[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 157 (Tuesday, August 14, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40164-40167]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17469]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 110

[Docket Number USCG-2017-0181]
RIN 1625-AA01

Anchorage Grounds; Baltimore Harbor, Baltimore, MD

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to amend its Baltimore Harbor
anchorage grounds regulation. The proposed changes would reduce the
size of three general anchorages, establish one new general anchorage,
rename two existing general anchorages, and change the duration a
vessel may remain within an anchorage for two existing general
anchorages. This proposed rule would ensure that Coast Guard
regulations are consistent with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Baltimore District Port of Baltimore Anchorages and Channels civil
works project that widened the channel, and provide a higher degree of
safety to persons, property and the environment by accurately depicting
the anchorage locations. The proposed changes to the regulated uses of
the anchorages would support current and future port activity related
to the safety of post-Panamax commercial cargo vessels, and would
remove vessel security provisions that currently exist in these
Baltimore Harbor regulations. We invite your comments on this proposed
rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before November 13, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2017-0181 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email Mr. Ronald L. Houck, U.S. Coast
Guard, Sector Maryland-National Capital Region, Waterways Management
Division, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
E.O. Executive order
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Pub. L. Public Law
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    Anchorage regulation duties and powers were transferred to the
Coast Guard in 1967 (32 FR 17726, Dec. 12, 1967). On December 12, 1968,
the Fifth Coast Guard District published a final rule in the Federal
Register (33 FR 18438) establishing an anchorage area in Baltimore
Harbor, Maryland. The anchorage grounds at Baltimore, Maryland are
described in 33 CFR 110.158. These anchorage grounds are involved in a
federal navigation project under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers Baltimore District. Section 101a(22) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 106-53, 113 Stat 269 (1999))
authorized widening of the Dundalk and Seagirt Marine Terminal
channels. Widening of the Seagirt Marine Terminal channel occurred in
2015. This dredging widened the limits of existing navigation channels
which are used to access key Maryland Port Administration marine
terminals located immediately adjacent to the Baltimore Harbor,
Maryland anchorage grounds, and put the existing anchorage grounds in
the way of the newly expanded navigation channels. To addresses these
changes, Sector Maryland-National Capital Region, Baltimore, Maryland,
worked in coordination with the Port of Baltimore Harbor Safety and
Coordination Committee to develop proposed revisions to the affected
anchorage boundaries and associated regulations.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to reduce navigational safety
risk and support port efficiency in Baltimore Harbor. This proposed
rule would designate a new general anchorage ground developed from an
existing anchorage ground that is located outside of the established
navigation channel in order to align with the existing U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers Baltimore District Port of Baltimore Anchorages and
Channels civil works project. The Baltimore Harbor anchorage grounds
are typically used by deep draft commercial cargo vessels. In order to
maximize the availability and use of these important anchorages, this
proposed rule would also change the duration for which vessels may
remain in these anchorages. This proposed rule would reduce the
duration a vessel may remain within Anchorage No. 3 Lower (proposed to
be changed to Anchorage No. 3A) and Anchorage No. 4, from 72 hours to
24 hours. Lastly, due to similar provisions within the Maritime
Transportation Security Act of 2002 (MTSA) (Pub. L. 107-295) and
federal regulations (33 CFR part 104, and 46 CFR chapter 1, subchapters
N and O), the vessel security requirements in Sec.  110.158(d) are now
redundant and would be removed as part of this proposed rule.
    The legal basis for this rule is: 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236,
2071; 33 CFR 1.05-1; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to define
anchorage grounds.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to amend the Baltimore Harbor, Maryland
anchorage grounds as described in 33

CFR 110.158. The general anchorages currently listed in the regulation
that would be affected by this proposed rule are Anchorage No. 2,
Anchorage No. 3 Upper, Anchorage No. 3 Lower, Anchorage No. 4,
Anchorage No. 5 and Anchorage No. 6.
    This proposed rule would reduce the sizes of Anchorage No. 2,
Anchorage No. 3 Lower, and Anchorage No. 4. These reductions would
remove the portions of the anchorage grounds that are in the navigable
channel. The area of Anchorage No. 2 would be reduced by approximately
16,330 square yards along its northern limit and approximately 326,770
square yards along its eastern limit. The area of Anchorage No. 3 Lower
would be reduced at its eastern limit by 12,560 square yards. The area
of Anchorage No. 4 would be reduced at its western limit by 6,000
square yards.
    This proposed rule would rename Anchorage No. 3 Lower to Anchorage
No. 3A, and rename Anchorage No. 3 Upper to Anchorage No. 3B. This
proposed rule would revise Anchorage No. 2 and would create an area
called Anchorage No. 3C out of existing anchorage ground from Anchorage
No. 2. An area within Anchorage No. 2 that is approximately 500 yards
in length and 165 yards in width, and adjacent to Anchorage No. 3
Upper, would become Anchorage No. 3C. This reconfiguration does not
provide new space available for anchorage, would not restrict traffic,
and is located outside of the established navigation channel. A graphic
depicting these changes is included in the docket.
    This proposed rule would reduce the duration a vessel may remain
within Anchorage No. 3 Lower (proposed to be changed to Anchorage No.
3A) and Anchorage No. 4, from 72 hours to 24 hours. These changes are
based on recommendations documented by the Port of Baltimore Harbor
Safety and Coordination Committee on September 8, 2010, and the
Association of Maryland Pilots. The Port of Baltimore Harbor Safety and
Coordination Committee's recommendation is available in the docket. The
Coast Guard agrees that the Committee's recommendation addresses the
problem of ensuring maximum availability and use of these anchorages.
This proposed rule would establish that a vessel may remain within
Anchorage No. 3C for no more than 72 hours without permission from the
Captain of the Port, to remain consistent with the regulations for
Anchorage No. 2.
    This rulemaking rule would renumber several paragraphs listed in 33
CFR 110.158, from (a)(3) Anchorage No. 3, Upper, general anchorage,
through (a)(8) Anchorage No. 7, Dead ship anchorage. All anchorage
ground descriptions would be updated to state they are in the waters of
the Patapsco River, except for Anchorage No. 7, Dead ship anchorage,
which would be updated to state it is in the waters of Curtis Bay.
Designation of the new Anchorage No. 3C would create a new paragraph,
(a)(9) for Anchorage No. 7, Dead ship anchorage. This rulemaking would
modify paragraph (c)(3) of the general regulations to remove the
reference to a vessel becoming ``a menace'' because we do not define
that term and we don't believe it is needed given other factors already
included in that paragraph. We also propose to change the defined term
``dangerous cargo'' to ``certain dangerous cargo'' without changing the
definition, continuing to incorporate the definition of certain
dangerous cargo from 33 CFR 160.202, and aligning terminology used in
this proposed rule with that used throughout the rest of 33 CFR
110.158. This rulemaking would remove paragraphs (c)(4) regarding
revocable permits for habitual use of an anchorage, and paragraph (d)
in their entirety for reasons stated earlier.
    The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this
document.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes and E.O.s.

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 NPRM has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, the NPRM 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.
    The Coast Guard has determined this proposed rule is not a
significant regulatory action because it would not interfere with
existing maritime activity in Baltimore Harbor. Moreover, the proposed
changes would reduce navigational safety risk in Baltimore Harbor by:
(1) Aligning existing general anchorage boundaries with recent dredging
projects that widened the limits of adjacent navigational channels, (2)
reducing the duration a vessel may remain within an anchorage to
increase availability and usage, and (3) renaming and reconfiguring
general anchorages that support a proper naming and numbering
convention within the existing anchorage regulation. The
reconfiguration of the additional general anchorage does not provide
additional anchorage area and would not restrict traffic, as it is
developed from an existing anchorage and is located outside of the
established navigation channel. As discussed in section III above, this
proposed rule would replace the ``dangerous cargo'' definition with one
for ``certain dangerous cargo'' and remove vessel security provisions
that are redundant to other federal regulations.

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
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    For the reasons stated in paragraph IV.A above, this proposed rule
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    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 proposed rule. If the proposed rule
would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate
against small entities that question or complain about this proposed
rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would 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 proposed 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 proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would 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. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

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 proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a preliminary determination 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 proposed rule involves the
modification of existing anchorages within the Baltimore Harbor,
Maryland anchorage grounds. Normally such actions are categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph L59(a) and (b) of Appendix
A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001, Rev. 01. A preliminary
Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is
available in the docket where indicated in the ADDRESSES section of
this preamble. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed
rule.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, visit http://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110

    Anchorage Grounds.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 110 as follows:

PART 110--ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 110 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2071; 33 CFR 1.05-
1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
0
2. Revise Sec.  110.158 to read as follows:

Sec.  110.158  Baltimore Harbor, MD.

    (a) Anchorage Grounds--(1) No. 1, general anchorage. (i) All waters
of the Patapsco River, bounded by a line connecting the following
points:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Latitude                            Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
39[deg]15'13.51'' N                  76[deg]34'07.76'' W
39[deg]15'11.01'' N                  76[deg]34'11.69'' W
39[deg]14'52.98'' N                  76[deg]33'52.67'' W
39[deg]14'47.90'' N                  76[deg]33'40.73'' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
These coordinates are based on North American Datum 83 (NAD 83).

    (ii) No vessel shall remain in this anchorage for more than 12
hours without permission from the Captain of the Port.
    (2) Anchorage No. 2, general anchorage. (i) All waters of the
Patapsco River, bounded by a line connecting the following points:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Latitude                            Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
39[deg]14'50.06'' N                  76[deg]33'29.86'' W
39[deg]14'57.53'' N                  76[deg]33'37.74'' W
39[deg]15'08.56'' N                  76[deg]33'37.66'' W
39[deg]15'15.77'' N                  76[deg]33'28.81'' W
39[deg]15'18.87'' N                  76[deg]33'12.82'' W
39[deg]15'17.71'' N                  76[deg]33'09.09'' W
39[deg]14'50.35'' N                  76[deg]32'40.43'' W
39[deg]14'45.28'' N                  76[deg]32'48.68'' W
39[deg]14'46.27'' N                  76[deg]32'49.69'' W
39[deg]14'43.76'' N                  76[deg]32'53.63'' W
39[deg]14'57.51'' N                  76[deg]33'08.14'' W
39[deg]14'55.60'' N                  76[deg]33'11.14'' W
39[deg]14'59.42'' N                  76[deg]33'15.17'' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
These coordinates are based on NAD 83.

    (ii) No vessel shall remain in this anchorage for more than 72
hours without permission from the Captain of the Port.
    (3) Anchorage No. 3A, general anchorage. (i) All waters of the
Patapsco River, bounded by a line connecting the following points:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Latitude                            Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
39[deg]14'15.66'' N                  76[deg]32'53.59'' W
39[deg]14'32.48'' N                  76[deg]33'11.31'' W
39[deg]14'46.27'' N                  76[deg]32'49.69'' W
39[deg]14'32.50'' N                  76[deg]32'35.18'' W
39[deg]14'22.37'' N                  76[deg]32'43.07'' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
These coordinates are based on NAD 83.

    (ii) No vessel shall remain in this anchorage for more than 24
hours without permission from the Captain of the Port.
    (4) Anchorage No. 3B, general anchorage. (i) All waters of the
Patapsco River, bounded by a line connecting the following points:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Latitude                            Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
39[deg]14'32.48'' N                  76[deg]33'11.31'' W
39[deg]14'46.23'' N                  76[deg]33'25.83'' W
39[deg]14'57.51'' N                  76[deg]33'08.14'' W
39[deg]14'43.76'' N                  76[deg]32'53.63'' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
These coordinates are based on NAD 83.

    (ii) No vessel shall remain in this anchorage for more than 24
hours without permission from the Captain of the Port.
    (5) Anchorage No. 3C, general anchorage. (i) All waters of the
Patapsco River, bounded by a line connecting the following points:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Latitude                            Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
39[deg]14'46.23'' N                  76[deg]33'25.83'' W
39[deg]14'50.06'' N                  76[deg]33'29.86'' W
39[deg]14'59.42'' N                  76[deg]33'15.17'' W
39[deg]14'55.60'' N                  76[deg]33'11.14'' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
These coordinates are based on NAD 83.

    (ii) No vessel shall remain in this anchorage for more than 72
hours without permission from the Captain of the Port.
    (6) Anchorage No. 4, general anchorage. (i) All waters of the
Patapsco River, bounded by a line connecting the following points:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Latitude                            Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
39[deg]13'52.92'' N                  76[deg]32'29.60'' W
39[deg]14'04.38'' N                  76[deg]32'41.69'' W
39[deg]14'09.35'' N                  76[deg]32'39.89'' W
39[deg]14'17.96'' N                  76[deg]32'26.44'' W
39[deg]14'05.32'' N                  76[deg]32'13.09'' W
39[deg]14'00.05'' N                  76[deg]32'17.77'' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
These coordinates are based on NAD 83.

    (ii) No vessel shall remain in this anchorage for more than 24
hours without permission from the Captain of the Port.
    (7) Anchorage No. 5, general anchorage. (i) All waters of the
Patapsco River, bounded by a line connecting the following points:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Latitude                            Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
39[deg]14'07.89'' N                  76[deg]32'58.23'' W
39[deg]13'34.82'' N                  76[deg]32'23.66'' W
39[deg]13'22.25'' N                  76[deg]32'28.90'' W
39[deg]13'21.20'' N                  76[deg]33'11.94'' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
These coordinates are based on NAD 83.

    (ii) No vessel shall remain in this anchorage for more than 72
hours without permission from the Captain of the Port.
    (8) Anchorage No. 6, general anchorage. (i) All waters of the
Patapsco River, bounded by a line connecting the following points:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Latitude                            Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
39[deg]13'42.98'' N                  76[deg]32'19.11'' W
39[deg]13'20.65'' N                  76[deg]31'55.58'' W
39[deg]13'34.00'' N                  76[deg]31'33.50'' W
39[deg]14'01.95'' N                  76[deg]32'02.65'' W
39[deg]13'51.01'' N                  76[deg]32'18.71'' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
These coordinates are based on NAD 83.

    (ii) No vessel shall remain in this anchorage for more than 72
hours without permission from the Captain of the Port.
    (9) Anchorage No. 7, Dead ship anchorage. (i) All waters of Curtis
Bay, bounded by a line connecting the following points:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Latitude                            Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
39[deg]13'00.40'' N                  76[deg]34'10.40'' W
39[deg]13'13.40'' N                  76[deg]34'10.81'' W
39[deg]13'13.96'' N                  76[deg]34'05.02'' W
39[deg]13'14.83'' N                  76[deg]33'29.80'' W
39[deg]13'00.40'' N                  76[deg]33'29.90'' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
These coordinates are based on NAD 83.

    (ii) The primary use of this anchorage is to lay up dead ships.
Such use has priority over other uses. Permission from the Captain of
the Port must be obtained prior to the use of this anchorage for more
than 72 hours.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section--
    Certain dangerous cargo means certain dangerous cargo as defined in
Sec.  160.202 of this chapter.
    COTP means Captain of the Port Sector Maryland--National Capital
Region.
    (c) General regulations. (1) Except as otherwise provided, this
section applies to vessels over 20 meters long and all vessels carrying
or handling certain dangerous cargo while anchored in an anchorage
ground described in this section.
    (2) Except in cases where unforeseen circumstances create
conditions of imminent peril, or with the permission of the Captain of
the Port, no vessel shall be anchored in Baltimore Harbor or the
Patapsco River outside of the anchorage areas established in this
section for more than 24 hours. No vessel shall anchor within a tunnel,
cable or pipeline area shown on a government chart. No vessel shall be
moored, anchored, or tied up to any pier, wharf, or other vessel in
such manner as to extend into established channel limits. No vessel
shall be positioned so as to obstruct or endanger the passage of any
other vessel.
    (3) Except in an emergency, a vessel that is likely to sink or
otherwise become an obstruction to navigation or the anchoring of other
vessels may not occupy an anchorage, unless the vessel obtains
permission from the Captain of the Port.
    (4) Upon notification by the Captain of the Port to shift its
position, a vessel at anchor must get underway and shall move to its
new designated position within two hours after notification.
    (5) The Captain of the Port may prescribe specific conditions for
vessels anchoring within the anchorages described in this section,
including, but not limited to, the number and location of anchors,
scope of chain, readiness of engineering plant and equipment, usage of
tugs, and requirements for maintaining communication guards on selected
radio frequencies.
    (6) No vessel at anchor or at a mooring within an anchorage may
transfer oil to or from another vessel unless the vessel has given the
Captain of the Port the four hours advance notice required by Sec.
156.118 of this chapter.
    (7) No vessel shall anchor in a ``dead ship'' status (propulsion or
control unavailable for normal operations) without prior approval of
the Captain of the Port.

    Dated: August 1, 2018.
Meredith L. Austin,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2018-17469 Filed 8-13-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 172 (Thursday, September 7, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61651-61652]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19252]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-238, OMB Control No. 3235-0214]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Extension: Rule 17a-7

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

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collections
of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit the
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Rule 17a-7 (17 CFR 270.17a-7) (the ``rule'') under the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.) (the ``Act'') is entitled
``Exemption of certain purchase or sale transactions between an
investment company and certain affiliated persons thereof.'' It
provides an exemption from section 17(a) of the Act for purchases and
sales of securities between registered investment companies
(``funds''), that are affiliated persons (``first-tier affiliates'') or
affiliated persons of affiliated persons (``second-tier affiliates''),
or between a fund and a first- or second-tier affiliate other than
another fund, when the affiliation arises solely because of a common
investment adviser, director, or officer. Rule 17a-7 requires funds to
keep various records in connection with purchase or sale transactions
effected in reliance on the rule. The rule requires the fund's board of
directors to establish procedures reasonably designed to ensure that
the rule's conditions have been satisfied. The board is also required
to determine, at least on a quarterly basis, that all affiliated
transactions effected during the preceding quarter in reliance on the
rule were made in compliance with these established procedures. If a
fund enters into a purchase or sale transaction with an affiliated
person, the rule requires the fund to compile and maintain written
records of the transaction.\1\ The Commission's examination staff uses
these records to evaluate for compliance with the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Rule 17a-7(g) requires the written record of the affiliated
transaction to include the following information: a description of
the security purchased or sold, the identity of the person on the
other side of the transaction, the terms of the purchase or sale
transaction, and the information or materials upon which the board
determined that the purchase or sale complied with the procedures
set by the board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While most funds do not commonly engage in transactions covered by
rule 17a-7, the Commission staff estimates that nearly all funds have
adopted procedures for complying with the rule.\2\ Of the approximately
2,768 currently active funds, the staff estimates that virtually all
have already adopted procedures for compliance with rule 17a-7. This is
a one-time burden, and the staff therefore does not estimate an ongoing
burden related to the policies and procedures requirement of the rule
for funds.\3\ The staff estimates that there are approximately 110 new
funds that register each year, and that each of these funds adopts the
relevant policies and procedures. The staff estimates that it takes
approximately 4 hours to develop and adopt these policies and
procedures. Therefore, the total annual burden related to developing
and adopting these policies and procedures would be approximately 360
hours.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Unless stated otherwise, these estimates are based on
conversations with the examination and inspections staff of the
Commission and fund representatives.
    \3\ Based on our reviews and conversations with fund
representatives, we understand that funds rarely, if ever, need to
make changes to these policies and procedures once adopted, and
therefore we do not estimate a paperwork burden for such updates.
    \4\ This estimate is based on the following calculations: (4
hours x 110 new funds = 440 hours).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of the 2,768 existing funds, the staff assumes that approximately
21%, (or 582) enter into transactions affected by rule 17a-7 each year
(either by the fund directly or through one of the fund's series), and
that the same percentage (21%, or 23 funds) of the estimated 110 funds
that newly register each year will also enter into these transactions,
for a total of 605 \5\ companies that are affected by the recordkeeping
requirements of rule 17a-7. These funds must keep records of each of
these transactions, and the board of directors must quarterly determine
that all relevant transactions were made in compliance with the
company's policies and procedures. The rule generally imposes a minimal
burden of collecting and storing records already generated for other
purposes.\6\ The staff estimates that the burden related to making
these records and for the board to review all transactions would be 3
hours annually for each respondent, (2 hours spent by compliance
attorneys and 1 hour spent by the board of directors) \7\ or 1,815
total hours each year at cost of $3,400,100.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: (21% =
582/2,768); (605 = 582 + 23).
    \6\ Commission staff believes that rule 17a-7 does not impose
any costs associated with record preservation in addition to the
costs that funds already incur to comply with the record
preservation requirements of rule 31a-2 under the Act. Rule 31a-2
requires companies to preserve certain records for specified periods
of time.
    \7\ The staff estimates that funds that rely on rule 17a-7
annually enter into an average of 8 rule 17a-7 transactions each
year. The staff estimates that the compliance attorneys of the
companies spend approximately 15 minutes per transaction on this
recordkeeping, and the board of directors spends a total of 1 hour
annually in determining that all transactions made that year were
done in compliance with the company's policies and procedures. This
estimate is based on the following calculations: (2 hours x $425 =
$850); ($850 + $4,770= $5,620).
    \8\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: (3
hours x 605 companies = 1,815 hours); ($5,620 x 605 companies =
$3,400,100).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on these estimates, the staff estimates the combined total
annual burden hours associated with rule 17a-7 is 2,225 hours at a cost
of $4,065,050.\9\ The staff also estimates that there are approximately
605 respondents and 4,840 total responses.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: (440
hours + 1,815 hours = 2,255 total hours); ($664,950 + $3,400,100 =
$4,065,050).
    \10\ This estimate is based on the following calculations: 605
funds that engage in rule 17a-7 transactions x 8 transactions per
year = 64,840.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimates of average burden hours is made solely for the
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and are not derived from a
comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of
Commission rules. The collection of information required by rule 17a-7
is necessary to obtain the benefits of the rule. Responses will not be
kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person
is not

required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays
a currently valid control number.
    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
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 by November 6, 2023.
    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: David Bottom, Acting
Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission,
c/o John Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an
email to: [email protected].

    Dated: August 31, 2023.
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-19252 Filed 9-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: September 22, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 183)]
[Notices]
[Page 57747]
[DOCID:fr22se10-37]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP10-499-000]

Tres Palacios Gas Storage LLC; Notice of Application

September 15, 2010.
    Take notice that on September 3, 2010, Tres Palacios Gas Storage
LLC (Tres Palacios), 53 Riverside Avenue, Westport, Connecticut 06880,
filed in Docket Number CP10-499-000, pursuant to section 7(c) of the
Natural Gas Act (NGA), an application to amend the certificate issued
in Docket No. CP07-90-000 to conform the certificated capacities of its
three in-service natural gas storage caverns to the actual capacities
available in each cavern as established by the most recent sonar survey
results. This would add an additional 2.36 Bcf of working gas capacity
to the facility. Tres Palacios also seeks reaffirmation of its
previously authorized market-based rate authority for its storage and
hub services. This filing is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site
at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for
TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this Application should be directed to
James F. Bowe, Jr., Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP, 1101 New York Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20005,<PHONE_NUMBER> (phone),<PHONE_NUMBER> (fax), or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the below listed comment date, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    Motions to intervene, protests and comments may be filed
electronically via the internet in lieu of paper; see, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.
    Comment Date: October 6, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-23624 Filed 9-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 4, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 892-898]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31859]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79699; File No. SR-BatsEDGA-2016-32]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend the Market Data Section of Its Fee Schedule To Adopt Fees for
EDGA Summary Depth and Amend Fees for EDGA Depth

December 28, 2016.
    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 15, 2016, Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc. (``EDGA'' or the
``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 Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one
establishing or changing a member due, fee, or other charge imposed by
the Exchange under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed rule change effective
upon filing with the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the Market Data section of
its fee schedule to: (i) Adopt fees for a new market data product
called EDGA Summary Depth; and (ii) amend the fees for EDGA Depth.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.batstrading.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 parts 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 the Market Data section of its fee
schedule to: (i) Adopt fees for a new market data product called EDGA
Summary Depth; and (ii) amend the fees for EDGA Depth.
EDGA Summary Depth
    EDGA Summary Depth is a data feed that will provide aggregated two-
sided quotations for all displayed orders entered into the System \5\
for up to five (5) price levels for securities traded on the Exchange
and for which the Exchange reports quotes under the Consolidated Tape
Association (``CTA'') Plan or the Nasdaq/UTP Plan.\6\ EDGA Summary
Depth will also contain the individual last sale information, Market
Status, Trading Status, and Trade Break messages. The individual last
sale information will include the price, size, and time of execution.
The last sale message will also include the cumulative number of shares
executed on the Exchange for that trading day. The Exchange intends to
begin to offer EDGA Summary Depth on January 3, 2017.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``System'' is defined as the ``the electronic communications
and trading facility designated by the Board through which
securities orders of Users Are consolidated for ranking, execution
and, when applicable, routing away.'' See Exchange Rule 1.5(cc).
    \6\ See Exchange Rule 13.8(f).
    \7\ See Reminder: Bats Global Markets to Introduce Bats Summary
Depth Feeds on January 3, 2017, http://cdn.batstrading.com/resources/release_notes/2017/Reminder-Bats-Global-Markets-to-Introduce-Bats-Summary-Depth-Feeds-on-Jan-3-2017.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to amend its fee schedule to incorporate
fees for distribution of EDGA Summary Depth to subscribers.\8\ The
proposed fees include

the following, each of which are described in detail below: (i)
Distribution Fees for both Internal and External Distributors; \9\ (ii)
Usage Fees for both Professional \10\ and Non-Professional \11\ Users;
(iii) an Enterprise Fee; and (iv) a Digital Media Enterprise Fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange notes that its affiliated exchanges, Bats EDGX
Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX''), Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'') and
Bats BYX Exchange, Inc. (``BYX'', together with the Exchange, EDGX
and BZX, the ``Bats Exchanges''), also intent to file proposed rule
changes with Commission to adopt similar fees for their respective
Summary Depth market data product.
    \9\ A ``Distributor'' is defined as ``any entity that receives
the Exchange Market Data product directly from the Exchange or
indirectly through another entity and then distributes it internally
or externally to a third party.'' See the Exchange's fee schedule
available at http://www.bats.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/edga/. An ``Internal Distributor'' is defined as ``a
Distributor that receives the Exchange Market Data product and then
distributes that data to one or more Users within the Distributor's
own entity.'' Id. An ``External Distributor'' is defined as ``a
Distributor that receives the Exchange Market Data product and then
distributes that data to a third party or one or more Users outside
the Distributor's own entity.'' Id.''
    \10\ A ``Professional User'' is defined as ``any User other than
a Non-Professional User.'' See the Exchange's fee schedule available
at http://www.bats.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/edga/.
    \11\ A ``Non-Professional User'' is defined as ``a natural
person who is not: (i) Registered or qualified in any capacity with
the Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, any state
securities agency, any securities exchange or association, or any
commodities or futures contract market or association; (ii) engaged
as an ``investment adviser'' as that term is defined in Section
202(a)(11) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (whether or not
registered or qualified under that Act); or (iii) employed by a bank
or other organization exempt from registration under federal or
state securities laws to perform functions that would require
registration or qualification if such functions were performed for
an organization not so exempt.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Distribution Fees. As proposed, each Internal Distributor that
receives EDGA Summary Depth shall pay a fee of $2,500 per month. The
Exchange does not propose to charge any User fees for EDGA Summary
Depth where the data is received and subsequently internally
distributed to Professional or Non-Professional Users. In addition, the
Exchange proposes to charge also External Distributors that receive
EDGA Summary Depth a fee of $2,500 per month.
    User Fees. The Exchange proposes to charge External Distributors
that redistribute EDGA Summary Depth different fees for their
Professional Users and Non-Professional Users. The Exchange will assess
a monthly fee for Professional Users of $2.50 per User. Non-
Professional Users will be assessed a monthly fee of $0.10 per User.
The Exchange does not propose to charge per User fees to Internal
Distributors.
    External Distributors that receive EDGA Summary Depth will be
required to count every Professional User and Non-Professional User to
which they provide EDGA Summary Depth, the requirements for which are
identical to that currently in place for other market data products
offered by the Exchange.\12\ Thus, the External Distributor's count
will include every person and device that accesses the data regardless
of the purpose for which the individual or device uses the data.
External Distributors must report all Professional and Non-Professional
Users in accordance with the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 74283 (February
18, 2015); 80 FR 9809 (February 24, 2015) (SR-EDGA-2015-09)
(proposing fees for the Bats One Feed); 75395 (July 8, 2015), 80 FR
41126 (July 14, 2015) (SR-EDGA-2015-25) (proposing user fees for the
EDGA Top and Last Sale data feeds); and 75787 (August 28, 2015), 80
FR 53370 (September 3, 2015) (SR-EDGA-2015-34) (proposing fees for
EDGA Book Viewer).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     In connection with an External Distributor's distribution
of EDGA Summary Depth, the Distributor should count as one User each
unique User that the Distributor has entitled to have access to EDGA
Summary Depth. However, where a device is dedicated specifically to a
single individual, the Distributor should count only the individual and
need not count the device.
     The External Distributor should identify and report each
unique User. If a User uses the same unique method to gain access to
EDGA Summary Depth, the Distributor should count that as one User.
However, if a unique User uses multiple methods to gain access to EDGA
Summary Depth (e.g., a single User has multiple passwords and user
identifications), the External Distributor should report all of those
methods as an individual User.
     External Distributors should report each unique individual
person who receives access through multiple devices as one User so long
as each device is dedicated specifically to that individual.
     If an External Distributor entitles one or more
individuals to use the same device, the External Distributor should
include only the individuals, and not the device, in the count.
    Each External Distributor will receive a credit against its monthly
Distribution Fee for EDGA Summary Depth equal to the amount of its
monthly Usage Fees up to a maximum of the Distribution Fee for EDGA
Summary Depth. For example, an External Distributor will be subject to
a $2,500 monthly Distribution Fee where they receive EDGA Summary
Depth. If that External Distributor reports User quantities totaling
$2,500 or more of monthly usage of EDGA Summary Depth, it will pay no
net Distribution Fee, whereas if that same External Distributor were to
report User quantities totaling $1,500 of monthly usage, it will pay a
net of $1,000 for the Distribution Fee. External Distributors will
remain subject to the per User fees discussed above.
    Enterprise Fee. The Exchange also proposes to establish a $20,000
per month Enterprise Fee that will permit a recipient firm who receives
EDGA Summary Depth from an External Distributor to receive the data for
an unlimited number of Professional and Non-Professional Users. For
example, if a recipient firm had 15,000 Professional Users who each
receive EDGA Summary Depth at $2.50 per month, then that recipient firm
will pay $37,500 per month in Professional Users fees. Under the
proposed Enterprise Fee, the recipient firm will pay a flat fee of
$20,000 for an unlimited number of Professional and Non-Professional
Users for EDGA Summary Depth. A recipient firm must pay a separate
Enterprise Fee for each External Distributor that controls the display
of EDGA Summary Depth if it wishes such User to be covered by an
Enterprise Fee rather than by per User fees. A recipient firm that pays
the Enterprise Fee will not have to report its number of such Users on
a monthly basis. However, every six months, a recipient firm must
provide the Exchange with a count of the total number of natural person
users of each product, including both Professional and Non-Professional
Users. Lastly, the proposed Enterprise Fee would be counted towards the
Distribution Fee credit described above, under which an External
Distributor receives a credit towards its Distribution Fee equal to the
amount of its monthly EDGA Summary Depth User fees.
    Digital Media Enterprise Fee. The Exchange proposes to adopt a
Digital Media Enterprise Fee of $5,000 per month for EDGA Summary
Depth. As an alternative to proposed User fees discussed above, a
recipient firm may purchase a monthly Digital Media Enterprise license
to receive EDGA Summary Depth from an External Distributor to
distribute to an unlimited number of Professional and Non-Professional
Users for viewing via television, Web sites, and mobile devices for
informational and non-trading purposes only without having to account
for the extent of access to the data or the report the number of Users
to the Exchange. Lastly, the proposed Digital Media Enterprise Fee
would be counted towards the Distribution Fee credit described above,
under which an External Distributor receives a credit

towards its Distribution Fee equal to the amount of its monthly EDGA
Summary Depth User fees.
EDGA Depth
    EDGA Depth is an uncompressed market data feed that provides depth-
of-book quotations and execution information based on equity orders
entered into the System.\13\ Currently, the Exchange charges fees for
both internal and external distribution of EDGA Depth. The cost of EDGA
Depth for an Internal Distributor is currently $1,000 per month. The
Exchange also separately charges an External Distributor of EDGA Depth
a flat fee of $2,500 per month. The Exchange does not currently charge
Internal and External Distributors separate display User fees. The
Exchange also charges a fee for Non-Display Usage \14\ by Trading
Platforms \15\ by which subscribers to EDGA Depth are charged a fee of
$2,000 per month. This fee is assessed in addition to existing
Distribution fees. The Exchange now proposes to amend its fee schedule
to incorporate Usage Fees for both Professional and Non-Professional
Users and an Enterprise Fee for EDGA Depth. Each of these changes are
described in detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Exchange Rule 13.8(a).
    \14\ The term ``Non-Display Usage'' is defined as ``any method
of accessing a Market Data product that involves access or use by a
machine or automated device without access or use of a display by a
natural person or persons.'' See the Exchange's fee schedule
available at http://www.bats.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/edga/.
    \15\ The term ``Trading Platform'' is defined as ``any execution
platform operated as or by a registered National Securities Exchange
(as defined in Section 3(a)(1) of the Exchange Act), an Alternative
Trading System (as defined in Rule 300(a) of Regulation ATS), or an
Electronic Communications Network (as defined in Rule 600(b)(23) of
Regulation NMS).'' See the Exchange's fee schedule available at
http://www.bats.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/edga/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    User Fees. The Exchange proposes to charge Internal and External
Distributors that redistribute EDGA Depth different fees for their
Professional Users and Non-Professional Users.\16\ The Exchange will
assess a monthly fee for Professional Users of $10.00 per User. Non-
Professional Users will be assessed a monthly fee of $1.00 per User.
Distributors that receive EDGA Depth will be required to count every
Professional User and Non-Professional User to which they provide EDGA
Depth, the requirements for which are identical to that set forth above
for EDGA Summary Depth and as currently in place for other market data
products offered by the Exchange.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Exchange notes that, unlike as proposed for EDGA
Summary Depth described above, both Internal and External
Distributors of EDGA Depth would be charged the same User fee for
their Professional and Non-Professional Users.
    \17\ See supra note 12 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Enterprise Fee. The Exchange also proposes to establish a $25,000
per month Enterprise Fee that will permit an Internal Distributor,
External Distributor, or a recipient firm who receives EDGA Depth from
an External Distributor to receive the data for an unlimited number of
Professional and Non-Professional Users. For example, if a recipient
firm had 15,000 Professional Users who each receive EDGA Depth at
$10.00 per month, then that recipient firm will pay $150,000 per month
in Professional Users fees. Under the proposed Enterprise Fee, the
recipient firm will pay a flat fee of $25,000 for an unlimited number
of Professional and Non-Professional Users for EDGA Depth. Like
proposed above for EDGA Summary Depth, a recipient firm must pay a
separate Enterprise Fee for each External Distributor that controls the
display of EDGA Depth if it wishes such User to be covered by an
Enterprise Fee rather than by per User fees. A recipient firm that pays
the Enterprise Fee will not have to report its number of such Users on
a monthly basis. However, every six months, a recipient firm must
provide the Exchange with a count of the total number of natural person
users of each product, including both Professional and Non-Professional
Users.
Implementation Date
    The Exchange intends to implement the proposed fee change on
January 3, 2017.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\18\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\19\ in particular, as it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its members and other recipients of
Exchange data. The Exchange believes that the proposed rates are
equitable and non-discriminatory in that they apply uniformly to all
recipients of Exchange data. The Exchange believes the proposed fees
are competitive with those charged by other venues and, therefore,
reasonable and equitably allocated to recipients. The Exchange also
believes it is reasonable to charge different rates for EDGA Depth and
EDGA Summary Depth as both products different levels of content (e.g.,
EDGA Depth contains quotations for all individual orders while EDGA
Summary Depth contains the aggregation quotation information for all
orders up to five (5) price levels). Lastly, the Exchange also believes
that the proposed fees are reasonable and non-discriminatory because
they will apply uniformly to all recipients of Exchange data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 11(A) of the Act \20\ in that it supports (i)
fair competition among brokers and dealers, among exchange markets, and
between exchange markets and markets other than exchange markets and
(ii) the availability to brokers, dealers, and investors of information
with respect to quotations for and transactions in securities.
Furthermore, the proposed rule change is consistent with Rule 603 of
Regulation NMS,\21\ which provides that any national securities
exchange that distributes information with respect to quotations for or
transactions in an NMS stock do so on terms that are not unreasonably
discriminatory. In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted
self-regulatory organizations and broker-dealers increased authority
and flexibility to offer new and unique market data to the public. It
was believed that this authority would expand the amount of data
available to consumers, and also spur innovation and competition for
the provision of market data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \21\ 17 CFR 242.603.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the proposed fees would not permit unfair
discrimination because all of the Exchange's customers and market data
vendors will be subject to the proposed fees on an equivalent basis.
EDGA Summary Depth and EDGA Depth are distributed and purchased on a
voluntary basis, in that neither the Exchange nor market data
distributors are required by any rule or regulation to make this data
available. Accordingly, Distributors and Users can discontinue use at
any time and for any reason, including due to an assessment of the
reasonableness of fees charged. Firms have a wide variety of
alternative market data products from which to choose, such as similar
proprietary data products offered by other exchanges and consolidated
data. Moreover, the Exchange is not required to make any proprietary
data products available or to offer any specific pricing alternatives
to any customers.
    In addition, the fees that are the subject of this rule filing are
constrained by competition. As explained below in

the Exchange's Statement on Burden on Competition, the existence of
alternatives to EDGA Summary Depth and EDGA Depth further ensures that
the Exchange cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees that are
unreasonably discriminatory, when vendors and subscribers can elect
such alternatives. That is, the Exchange competes with other exchanges
(and their affiliates) that provide similar market data products. If
another exchange (or its affiliate) were to charge less to distribute
its similar product than the Exchange charges to consolidate and
distribute EDGA Summary Depth and EDGA Depth, prospective Users likely
would not subscribe to, or would cease subscribing to, EDGA Summary
Depth and EDGA Depth.
    The Exchange notes that the Commission is not required to undertake
a cost-of-service or rate-making approach. The Exchange believes that,
even if it were possible as a matter of economic theory, cost-based
pricing for non-core market data would be so complicated that it could
not be done practically.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The Exchange believes that cost-based pricing would be
impractical because it would create enormous administrative burdens
for all parties, including the Commission, to cost-regulate a large
number of participants and standardize and analyze extraordinary
amounts of information, accounts, and reports. In addition, it is
impossible to regulate market data prices in isolation from prices
charged by markets for other services that are joint products. Cost-
based rate regulation would also lead to litigation and may distort
incentives, including those to minimize costs and to innovate,
leading to further waste. Under cost-based pricing, the Commission
would be burdened with determining a fair rate of return, and the
industry could experience frequent rate increases based on
escalating expense levels. Even in industries historically subject
to utility regulation, cost-based ratemaking has been discredited.
As such, the Exchange believes that cost-based ratemaking would be
inappropriate for proprietary market data and inconsistent with
Congress's direction that the Commission use its authority to foster
the development of the national market system, and that market
forces will continue to provide appropriate pricing discipline. See
Appendix C to NYSE's comments to the Commission's 2000 Concept
Release on the Regulation of Market Information Fees and Revenues,
which can be found on the Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov/rules/concept/s72899/buck1.htm. See also Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 73816 (December 11, 2014), 79 FR 75200
(December 17, 2014) (SR-NYSE-2014-64) (Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Establish an
Access Fee for the NYSE Best Quote and Trades Data Feed, Operative
December 1, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EDGA Summary Depth
    Distribution Fee. The Exchange believes that the proposed
Distribution Fees are also reasonable, equitably allocated, and not
unreasonably discriminatory. The fees for Members and non-Members are
uniform except with respect to reasonable distinctions with respect to
internal and external distribution. The Exchange believes that the
Distribution Fees for EDGA Summary Depth are reasonable and fair in
light of alternatives offered by other market centers. For example,
EDGA Summary Depth provides investors with alternative market data and
competes with similar market data product currently offered by the New
York Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NYSE'') and the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC
(``Nasdaq'').\23\ Specifically, the NYSE charges an access fee of
$5,000 per month for NYSE OpenBook, Aggregated\24\ which is more than
the External Distribution fee proposed herein for EDGA Summary Depth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Nasdaq Rule 7023(a)(1)(C) (describing Nasdaq TotalView
is a depth-of-book data feed that includes all orders and quotes
from all Nasdaq members displayed in the Nasdaq Market Center as
well as the aggregate size of such orders and quotes at each price
level in the execution functionality of the Nasdaq Market Center).
See also Nasdaq Book Viewer, a description of which is available at
https://data.nasdaq.com/Book Viewer.aspx. See NYSE OpenBook
available at http://www.nyxdata.com/openbook (providing real-time
view of the NYSE limit order book).
    \24\ See NYSE Market Data Pricing dated November 2016 available
at http://www.nyxdata.com/. Nasdaq charges distribution fees ranging
from $375 for 1-39 subscribers to $75,000 for more than 250
subscribers. See Nasdaq Rule 7023(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    User Fees. The Exchange believes that implementing the Professional
and Non-Professional User fees for EDGA Summary Depth are equitable and
reasonable because they will result in greater availability to
Professional and Non-Professional Users. Moreover, introducing a modest
Non-Professional User fee for EDGA Summary Depth is reasonable because
it provides an additional method for retail investors to access EDGA
Summary Depth data by providing the same data that is available to
Professional Users. The Exchange believes that the proposed fees are
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they will be charged
uniformly to recipient firms and Users. The fee structure of
differentiated Professional and Non-Professional fees is utilized by
the Exchange for the Bats One Feed and has long been used by other
exchanges for their proprietary data products, and by the Nasdaq UTP
and the CTA and CQ Plans in order to reduce the price of data to retail
investors and make it more broadly available.\25\ Offering EDGA Summary
Depth to Non-Professional Users with the same data available to
Professional Users results in greater equity among data recipients.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 74285 (February
18, 2015), 80 FR 9828 (February 24, 2015) (SR-BATS-2015-11); 74283
(February 18, 2015), 80 FR 9809 (February 24, 2015) (SR-EDGA-2015-
09); 74282 (February 17, 2015), 80 FR 9487 (February 23, 2015) (SR-
EDGX-2015-09); and 74284 (February 18, 2015), 80 FR 9792 (February
24, 2015) (SR-EDGA-2015-09) (``Initial BATS One Feed Fee Filings'').
See also, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 20002, File No.
S7-433 (July 22, 1983) (establishing nonprofessional fees for CTA
data); and Nasdaq Rules 7023(b), 7047.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the proposed fees are reasonable when compared to
similar fees for comparable products offered by the NYSE and Nasdaq.
Specifically, NYSE offers NYSE OpenBook for a monthly fee of $60.00 per
professional subscriber and $15 per non-professional subscriber.\26\
Nasdaq offers Nasdaq TotalView-Aggregated for a monthly fee of $70.00
per professional subscriber and $14 per non-professional
subscriber.\27\ The Exchange's proposed per User Fees for EDGA Summary
Depth are less than the NYSE and Nasdaq fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See NYSE Market Data Pricing dated November 2016 available
at http://www.nyxdata.com/.
    \27\ See Nasdaq Rule 7023(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Enterprise Fee. The proposed Enterprise Fee for EDGA Summary Depth
is equitable and reasonable as the fees proposed are less than the
enterprise fees currently charged for Nasdaq TotalView-Aggregated.
Nasdaq charges an enterprise fee of $100,000 per month for Nasdaq
TotalView-Aggregated,\28\ which is far greater than the proposed
Enterprise Fee of $20,000 per month for EDGA Summary Depth. In
addition, the Enterprise Fee proposed by the Exchange could result in a
fee reduction for recipient firms with a large number of Professional
and Non-Professional Users. If a recipient firm has a smaller number of
Professional Users of EDGA Summary Depth, then it may continue using
the per User structure and benefit from the per User Fee reductions. By
reducing prices for recipient firms with a large number of Professional
and Non-Professional Users, the Exchange believes that more firms may
choose to receive and to distribute EDGA Summary Depth, thereby
expanding the distribution of this market data for the benefit of
investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Nasdaq Rule 7023(c)(2) (stating that a distributor that
is also a broker-dealer pays a monthly fee of $100,000 for the right
to provide Nasdaq TotalView and for display usage for internal
distribution, or for external distribution to both professional and
non-professional subscribers with whom the firm has a brokerage
relationship.) Nasdaq also charges an enterprise fee of $25,000 to
provide Nasdaq TotalView to an unlimited number of non-professional
subscribers only. See Nasdaq Rule 7023(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further believes that the proposed Enterprise Fee is
reasonable because it will simplify reporting for certain recipients
that have large numbers of Professional and Non-Professional Users.
Firms that pay the

proposed Enterprise Fee will not have to report the number of Users on
a monthly basis as they currently do, but rather will only have to
count natural person users every six months, which is a significant
reduction in administrative burden. Finally, the Exchange believes that
it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to establish an
Enterprise Fee because it reduces the Exchange's costs and the
Distributor's administrative burdens in tracking and auditing large
numbers of Users.
    Digital Media Enterprise Fee. The Exchange believes that the
proposed Digital Media Enterprise Fee for EDGA Summary Depth provides
for an equitable allocation of reasonable fees among recipients of the
data and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination among
customers, brokers, or dealers. In establishing the Digital Media
Enterprise Fee, the Exchange recognizes that there is demand for a more
seamless and easier-to-administer data distribution model that takes
into account the expanded variety of media and communication devices
that investors utilize today. The Exchange believes the Digital Media
Enterprise Fee will be easy to administer because data recipients that
purchase it would not be required to differentiate between Professional
and Non-Professional Users, account for the extent of access to the
data, or report the number of Users. This is a significant reduction on
a recipient firm's administrative burdens and is a significant value to
investors. For example, a television broadcaster could display EDGA
Summary Depth data during market-related programming and on its Web
site or allow viewers to view the data via their mobile devices,
creating a more seamless distribution model that will allow investors
more choice in how they receive and view market data, all without
having to account for and/or measure who accesses the data and how
often they do so.
    The proposed Digital Media Enterprise Fee is equitable and
reasonable because it will also enable recipient firms to more widely
distribute data from EDGA Summary Depth to investors for informational
purposes at a lower cost than is available today. For example, a
recipient firm may purchase an Enterprise license in the amount of
$20,000 per month for to receive EDGA Summary Depth from an External
Distributor for an unlimited number of Professional and Non-
Professional Users, which is greater than the proposed Digital Media
Enterprise Fee. The Exchange also believes the amount of the Digital
Media Enterprise Fee is reasonable as compared to the existing
enterprise fees discussed above because the distribution of EDGA
Summary Depth data is limited to television, Web sites, and mobile
devices for informational purposes only, while distribution of EDGA
Summary Depth data pursuant to an Enterprise license contains no such
limitation. The Exchange also believes that the proposed Digital Media
Enterprise Fee is equitable and reasonable because it is less than
similar fees charged by other exchanges.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Nasdaq offers proprietary data products for distribution
over the internet and television under alternative fee schedules
that are subject to maximum fee of $50,000 [sic] per month. See
Nasdaq Rule 7039(b). The NYSE charges a Digit Media Enterprise fee
of $40,000 per month for the NYSE Trade Digital Media product. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69272 (April 2, 2013), 78 FR
20983 (April 8, 2013) (SR-NYSE-2013-23).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EDGA Depth
    User Fees. The Exchange believes that implementing the Professional
and Non-Professional User fees for EDGA Depth are equitable and
reasonable because they will result in greater availability to
Professional and Non-Professional Users. Moreover, introducing a modest
Non-Professional User fee for EDGA Depth is reasonable because it
provides an additional method for retail investors to access EDGA Depth
data by providing the same data that is available to Professional
Users. The Exchange believes that the proposed fees are equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory because they will be charged uniformly to
recipient firms and Users. The fee structure of differentiated
Professional and Non-Professional fees is utilized by the Exchange and
has long been used by other exchanges for their proprietary data
products, and by the Nasdaq UTP and the CTA and CQ Plans in order to
reduce the price of data to retail investors and make it more broadly
available.\30\ Offering EDGA Depth to Non-Professional Users with the
same data available to Professional Users results in greater equity
among data recipients. The Exchange also believes it is equitable,
reasonable, and not unfairly discriminatory to charge User fees to
Internal Distributors, as such fees are currently charged by NYSE and
Nasdaq.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See supra note 24.
    \31\ See supra notes 24 and 25 (not limiting the application of
user fees to external distribution only).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the proposed fees are reasonable when compared to
similar fees for comparable products offered by the NYSE and Nasdaq.
Specifically, NYSE offers NYSE OpenBook Ultra for a monthly fee of
$60.00 per professional subscriber and $15 per non-professional
subscriber.\32\ Nasdaq offers Nasdaq TotalView-ITCH for a monthly fee
of $70.00 per professional subscriber and $14 per non-professional
subscriber.\33\ The Exchange's proposed per User Fees for EDGA Depth
are less than the NYSE and Nasdaq fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See supra note 25.
    \33\ See supra note 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Enterprise Fee. The proposed Enterprise Fee for EDGA Depth is
equitable and reasonable as compared to the enterprise fees currently
charged for Nasdaq TotalView-ITCH. Nasdaq charges an enterprise fee of
$100,000 per month for Nasdaq TotalView-ITCH,\34\ which is greater than
the proposed Enterprise Fee of $25,000 per month for EDGA Depth. In
addition, the Enterprise Fee proposed by the Exchange could result in a
fee reduction for recipient firms with a large number of Professional
and Non-Professional Users. If a recipient firm has a smaller number of
Professional Users of EDGA Depth, then it may continue using the per
User structure and benefit from the per User Fee reductions. By
reducing prices for recipient firms with a large number of Professional
and Non-Professional Users, the Exchange believes that more firms may
choose to receive and to distribute EDGA Depth, thereby expanding the
distribution of this market data for the benefit of investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See supra note 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further believes that the proposed Enterprise Fee is
reasonable because it will simplify reporting for certain recipients
that have large numbers of Professional and Non-Professional Users.
Firms that pay the proposed Enterprise Fee will not have to report the
number of Users on a monthly basis as they currently do, but rather
will only have to count natural person users every six months, which is
a significant reduction in administrative burden. Finally, the Exchange
believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to
establish an Enterprise Fee because it reduces the Exchange's costs and
the Distributor's administrative burdens in tracking and auditing large
numbers of Users.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. The
Exchange's ability to price EDGA Depth and EDGA Summary Depth is

constrained by: (i) Competition among exchanges, other trading
platforms, and Trade Reporting Facilities (``TRF'') that compete with
each other in a variety of dimensions; (ii) the existence of
inexpensive real-time consolidated data and market-specific data and
free delayed data; and (iii) the inherent contestability of the market
for proprietary data.
    The Exchange and its market data products are subject to
significant competitive forces and the proposed fees represent
responses to that competition. To start, the Exchange competes
intensely for order flow. It competes with the other national
securities exchanges that currently trade equities, with electronic
communication networks, with quotes posted in FINRA's Alternative
Display Facility, with alternative trading systems, and with securities
firms that primarily trade as principal with their customer order flow.
    In addition, EDGA Summary Depth and EDGA Depth compete with a
number of alternative products. For instance, EDGA Summary Depth and
EDGA Depth do provide a complete picture of all trading activity in a
security. Rather, the other national securities exchanges, the several
TRFs of FINRA, and Electronic Communication Networks (``ECN'') that
produce proprietary data all produce trades and trade reports. Each is
currently permitted to produce last sale information products, and many
currently do, including Nasdaq and NYSE. In addition, market
participants can gain access to EDGA last sale and depth-of-book
quotations, though integrated with the prices of other markets, on
feeds made available through the SIPs.
    In sum, the availability of a variety of alternative sources of
information imposes significant competitive pressures on Exchange data
products and the Exchange's compelling need to attract order flow
imposes significant competitive pressure on the Exchange to act
equitably, fairly, and reasonably in setting the proposed data product
fees. The proposed data product fees are, in part, responses to that
pressure. The Exchange believes that the proposed fees would reflect an
equitable allocation of its overall costs to users of its facilities.
    In addition, when establishing the proposed fees, the Exchange
considered the competitiveness of the market for proprietary data and
all of the implications of that competition. The Exchange believes that
it has considered all relevant factors and has not considered
irrelevant factors in order to establish fair, reasonable, and not
unreasonably discriminatory fees and an equitable allocation of fees
among all Users. The existence of alternatives to EDGA Depth and EDGA
Summary Depth, including existing similar feeds by other exchanges,
consolidated data, and proprietary data from other sources, ensures
that the Exchange cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees that are
unreasonably discriminatory, when vendors and subscribers can elect
these alternatives or choose not to purchase a specific proprietary
data product if its cost to purchase is not justified by the returns
any particular vendor or subscriber would achieve through the purchase.
    Lastly, the Exchange represents that the increase in pricing of
EDGA Depth and the proposed pricing of the EDGA Summary Feed would
continue to enable a competing vendor to create a competing product to
the Exchange's Bats One Feed on the same price and latency basis as the
Exchange. The Bats One Feed is a data feed that disseminates, on a
real-time basis, the aggregate BBO of all displayed orders for
securities traded on each of the Bats Exchanges and for the Bats
Exchanges report quotes under the CTA Plan or the Nasdaq/UTP Plan. The
Bats One Feed also contains the individual last sale information for
the Bats Exchanges (collectively with the aggregate BBO, the ``Bats One
Summary Feed''). In addition, the Bats One Feed contains optional
functionality which enables recipients to receive aggregated two-sided
quotations from the Bats Exchanges for up to five (5) price levels
(``Bats One Premium Feed'').\35\ The Exchange uses the following data
feeds to create the Bats One Feed, each of which are available to
vendors: EDGX Depth, EDGA Depth, BYX Depth, and the BZX Depth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See Exchange Rule 13.8(b). See also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 73918 (December 23, 2014), 79 FR 78920 (December 31,
2014) (File Nos. SR-EDGX-2014-25; SR-EDGA-2014-25; SR-BATS-2014-055;
SR-BYX-2014-030) (Notice of Amendments No. 2 and Order Granting
Accelerated Approval to Proposed Rule Changes, as Modified by
Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, to Establish a New Market Data Product
called the Bats One Feed) (``Bats One Approval Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When adopting the Bats One Feed, the Exchange represented that a
vendor could create a competing product based in the data feed used to
construct the Bats One Feed on the same cost and latency basis as the
Exchange.\36\ Therefore, the Exchange designed the pricing of these
products so that their aggregate cost is not greater than the Bats One
Feed, thereby enabling a vendor to create a competing product to the
Bats One Feed on the same cost basis as the Exchange. However, the
Exchange now proposes to increase the cost of EDGA Depth, which when
combined with the proposed increases by its affiliates for their depth
products, would cause their aggregate cost to be higher than the Bats
One Premium Feed.\37\ However, to ensure that a vendor could continue
to create a competing product to the Bats One Premium Feed at no
greater cost, that vendor could now utilize EDGA Summary Depth, as well
as the Summary Depth feeds of BZX, BYX, and EDGX to create a competing
product to the Bats One Premium Feed for less cost and on the same
latency basis as the Exchange.\38\ The Exchange has designed the
content and pricing of EDGA Summary Depth, and related products by its
affiliates, so that a vendor could utilize those feeds, in lieu of the
Bats Exchange's existing depth-of-book products, to construct a
competing product on the same cost and latency basis as the Exchange.
The pricing the Exchange and its affiliates propose to charge for
Summary Depth feeds would be lower than the cost to obtain the Bats One
Premium Feed.\39\ Such pricing would continue to enable a vendor to
receive each of the Bats Exchange's Summary Depth feeds and offer a
similar product to the Bats One Premium Feed on a competitive basis and
at no greater cost than the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Id.
    \37\ The Exchange notes that a vendor seeking to create a
product to compete with the Bats One Summary Feed may continue to
utilize each of the Bats Exchange's Top and Last Sale data feeds,
the aggregate cost of which is less than the Bats One Summary Feed.
    \38\ While the proposed EDGA Summary Depth feed does not contain
the symbol summary or consolidated volume data included in the Bats
One Feed, a vendor could include this information in a competing
product as this information is easily derivable from the proposed
feeds or can be obtained from the securities information processors
on the same terms as the Exchange.
    \39\ While the aggregate cost of each of the Bats Exchange's
Summary Depth Products equals the cost of the Bats One Premium Feed,
the cost of the Bats One Feed continues to be greater because
subscribers are required to pay an additional $1,000 aggregation
fee. See the Exchange's fee schedule available at http://www.bats.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/edga/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written 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 \40\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\41\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \41\ 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 No. SR-BatsEDGA-2016-32 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BatsEDGA-2016-32. 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 office 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-BatsEDGA-2016-32 and should
be submitted on or before January 25, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-31859 Filed 1-3-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 111 (Monday, June 10, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 26927]
[FR Doc No: 2019-12097]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-86023; File No. SR-CboeBZX-2019-015]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of
Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade Units of Each of
(i) Cboe Vest S&P 500[supreg] Buffer Enhanced Growth Protect Strategy
ETNs; (ii) Cboe Vest S&P 500[supreg] Enhanced Growth Strategy ETNs;
(iii) Cboe Vest S&P 500[supreg] Accelerated Return Strategy ETNs; and
(iv) Cboe Vest S&P 500[supreg] Power Buffer Strategy ETNs Under Rule
14.11(d), Equity Index-Linked Securities

June 4, 2019.
    On March 4, 2019, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'' or ``BZX'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to
list and trade units of each of (i) the Cboe Vest S&P 500[supreg]
Buffer Enhanced Growth Protect Strategy ETNs; (ii) the Cboe Vest S&P
500[supreg] Enhanced Growth Strategy ETNs; (iii) the Cboe Vest S&P
500[supreg] Accelerated Return Strategy ETNs; and (iv) the Cboe Vest
S&P 500[supreg] Power Buffer Strategy ETNs under BZX Rule 14.11(d),
which governs the listing and trading of Equity Index-Linked Securities
on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on March 22, 2019.\3\ On May 3, 2019, pursuant to Section
19(b)(2) of the Act,\4\ the Commission designated a longer period
within which to approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the
proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove the proposed rule change.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85347 (Mar. 18,
2019), 84 FR 10863 (Mar. 22, 2019).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85766 (May 3, 2019),
84 FR 20453 (May 9, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 3, 2019, BZX withdrew the proposed rule change (SR-CboeBZX-
2019-015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-12097 Filed 6-7-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P