks for all types of orders, large and
small.''
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule changes do not impose any
burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Particularly, the proposed
new tier will apply to all Members equally in that all Members are
eligible the tier, have a reasonable opportunity to meet the tier's
criteria and will receive the enhanced rebate on their qualifying
orders if such criteria is met. The Exchange does not believe the
proposed changes burden competition, but rather, enhance competition as
it is intended to increase the competitiveness of EDGX by adopting
pricing incentives in order to attract order flow and incentivize
participants to increase their participation on the Exchange, providing
for additional execution opportunities for market participants and
improved price transparency. Greater overall order flow, trading
opportunities, and pricing transparency benefits all market
participants on the Exchange by enhancing market quality and continuing
to encourage Members to send orders, thereby contributing towards a
robust and well-balanced market ecosystem.
    Next, the Exchange believes the proposed rule changes does not
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As previously
discussed, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market.
Members have numerous alternative venues that they may participate on
and direct their order flow, including other equities exchanges, off-
exchange venues, and alternative trading systems. Additionally, the
Exchange represents a small percentage of the overall market. Based on
publicly available information, no single equities exchange has more
than 14% of the market share.\15\ Therefore, no exchange possesses
significant pricing power in the execution of order flow. Indeed,
participants can readily choose to send their orders to other exchange
and off-exchange venues if they deem fee levels at those other venues
to be more favorable. Moreover, the Commission has repeatedly expressed
its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in
determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets.
Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the
importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and,
also, recognized that current regulation of the market system ``has
been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its
broader forms that are most important to investors and listed
companies.'' \16\ The fact that this market is competitive has also
long been recognized by the courts. In NetCoalition v. Securities and
Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit stated as follows: ``[n]o one
disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC
explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of
securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing
agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for
execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share
percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly,
regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker
dealers'. . . .''.\17\ Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe its
proposed fee change imposes any burden on competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Supra note 1.
    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
    \17\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange believes its proposal to add the definition
of Step-Up ADV will have no impact on competition as it is only
intended to add clarity to the Exchange's Fee Schedule and involves no
substantive change.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \18\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \19\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2022-053 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-CboeEDGX-2022-053. 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. 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-
CboeEDGX-2022-053, and should be submitted on or before December 30,
2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-26745 Filed 12-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P