[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 173 (Friday, September 8, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 42564]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19069]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549-2736.

Extension:
    Rule 17f-2 (d), SEC File No. 270-036, OMB Control No. 3235-0028.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the existing
collection of information provided for in Rule 17f-2(d) (17 CFR
240.17f-2(d)), under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a
et seq.). The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of
information to the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') for
extension and approval.
    Rule 17f-2(d) requires that records created pursuant to the
fingerprinting requirements of Section 17(f)(2) of the Act be
maintained and preserved by every member of a national securities
exchange, broker, dealer, registered transfer agent and registered
clearing agency (``covered entities'' or ``respondents''); permits,
under certain circumstances, the records required to be maintained and
preserved by a member of a national securities exchange, broker, or
dealer to be maintained and preserved by a self-regulatory organization
that is also the designated examining authority for that member, broker
or dealer; and permits the required records to be preserved on
microfilm. The general purpose for Rule 17f-2 is to: (i) Identify
security risk personnel; (ii) provide criminal record information so
that employers can make fully informed employment decisions; and (iii)
deter persons with criminal records from seeking employment or
association with covered entities. The rule enables the Commission or
other examining authority to ascertain whether all required persons are
being fingerprinted and whether proper procedures regarding
fingerprinting are being followed. Retention of these records for a
period of not less than three years after termination of a covered
person's employment or relationship with a covered entity ensures that
law enforcement officials will have easy access to fingerprint cards on
a timely basis. This in turn acts as an effective deterrent to employee
misconduct.
    Approximately 4,200 respondents are subject to the recordkeeping
requirements of the rule. Each respondent maintains approximately 68
new records per year, each of which takes approximately 2 minutes per
record to maintain, for an annual burden of approximately 2.2666667
hours (68 records times 2 minutes). The total annual burden for all
respondents is approximately 9,520 (4,200 respondents times 2.2666667
hours). As noted above, all records maintained subject to the rule must
be retained for a period of not less than three years after termination
of a covered person's employment or relationship with a covered entity.
In addition, we estimate the total cost to respondents is approximately
$42,000 in third party storage costs.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed 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.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: Pamela Dyson, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: September 5, 2017.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-19069 Filed 9-7-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 179 (Monday, September 20, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 52141]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20270]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD21-8-000]

Technical Conference on Reassessment of the Electric Quarterly
Report Requirements; Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference

    On August 12, 2021, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) issued a notice that its staff will hold a technical
conference related to the reassessment of the Electric Quarterly Report
(EQR) requirements on October 14, 2021. The technical conference will
take place from 10:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. Eastern Time. All interested
persons are invited to participate. Access to the meeting will be
available via WebEx.
    Commission staff is hereby supplementing the August 12, 2021 notice
with the agenda, including sample discussion topics. During the
conference, Commission staff, EQR filers, and EQR users will discuss
potential changes to the current EQR data fields. This technical
conference is the third in a series of conferences related to the
reassessment of the EQR requirements.
    Information for the technical conference, including a link to the
webcast, will be posted prior to the event on the meeting event page on
the Commission's website, available at: https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/events/technical-conference-reassessment-electric-quarterly-report-requirements-0. The presentation slides will be posted to the
website prior to the conference. Any interested person that wishes to
participate in the conference is required to register through the WebEx
link.
    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please
send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free 1-866-208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY).
    For more information about the technical conference, please contact
Jeff Sanders of the Commission's Office of Enforcement at (202) 502-
6455, or send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: September 14, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-20270 Filed 9-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 2, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26000-26001]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10533]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OR12-12-000]

Sunoco Pipeline L.P.; Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on April 20, 2012, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of
the Commission's Rules of Practices and Procedure, 19 CFR 385.207(a)(2)
(2012), Sunoco Pipeline L.P. (SPLP) filed a petition for a declaratory
order approving (1) priority service and the overall tariff and rate
structure for the proposed West Texas-Longview Access pipeline and (2)
priority service and the overall tariff and rate structure for the
proposed West Texas-Houston Access pipeline.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in this proceedings
must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or
before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests will
be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action
to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Petitioner.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or

call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern time on Tuesday, May 15, 2012.

    Dated: April 24, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-10533 Filed 5-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 33 (Wednesday, February 19, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9545-9547]
[FR Doc No: 2014-03560]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71529; File No. SR-Phlx-2014-08]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
the Monthly Strategy Cap

February 12, 2014.
    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 January 30, 2014, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III, below, which Items have been prepared by 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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the fee caps applicable to certain
strategies on Multiply Listed Options in Section II, entitled
``Multiply Listed Options Fees.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Section II Multiply Listed Options Fees include options
overlying equities, ETFs, ETNs and indexes that are multiply listed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the changes proposed herein are effective upon filing, the
Exchange has designated that the amendments be operative on February 3,
2014.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the fee caps
relating to dividend,\4\ merger,\5\ short stock interest,\6\ reversal
and conversion,\7\ jelly roll \8\ and box spread \9\ strategies in
Section II of the Pricing Schedule \10\ (together the ``Monthly
Strategy Cap''). The Exchange believes the proposed amendment would
continue to incentivize market participants to trade on the Exchange by
capping floor option transaction charges related to various strategies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A dividend strategy is defined as transactions done to
achieve a dividend arbitrage involving the purchase, sale and
exercise of in-the-money options of the same class, executed the
first business day prior to the date on which the underlying stock
goes ex-dividend.
    \5\ A merger strategy is defined as transactions done to achieve
a merger arbitrage involving the purchase, sale and exercise of
options of the same class and expiration date, executed the first
business day prior to the date on which shareholders of record are
required to elect their respective form of consideration, i.e., cash
or stock.
    \6\ A short stock interest strategy is defined as transactions
done to achieve a short stock interest arbitrage involving the
purchase, sale and exercise of in-the-money options of the same
class.
    \7\ A reversal and conversion strategy is defined as
transactions that employ calls and puts of the same strike price and
the underlying stock. Reversals are established by combining a short
stock position with a short put and a long call position that shares
the same strike and expiration. Conversions employ long positions in
the underlying stock that accompany long puts and short calls
sharing the same strike and expiration.
    \8\ A jelly roll strategy is defined as transactions created by
entering into two separate positions simultaneously. One position
involves buying a put and selling a call with the same strike price
and expiration. The second position involves selling a put and
buying a call, with the same strike price, but with a different
expiration from the first position.
    \9\ A box spread strategy is a strategy that synthesizes long
and short stock positions to create a profit. Specifically, a long
call and short put at one strike is combined with a short call and
long put at a different strike to create synthetic long and
synthetic short stock positions, respectively.
    \10\ While the fee caps are noted in Section II of the Pricing
Schedule, the caps apply to all Multiply Listed Options in Sections
I and II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today, Specialist,\11\ Market Maker,\12\ Professional,\13\ Firm and
Broker-Dealer floor option transaction charges are capped at $1,250 for
dividend, merger and short stock interest strategies executed on the
same trading day in the same options class when such members are
trading in their own proprietary accounts. Specialist, Market Maker,
Professional, Firm and Broker-Dealer floor option transaction charges
executed on the same trading day in the same options class are capped
at $700 each for reversal and conversion, jelly roll and box spread
strategies. In addition, the Monthly Strategy Cap for floor option
transaction charges for dividend, merger and short stock interest,
reversal and conversion, jelly roll and box spread strategies are
capped at $35,000 per member organization for combined executions in

a month when such members are trading in their own proprietary account.
The Exchange is proposing to modify only the Monthly Strategy Cap per
member organization. The remaining caps are not changed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ A ``Specialist'' is an Exchange member who is registered as
an options specialist pursuant to Rule 1020(a).
    \12\ A ``Market Maker'' includes Registered Options Traders
(Rule 1014(b)(i) and (ii)), which includes Streaming Quote Traders
(see Rule 1014(b)(ii)(A)) and Remote Streaming Quote Traders (see
Rule 1014(b)(ii)(B)).
    \13\ The term ``Professional'' is a person or entity that (i) is
not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) places more than 390
orders in listed options per day on average during a calendar month
for its own beneficial account(s). See Rule 1000(b)(14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to increase the Monthly Strategy Cap for
dividend, merger, short stock interest, reversal and conversion, jelly
roll and box spread strategies from $35,000 per member organization per
month to $50,000 per member organization for combined executions in a
month provided that such member organizations are trading in their own
proprietary account.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The requirement that such member organizations trade in
their own proprietary account would not be amended by this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For purposes of clarity, the Exchange also proposes to make a
technical correction to Section II of the Pricing Schedule to remove a
reference the term ``short stock, interest'' and replace it with the
correct term ``short stock interest''.\15\ The clarification makes the
use of ``short stock interest'' consistent throughout the Pricing
Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68406 (December 11,
2012), 77 FR 74715 (December 17, 2012) (SR-Phlx-2012-138)
(discussing, among other things, Monthly Strategy Cap on ``short
stock interest'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Pricing
Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \16\ in general,
and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \17\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees
and other charges among Exchange members and other persons using its
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to increase the Monthly Strategy Cap on
floor option transaction charges for dividend, merger, short stock
interest, reversal and conversion, jelly roll and box spread strategies
from $35,000 to $50,000 per month, provided the strategy is executed on
the same trading day in the same options class when such members are
trading in their own proprietary account, is reasonable because the
Exchange seeks to continue to incentivize member organizations to
transact a greater number of strategies on the Exchange to benefit from
the fee cap. Also, this proposal is similar in nature to caps on other
exchanges, namely NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca''),\18\ NYSE Amex, Inc.
(``NYSE Amex'') \19\ and the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``CBOE'') \20\ for strategies. The Exchange also believes
that the increased fee cap is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because the Exchange is offering all members, except for Customers,\21\
the same opportunity to cap their floor option transaction charges in
Multiply Listed Options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See NYSE Arca General Options and Trading Permit (OTP)
Fees.
    \19\ See NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule.
    \20\ See CBOE's Fees Schedule.
    \21\ Customers are not assessed options transaction charges in
Section II of the Pricing Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend the amount of the
Monthly Strategy Cap to orders originating from the Exchange floor is
reasonable because members continue to pay floor brokers to execute
trades on the Exchange floor. The Exchange believes that offering fee
caps to member organizations executing multiply listed floor options
transactions in their own proprietary accounts would defray brokerage
costs associated with executing strategy transactions and continue to
incentivize members to utilize the floor for certain executions.\22\
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend the Monthly Strategy
Cap originating from the Exchange floor is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because today, the fee caps are only applicable for
floor transactions. Moreover, the Exchange believes that a requirement
that both the buy and sell sides of the order originate from the floor
to qualify for applicability of the Monthly Strategy Cap would
constitute equal treatment of members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The Exchange's proposal would only apply the fee cap to
options transaction charges where buy and sell sides originate from
the Exchange floor. See text in Section II of the Pricing Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that making clarifying changes to the Pricing
Schedule, such as that the reference in respect of the Monthly Strategy
Cap is to ``short stock interest'' rather than ``short stock,
interest'', is a reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
amendment because this technical amendment would clarify the Pricing
Schedule and make its terms consistent throughout.

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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the proposed
fees would continue to encourage members to transact strategies on the
exchange because the proposed fee caps are competitive with fee caps at
other options exchanges, and would clarify the use of ``short stock
interest'' in respect of the Monthly Strategy Cap to make it consistent
throughout the Pricing Schedule to the benefit of members, member
organizations, and traders.
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market, comprised of
twelve options exchanges, in which market participants can easily and
readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels
at a particular venue to be excessive or rebates to be inadequate.
Accordingly, the fees that are assessed as described in the above
proposal are influenced by these robust market forces and therefore
must remain competitive with fees charged and rebates paid by other
venues and therefore must continue to be reasonable and equitably
allocated to those members that opt to direct orders to the Exchange
rather than competing venues.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\23\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2014-08 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 submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2014-08. 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 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 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 such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal offices of the Exchange.
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-Phlx-2014-08,
and should be submitted on or before March 12, 2014.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-03560 Filed 2-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 113 (Thursday, June 12, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33797-33798]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13686]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Neighborhood
Environmental Survey

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to undertake an information
collection. The purpose of this research

is to conduct a nation-wide survey to update the scientific evidence of
the relationship between aircraft noise exposure and its effects on
communities around airports.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by August 11, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy DePaepe at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-XXXX (to be determined).
    Title: Neighborhood Environmental Survey.
    Form Numbers: There are no FAA forms associated with this
collection of information.
    Type of Review: Clearance of a new information collection.
    Background: This Neighborhood Environmental Survey is necessary to
update the relationship between aircraft noise exposure and its effect
on communities around United States airports. This survey will collect
data on annoyance from a representative sample of households
surrounding airports chosen from a representative sample, and relate
the annoyance level to the noise exposure for that address. The FAA
will use the information from this collection to derive the empirical
data to support potential updates to or validation of the national
aviation noise policy.
    Respondents: 12,147 respondents affected by airport noise.
    Frequency: One time per respondent.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: Five minutes for a mail
survey, twenty minutes for a telephone survey for selected respondents.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 1,544 hours.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ms. Kathy
DePaepe, Room 126B, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 6500 S.
MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 5, 2014.
Albert R. Spence,
FAA Assistant Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises
Business Services Division, ASP-110.
[FR Doc. 2014-13686 Filed 6-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 136 (Wednesday, July 15, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42946-42951]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15214]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-89282; File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2020-033]

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

July 9, 2020.
    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 July 1, 2020, 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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``EDGX Options'') is
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a
proposed rule change to amend its Fees 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/), 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 Fees Schedule for its options
platform (EDGX Options), specifically, certain Customer Volume Tiers
and Market Maker Volume Tiers, effective July 1, 2020.
    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 options venues to which market participants
may direct their order flow. Based on publicly available information,
no single options exchange has more than 18% of the market share and
currently the Exchange represents only approximately 4% of the market
share.\3\ Thus, in such a low-concentrated and highly competitive
market, no single options exchange, including the Exchange, possesses
significant pricing power in the execution of option order flow. The
Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
shift order flow or discontinue to reduce use of certain categories of
products, in response to fee changes. Accordingly, competitive forces
constrain the Exchange's transaction fees, and market participants can
readily trade on competing venues if they deem pricing levels at those
other venues to be more favorable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Options Market Monthly Volume
Summary (June 25, 2020), available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/options/market_statistics/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's Fees Schedule sets forth standard rebates and rates
applied per contract. For example, the Exchange provides standard
rebates ranging from $0.01 up to $0.21 per contract for Customer orders
in both Penny and Non-Penny Securities and assesses fees ranging from
$0.01 up to $0.75 per contract for Market Maker, Away Market Maker,
Broker Dealer, Firm, Joint Back Office, and Professional orders in both
Penny and Non-Penny Securities. The Exchange also offers tiered pricing
which provides Members \4\ opportunities to qualify for higher rebates
or reduced fees where certain volume criteria and thresholds are met.
Footnote 1 of the Fee Schedule currently offers four Customer Volume
Tiers which provide enhanced rebates between $0.10 and $0.21 per
contract for qualifying Customer orders which meet certain liquidity
thresholds and yield fee code PC \5\ or NC.\6\ Footnote 2 of the Fee
Schedule currently offers eight Market Maker Volume Tiers which provide
reduced fees between $0.17 and $0.03 per contract for qualifying Market
Maker orders which meet certain liquidity thresholds and yield fee code
PM \7\ or NM.\8\ Under the current Customer Volume and Market Maker
Volume Tiers, a Member may receive an enhanced rebate where the Member
meets certain thresholds of ADV \9\ that are greater than or equal to a
percentage of average OCV \10\ for respective qualifying orders. The
Exchange now proposes to amend Customer Volume Tiers 1 through 4 and
Market Maker Volume Tiers 7 and 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Exchange Rule 1.5(n).
    \5\ Fee code PC is appended to Customer, Penny orders and
receive a standard rebate of $0.01.
    \6\ Fee code NC is appended to Customer Non-Penny orders and
receive a standard rebate of $0.01.
    \7\ Fee code PM is appended to liquidity adding Market Maker,
Penny orders and are assessed a standard fee of $0.20.
    \8\ Fee code NM is appended to liquidity adding Market Maker,
Non-Penny orders and are assessed a standard fee of $0.20.
    \9\ ``ADV'' means average daily volume calculated as the number
of contracts added or removed, combined, per day. ADV is calculated
on a monthly basis, excluding contracts added or removed on any day
that the Exchange's system experiences a disruption that lasts for
more than 60 minutes during regular trading hours (``Exchange System
Disruption'') and on any day with a scheduled early market close.
    \10\ ``OCV'' is Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') Customer
Volume which is the total equity and ETF options volume that clears
in the Customer range at the OCC for the month for which the fees
apply, excluding volume on any day that the Exchange experiences an
Exchange System Disruption and on any day with a scheduled early
market close.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend Customer Volume Tier 1 and 2 to
specify that a Member must reach an ADV in Customer orders that are
Non-Crossing orders (that is, orders not executed in a two sided
auction mechanism such as the Automated Improvement Mechanism (``AIM'')
or the Solicitation Auction Mechanism (``SAM'') or in a crossing
mechanism such as a Qualified Contingent Cross (``QCC'')). Currently,
both Tier 1 and Tier 2 provide that Members may achieve the respective
tiers if they achieve an ADV in Customer orders as a certain percentage
that is greater than or equal to average OCV. The Exchange proposes to
specify that, for these two tiers, Members receive the enhanced rebates
currently in place if they achieve an ADV in Customer Non-Crossing
orders as a certain percentage that is greater than or equal to average
OCV. The Exchange notes that the ADV thresholds of average OCV will
remain the same for these tiers. The Exchange is proposing to specify
that Customer Non-Crossing orders may be submitted in order to achieve
Customer Volume Tier 1 and Tier 2 as the Fee Schedule already provides
for opportunities for which Customer Crossing orders, specifically, may
achieve enhanced rebates comparable to the enhanced rebates offered
under Tiers 1 and 2.\11\ In this way, the Exchange believes the
proposed change will incentivize Members to submit more Non-Crossing
orders into the EDGX Options Book (as opposed to submitting more
Customer orders into the Exchange's crossing auctions/mechanisms to
achieve the tiers' criteria, which, as stated, already receive
comparable enhanced rebates and reduced fees under the Fee Schedule) in
order to achieve Customer Volume Tiers 1 and 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Fee Schedule, Footnote 6, AIM and SAM Pricing, which
provides an enhanced rebate of $0.11 (or does not assess a fee) for
qualifying Customer orders executed via the Exchange's crossing
auctions.; see also Footnote 7, QCC Initiator/Solicitation Rebate
Tiers, which provide enhanced rebates between $0.05 and $0.11 for
QCC Agency Orders or Solicitation Agency Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchanges next proposes to amend Customer Volume Tiers 3 and 4
by increasing, in each, a percentage of ADV into average OCV within
existing criteria and adding to each tier a new, additional criteria
that a Member must meet to receive the existing enhanced rebate. The
Exchange notes that the proposed changes do not alter the current
enhanced rebates provided under Customer Volume Tier 3 and 4.
Specifically, Tier 3 currently provides an enhanced rebate of $0.21 for
Members that have an ADV in Customer

orders greater than or equal to 0.75% of average OCV. Tier 4 currently
also provides enhanced rebate of $0.21 for Members that have (1) an ADV
in Customer orders greater than or equal 0.60% of average OCV and (2)
an ADV in Customer or Market Maker orders greater than or equal to
1.00% of average OCV. The Exchange proposes to first increase the ADV
in Customer orders from greater than or equal to 0.75% to 1.00%
threshold of average OCV in Tier 3 and from greater than or equal to
0.60% to 0.75% threshold of average OCV in prong 1 in Tier 4. The
Exchange also proposes to add an additional prong of criteria in each
Tier 3 and Tier 4. As proposed, a Member may receive the existing
enhanced rebate under Tier 3 if the Member meets the current criteria
and, also, has an ADV in Customer Non-Crossing orders of greater than
or equal to 0.40% of average OCV. Likewise, a Member may receive the
existing enhanced rebate under Tier 4 if the Member meets the current
(two) criteria and, as proposed, has an ADV in Customer Non-Crossing
orders of greater than or equal to 0.40% of average OCV. The proposed
increases in Customer order ADV as a percentage of average OCV in Tier
3 and Tier 4 are intended to incrementally increase the level of
difficulty in achieving each of these tiers, thus, incentivizing
Members to increase their overall Customer order flow to the Exchange
by encouraging those Members to strive for the different, incrementally
more difficult tier criteria under the proposed tiers to receive the
enhanced rebates. The proposed additional prongs of criteria per each
tier are also designed to incrementally increase the level of
difficulty in achieving Tier 3 and Tier 4, while, like the proposed
changes to Tier 1 and Tier 2 described above, specifically
incentivizing Members to submit Non-Crossing Customer orders to the
Exchange's Order Book.
    Likewise, the Exchange also proposes to amend Market Maker Volume
Tiers 7 and 8 by increasing, in each, certain percentages of ADV into
average OCV within existing criteria. Currently, Tier 7 provides a
reduced fee of $0.04 for Members that have (1) an ADV in Customer
orders greater than or equal to 0.30% of average OCV, (2) an ADV in
Customer or Market Maker orders greater than or equal to 0.50% of
average OCV, (3) an ADV in AIM Agency Orders greater than or equal to
0.15% of average OCV, and (4) an ADV in complex Customer orders
(yielding fee codes ZA, ZB, ZC, or ZD) \12\ greater than or equal to
5,000 contracts. Currently, Tier 8 provides a reduced fee of $0.03 for
Members that have (1) an ADV in Customer orders greater than or equal
to 0.70% of average OCV, (2) an ADV in Customer or Market Maker orders
greater than or equal to 1.10% of average OCV, (3) an ADV in AIM Agency
Orders greater than or equal to 0.15% of average OCV, and (4) an ADV in
complex Customer orders (yielding fee codes ZA, ZB, ZC, or ZD) greater
than or equal to 0.20% of average OCV. Regarding Tier 7, the Exchange
proposes to increase the percentage of ADV in Customer orders from
0.30% to 0.70%,of average OCV in prong 1, to increase the percentage of
ADV in AIM Agency Orders from 0.15% to 0.30% of average OCV in prong 3,
and to update prong 4 from ADV in complex Customer orders as greater
than or equal to 5,000 to greater than or equal to 0.10% of average
OCV. Regarding Tier 8, the Exchange proposes to increase the percentage
of ADV in Customer orders from 0.70% to 1.00% in prong 1, and to
increase the percentage of ADV in AIM Agency Orders from 0.15% to 0.75%
in prong 3. Like the proposed changes to Customer Volume Tiers 3 and 4,
the Exchange notes that the proposed changes to criteria in Market
Maker Volume Tiers 7 and 8 incrementally increase the level of
difficulty in achieving these tiers, thus, are designed to incentivize
Members to increase their Customer and/or AIM Agency order flow to the
Exchange by encouraging those Members to strive for the different,
incrementally more difficult tier criteria under the proposed tiers to
receive the reduced rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Fee code ZA is appended to Complex Customer (contra Non-
Customer), Penny orders and receives a standard rebate of $0.45; fee
code ZB is appended to Complex Customer (contra Non-Customer), Non-
Penny orders and received a standard rebate of $0.80; fee code ZC is
appended to Complex Customer (contra Customer) orders and is
assessed no charge; and fee code ZD is appended to Complex Customer
order that legs into Simple Book and is assessed no charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that almost all of the proposed fee changes
are designed to incentivize more Customer order flow and, particularly,
a majority of the proposed changes are intended to direct an increase
of Customer order flow to the EDGX Options Order Book. An increase in
Customer order flow will create more trading opportunities, which, in
turn attracts Market-Makers. A resulting increase in Market-Maker
activity may facilitate tighter spreads, which may lead to an
additional increase of order flow from other market participants,
further contributing to a deeper, more liquid market to the benefit of
all market participants by creating a more robust and well-balanced
market ecosystem. Additionally, the proposed change in connection with
the AIM Agency order ADV threshold in Market Maker Volume Tier 8 is
intended to incentivize an increase in AIM Agency orders submitted to
an AIM auction in order to achieve the proposed tier. The Exchange
believes increased AIM Agency order flow results in price improvement
opportunities for customers.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\13\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\14\ in particular, as it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its Members and issuers and other persons
using its facilities. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \15\
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, and, particularly, is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 proposed rule change
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.
    In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed tiers are
reasonable because they amend existing opportunities in a manner that
incentivizes increased Customer or AIM Agency order flow via
incrementally more challenging criteria in order to receive the same
enhanced rebates or reduced fees on a Member's qualifying

orders. The Exchange notes that relative volume-based incentives and
discounts have been widely adopted by exchanges,\16\ including the
Exchange,\17\ 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. Additionally, as noted above, the Exchange operates in
a highly competitive market. The Exchange is only one of several
options venues to which market participants may direct their order
flow, and it represents a small percentage of the overall market.
Competing options exchanges offer similar tiered pricing structures to
that of the Exchange, including schedules of rebates and fees that
apply based upon members achieving certain volume and/or growth
thresholds and offer comparable pricing to members for achieving such
tiers.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See e.g., MIAX Options Fee Schedule, Section 1(a)(i), which
provides reduced fees (ranging from $0.03 to $0.30) for Market Maker
orders that reach various percentage thresholds of volume; and
Section 1(a)(iii), which provides certain credits (ranging from
$0.00 to $0.28) for Customer orders, including agency orders
submitted to an exchange auction, that reach various percentage
thresholds; and Cboe BZX U.S. Options Exchange Fee Schedule,
Footnote 1, Customer Penny Pilot Add Tiers; Footnote 6, Market Maker
Penny Pilot Add Volume Tiers; Footnote 7, Market Maker Non-Penny
Pilot Add Volume Tiers; and Footnote 12, Customer Non-Penny Pilot
Add Volume Tier, all of which provide various tier with different,
incrementally more difficult criteria, many of which are based on
average volumes as a percentage of average OCV.
    \17\ See i.e., Cboe EDGX U.S. Options Exchange Fee Schedule,
Footnote 1, Customer Volume Tiers; and Footnote 2, Market Maker
Volume Tiers.
    \18\ See supra note 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed modification to specify that
Non-Crossing Customer order may be submitted in achieving the existing
criteria in Customer Volume Tiers 1 and 2, as well as the proposed
additional criteria in Customer Volume Tiers 3 and 4 for which a Member
must submit Non-Crossing Customer order ADV as a percentage of average
OCV, in order to receive the current enhanced rebates under Customer
Volume Tiers 1 through 4 is reasonable because it is designed to direct
Customer order flow to the Exchange's Order Book, as opposed to into
the Exchange's crossing auctions/mechanisms to achieve the tiers'
criteria, which already receive comparable enhanced rebates and reduced
fees under the Fee Schedule.\19\ An increase in Customer order flow to
the Order Book results in an increase of transaction opportunities
within the Order Book, attracting Market Maker quotes which, in turn,
facilitates tighter spreads on the Exchange and signals additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
Increased overall order flow benefits all investors by deepening the
Exchange's liquidity pool, potentially providing even greater execution
incentives and opportunities, offering additional flexibility for all
investors to enjoy cost savings, supporting the quality of price
discovery, promoting market transparency and improving investor
protection. Similarly, the proposed increases in overall Customer order
and AIM Agency order ADV as a percentage of OCV (as proposed within
Customer Volume Tiers 3 and 4 and Market Maker Volume Tiers 7 and 8)
are reasonable modifications to the existing criteria because they are
designed to incrementally increase the difficulty in achieving these
tiers, thereby incentivizing Members to increase their overall Customer
order flow and/or AIM Agency order flow, which benefits customers by
resulting in increased price improvement opportunities within the
auctions, to receive the exiting enhanced rebates and/or reduced fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See supra note 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes are
reasonable as they do not represent a significant departure from the
current criteria offered in the Fee Schedule and represent proportional
increases in difficulty per adjacent tiers. For example, the Exchange
proposes to simultaneously increase the Customer order ADV thresholds
of average OCV in Customer Volume Tier 3 and Tier 4 and provide the
same additional criteria in each. As a result, the Exchange believes
the level of difficulty in achieving Tier 3 and Tier 4 will remain
approximately the same. Likewise, the Exchange proposes to
simultaneously increase the ADV thresholds in the corresponding prongs
between Tier 7 and Tier 8. That is, prong 1 under both Tier 7 and Tier
8, criteria of which consists of Customer order ADV as a percentage of
average OCV, and prong 3 under both Tier 7 and Tier 8, criteria of
which consists of AIM Agency order ADV as a percentage of average OCV,
will experience incremental increases of ADV as a percentage of average
OCV. Thus, the step up in difficulty from Tier 7 to Tier 8 will remain
approximately the same. Additionally, the Exchange notes that the
proposed change in prong 4 under Tier 7 to amend the threshold of 5,000
contracts to 0.10% of average OCV is better aligned with, and is a
proportional step down from, the 0.20% of average OCV in corresponding
prong 4 under Tier 8. The Exchange again notes that the proposed rule
changes do not alter the amount of any of the current rebates or fees
in place.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal represents an equitable
allocation of rebates and is not unfairly discriminatory because all
Members will continue to be eligible for Customer Volume Tiers 1
through 4 and Market Maker Volume Tiers 7 and 8, as amended. The
proposed changes to the tiers' criteria are designed as an incentive to
any and all Members interested in meeting the tier criteria to submit
additional Customer orders (with opportunities to achieve such tiers
via crossing and non-crossing orders), or AIM Agency orders to the
Exchange. Each will have the opportunity to submit the requisite order
flow and will receive the applicable existing enhanced rebate or
reduced fee if the tier criteria are 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 for the proposed tiers. While the
Exchange has no way of predicting with certainty how the proposed tiers
will impact Member activity, the Exchange anticipates that
approximately three or four Members will be able to compete for and
achieve the amended criteria in each of Customer Volume Tier 1, 2, 3,
and 4, and at least four Members will be able to compete for and
achieve the amended criteria in each of Market Maker Volume Tier 7 and
Tier 8. The Exchange also notes that the proposed tiers will not
adversely impact any Member's pricing or their ability to qualify for
other rebate tiers. Rather, should a Member not meet the proposed
criteria for a tier, the Member will merely not receive the
corresponding enhanced rebate or reduced fee. Furthermore, the existing
rebate and fees will continue to uniformly apply to all Members that
meet the required criteria, as amended, per each respective tier.

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 intramarket or intermarket 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
change 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 change
furthers 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.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808, 70 FR 37495,
37498-99 (June 29, 2005) (S7-10-04) (Final Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not impose any
burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Particularly, the proposed
change applies to all Members equally in that all Members are eligible
to achieve the tiers' proposed criteria, have a reasonable opportunity
to meet the tiers' proposed criteria and will all receive the existing
enhanced rebates or reduced fees if such criteria is met. Overall, the
proposed change is designed to attract additional Customer and AIM
Agency order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the
modified tier criteria would incentivize market participants to strive
to increase such order flow to the Exchange to meet the proposed
criteria and, as a result, increase trading opportunities and attract
further Market-Maker activity, which would further incentivize the
provision of liquidity and continued order flow and improve price
transparency on the Exchange. Greater overall order flow and pricing
transparency benefits all market participants on the Exchange by
generally providing more trading opportunities, enhancing market
quality, and continuing to encourage Members to send orders, thereby
contributing towards a robust and well-balanced market ecosystem, which
benefits all market participants.
    Next, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change 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 15 other options exchanges and
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 options exchange has more
than 18% of the market share.\21\ 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.'' \22\ 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' . . . .''.\23\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See supra note 3.
    \22\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
    \23\ 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)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 \24\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \25\
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \25\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2020-033 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-2020-033. 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-2020-033, and should be submitted on or before August 5, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-15214 Filed 7-14-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 13 (Friday, January 22, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6566-6568]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01329]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2021-0020]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Lower Mississippi River, Mile Marker 368 and 370,
Natchez, MS

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
all navigable waters of the Lower Mississippi River (LMR), between Mile
Marker 368 and 370. The safety zone is needed to protect persons,
property, and the marine environment from the potential safety hazards
associated with line pulling operations in the vicinity of the Natchez,
MS. Entry of persons or vessels into this zone is prohibited unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Lower Mississippi River or
a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from January 22,
2021 until February 5, 2021. For the purposes of enforcement, actual
notice will be used from January 14, 2021 until January 22, 2021.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2021-0020 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email MSTC Lindsey Swindle, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 901-
521-4813, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. Immediate action
is needed to protect persons and property from the potential safety
hazards associated with line pulling operations. The NPRM process would
delay the establishment of the safety zone until after the date of the
event and compromise public safety. We must establish this temporary
safety zone immediately and lack sufficient time to provide a
reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before
issuing the rule.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be contrary to the public interest because immediate
action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated
with the line pulling operations in the vicinity of Natchez, MS.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port (COTP)
Sector Lower Mississippi River (LMR) has determined that potential
hazards associated with the line pulling operations at Mile Marker (MM)
369.0, scheduled to start on January 14, 2021, would be a safety
concern for all persons and vessels on the Lower Mississippi River
between MM 368.0 and MM 370.0 through February 5, 2021. This rule is
needed to protect persons, property, infrastructure, and the marine
environment in all waters of the LMR within the safety zone while line
pulling operations are being conducted.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from January 14, 2021
to February 5, 2021. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of
the LMR from MM 368.0 to MM 370.0. The duration of this safety zone is
intended to ensure the safety of waterway users on these navigable
waters during, the line pulling operations.
    Entry of persons or vessels into this safety zone is prohibited
unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative. A
designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer
of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control
of USCG Sector Lower Mississippi River. Persons or vessels seeking to
enter the safety zones must request permission from the COTP or a
designated representative on VHF-FM channel 16 or by telephone at 901-
521-4822. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall
comply with the instructions of the COTP or

designated representative. The COTP or a designated representative will
inform the public of the enforcement times and date for this safety
zone through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices to
Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs), as
appropriate.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, and duration of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be
prohibited from entering this temporary safety zone, which will impact
a one-mile stretch of Lower Mississippi River for approximately 23
days. Moreover, The Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to
Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the safety zone, and the
rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
temporary safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in
section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a
safety zone that will prohibit entry on a one-mile stretch of the Lower
Mississippi River. It is categorically excluded from further review
under paragraph L60 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual
023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration
supporting this determination is available in the docket. For
instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5;

Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T08-0020 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-0020  Safety Zone; Lower Mississippi river, Mile Marker
368 and 370, Natchez, MS.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters of the Lower Mississippi River from Mile Marker (MM) 368 through
MM 370.
    (b) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port Sector Lower Mississippi River (COTP) or the COTP's designated
representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant,
or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the
operational control of USCG Sector Lower Mississippi River.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's
representative via VHF-FM channel 16 or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or
directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated
representative.
    (c) Effective period. This section is effective without actual
notice from January 22, 2021 until February 5, 2021. For the purposes
of enforcement, actual notice will be used from January 14, 2021 until
January 22, 2021.
    (d) Information broadcasts. The COTP or a designated representative
will inform the public of the enforcement times and date for this
safety zone through Broadcast Notices to Mariners, Local Notices to
Mariners, and/or Safety Marine Information Broadcasts, as appropriate.

    Dated: January 13, 2021.
R.S. Rhodes,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Lower Mississippi
River.
[FR Doc. 2021-01329 Filed 1-21-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 20 (Friday, January 30, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5193-5194]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01801]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Fourteenth Meeting: RTCA NextGen Advisory Committee (NAC)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT)

ACTION: Fourteenth Meeting Notice of RTCA NextGen Advisory Committee

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the
fourteenth meeting of the RTCA NextGen Advisory Committee.

DATES: The meeting will be held February 26, 2015 from 9:00 a.m. to
3:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at Delta Air Lines, Inc. New York
City Room 1010 Delta Blvd. Atlanta, GA 30354.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-
9339, fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org. Andy
Cebula, NAC Secretary can also be contacted at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or 202-
330-0652.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for a meeting of Special Committee 224. The agenda will
include the following:

February 26th

     Opening of Meeting/Introduction of NAC Members--Chairman
Richard Anderson, Chief Executive Officer, Delta Air Lines, Inc.
     Official Statement of Designated Federal Official--The
Honorable Mike Whitaker, FAA Deputy Administrator
     Review and Approval of October 8, 2014 Meeting Summary and
Revised Committee Terms of Reference
     Chairman's Report--Chairman Anderson
     FAA Report--Mr. Whitaker
     Atlanta Multiple Runway Operations Implementation
Experience--Benefits story of Multiple Runway Operations/
Recategorization at ATL
     Open Discussion: NextGen Implementation--What does success
look like for NextGen implementation?
     NextGen Integration Working Group (NIWG) FAA and Industry
Leaders Oversight, Monitoring and Tracking Process
     NIWG Surface Report Out
     NIWG Data Comm Report Out
     NIWG Performance Based Navigation Report Out
     NIWG Multiple Runway Operations Report Out
     Summary of meeting and next steps--DFO and NAC Chairman
Closing Comments
     Other business
     Adjourn
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 27, 2015.
Mohannad Dawoud,
Management Analyst, NextGen, Program Oversight and Administration,
Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2015-01801 Filed 1-29-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Lydia Wegman/ RTP/ USEPA/ US 04/ 17/ 2006 11: 17 AM T o clangworthy@ hunton. com c c S u b j e c t E mailed version of EPA response to your letter concerning request for comment extension on PM NAAQS Cindy

Since I'm not sure when the original copy of our response will get to you, I wanted to e mail you the signed version so you would have it by today. Let me know if you have any questions.

Lydia  Forwarded by Lydia Wegman/ RTP/ USEPA/ US on 04/ 17/ 2006 11: 14 AM

Rosalina Rodriguez/ RTP/ USEPA/ US Sent by: Nancy Perry 04/ 17/ 2006 11: 09 AM T o Lydia Wegman/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Karen Martin/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Erika Sasser/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA c c S u b j e c t UARG memo Sent as per Lydia's request.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 223 (Thursday, November 19, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72432-72433]
[FR Doc No: 2015-29492]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9937-20-ORD]

Office of Research and Development; Ambient Air Monitoring
Reference and Equivalent Methods: Designation of One New Reference
Method and One New Equivalent Method

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of the designation of one new reference method and one
new equivalent method for monitoring ambient air quality.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has designated, in accordance with 40 CFR part 53, one new
reference method for measuring concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO)
and one new equivalent method for measuring concentrations of ozone
(O3) in the ambient air.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Vanderpool, Human Exposure and
Atmospheric Sciences Division (MD-D205-03), National Exposure Research
Laboratory, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711.
Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with regulations at 40 CFR
part 53, the EPA evaluates various methods for monitoring the
concentrations of those ambient air pollutants for which EPA has
established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQSs) as set
forth in 40 CFR part 50. Monitoring methods that are determined to meet
specific requirements for adequacy are designated by the EPA as either
reference or equivalent methods (as applicable), thereby permitting
their use under 40 CFR part 58 by States and other agencies for
determining compliance with the NAAQSs. A list of all reference or
equivalent methods that have been previously designated by EPA may be
found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/criteria.html.
    The EPA hereby announces the designation of one new reference
method for measuring concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO) in the
ambient air and one new equivalent method for measuring concentrations
of ozone (O3) in the ambient air. These designations are
made under the provisions of 40 CFR part 53, as amended on August 31,
2011(76 FR 54326-54341).
    The new reference method for CO is an automated method (analyzer)
utilizing a measurement principle based

on infrared absorption spectroscopy and is identified as follows:

    RFCA-0915-228, ``Environnement S.A. Model CO12e Carbon Monoxide
Analyzer'', an infrared absorption spectroscopy technique operated
on a full scale range of 0-50 ppm, at any temperature in the range
of 10 [deg]C to 35 [deg]C, with a teflon sample particulate filter
with the following software settings: Automatic response time ON;
Automatic ``ZERO-REF'' cycle either ON or OFF and with or without
the following options: ESTEL Analog Input/Output Board, LCD color
touch screen and Carbon Dioxide CO2 sensor.

    This application for a reference method determination for this CO
method was received by the Office of Research and Development on July
20, 2015. This analyzer is commercially available from the applicant,
Environnement S.A., 111, Boulevard Robespierre, 78300 Poissy France.
    The new equivalent method for O3 is an automated method
that utilizes a measurement principle based on non-dispersive
ultraviolet absorption photometry. The newly designated equivalent
method for O3 is identified as follows:

    EQOA-1015-229, ``Teledyne Advanced Pollution Instrumentation,
Model 430 Ozone Analyzer'', operated with a full scale range between
0-500 ppb, at any operating temperature from 5 [deg]C to 40 [deg]C,
with a sample particulate filter, with a 100-240V AC to DC power
adapter or a 12V DC source capable of providing 9 watts of power, in
accordance with the associated instrument manual, and with or
without any of the following options: Internal long-life pump,
external long-life pump, external portable battery pack, external
communication and data monitoring interfaces.

    The application for an equivalent method determination for this
candidate method was received by the Office of Research and Development
on August 27, 2015. The analyzer is commercially available from the
applicant, Teledyne Advanced Pollution Instrumentation, Inc., 9480
Carroll Park Drive, San Diego, CA 92121-2251.
    Representative test analyzers have been tested in accordance with
the applicable test procedures specified in 40 CFR part 53, as amended
on August 31, 2011. After reviewing the results of those tests and
other information submitted by the applicant, EPA has determined, in
accordance with part 53, that these methods should be designated as a
reference or equivalent method.
    As a designated reference or equivalent method, these methods are
acceptable for use by states and other air monitoring agencies under
the requirements of 40 CFR part 58, Ambient Air Quality Surveillance.
For such purposes, each method must be used in strict accordance with
the operation or instruction manual associated with the method and
subject to any specifications and limitations (e.g., configuration or
operational settings) specified in the designated method description
(see the identification of the method above).
    Use of the method also should be in general accordance with the
guidance and recommendations of applicable sections of the ``Quality
Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume I,''
EPA/600/R-94/038a and ``Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution
Measurement Systems, Volume II, Ambient Air Quality Monitoring
Program,'' EPA-454/B-13-003, (both available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/qalist.html). Provisions concerning modification of such methods
by users are specified under Section 2.8 (Modifications of Methods by
Users) of Appendix C to 40 CFR part 58.
    Consistent or repeated noncompliance with any of these conditions
should be reported to: Director, Human Exposure and Atmospheric
Sciences Division (MD-E205-01), National Exposure Research Laboratory,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711.
    Designation of these reference and equivalent methods is intended
to assist the States in establishing and operating their air quality
surveillance systems under 40 CFR part 58. Questions concerning the
commercial availability or technical aspects of the method should be
directed to the applicant.

    Dated: November 6, 2015.
Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta,
Director, National Exposure Research Laboratory.
[FR Doc. 2015-29492 Filed 11-18-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source Performance Standards for the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Point Source Category; Direct Final Rule and Proposed Rule. Federal Register. March 13, 2003 Vol. 68 No, 49 p. 12266 A. Federal Register Notice B. Other Federal Registers C. Selected References D. Public Comments 1. Comments Received Postmarked On or Before May 12, 2003 2. Comments Received Postmarked After May 12, 2003 OW 2003 0007 A. 1 A. Federal Register 1. Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source Performance Standards for the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Point Source Category; Direct Final Rule. Federal Register. Vol. 68 No, 49 March 13, 2003 p. 12266 11 pp.

2. Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source Performance Standards for the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Point Source Category; Proposed Rule. Federal Register. Vol. 68 No. 49 March 13, 2003. p. 12276 11 pp. OW 2002 0007 B.

Other Federal Registers 1. Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Point Source Category. Interim Final Rulemaking. Vol. 41, No. 223; November 17, 1976 11 pp.

2. Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Point Source Category Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source Performance Standards; Final Rule Vol. 48 No 209 October 27, 1983, 27 pp.

3. Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Point Source Category Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source Performance Standards; Proposed Rule Vol. 48 No 209 October 27, 1983, 27 pp.

4. Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Point Source Category Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source Performance Standards; Final Rule. Vol. 63 No 182 September 21, 1998 p. 50388.

5. Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Point Source Category Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source Performance Standards; Correcting amendments. Vol. 54, No 170, September 5, 1999 p. 48103  48104. 2 pp.

6. Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Point Source Category Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source Performance Standards; Final Rule. Vol. 64, No 42. March 4, 1996. P. 10391 10394 4 pp 7. Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Point Source Category Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source Performance Standards; Final Rule. Correction Notice. Vol. 64 No 50 March 16, 1999. p. 13053 OW 2003 0007 C.

C. Other References 1. Copy of 1998 Rulelmaking Record Iondex for Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Point Source Category. 79 pp.

2. 40 CFR Part 439. Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Point Source Category. 28 pp.

3. Johanson, G. and B. Dynesius. Liquid/ air partition coefficients of six commonly used glycol ethers. British Journal of Industrial Medicine 1988, 45: 561 564. 4 pp.