[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 11, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62881-62883]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26139]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65481; File No. SR-CBOE-2011-092

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated: Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change Relating to PULSe Fees

October 4, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''), \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on October 3, 2011, the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``CBOE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared
by CBOE. The Exchange has designated this proposal as one establishing
or changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by CBOE under Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder.\4\ The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 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 is proposing to amend its Fees Schedule as it relates
to the PULSe workstation. The text of the proposed rule change is
availableon the Exchange's Web site http://www.cboe.org/legal), at the
Exchange's Office of the Secretary and at the Commission.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, CBOE 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 examined at the places specified in Item
IV below. CBOE has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B),
and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to adopt a PULSe
routing fee for executions of orders on CBOE and CBOE Stock Exchange,
LLC (``CBSX,'' CBOE's stock execution facility) that originate from
non-Trading Permit Holder (``TPH'') PULSe workstations. The Exchange is
also proposing some non-substantive changes to the fees schedule text
to clarify the existing operation of the Routing Intermediary fee.
These changes, which are described in more detail below, will be
effective October 3, 2011.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See e-mail from Jennifer M. Lamie, Assistant Secretary,
CBOE, to Steve L. Kuan, Attorney, Division of Trading and Markets,
Commission, on October 3, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By way of background, the PULSe workstation is a front-end order
entry system designed for use with respect to orders that may be sent
to the trading systems of CBOE and CBSX. In addition, the PULSe
workstation provides a user with the capability to send options orders
to other U.S. options exchanges and stock orders to other U.S. stock
exchanges and trading centers (``away-market routing'').\6\ To use the
away-market routing functionality, a CBOE or CBSX TPH must either be a
PULSe Routing Intermediary or establish a relationship with a third
party PULSe Routing Intermediary. A ``PULSe Routing Intermediary'' is a
CBOE or CBSX TPH that has connectivity to, and is a member of, other
options exchanges and/or stock exchanges and trading

centers. If a TPH sends an order from the PULSe workstation, the PULSe
Routing Intermediary will route that order to the designated market on
behalf of the entering TPH.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For a more detailed description of the PULSe workstation and
its other functionalities, see, e.g., Securities Exchange Act
Release Nos. 62286 (June 11, 2010), 75 FR 34799 (June 18, 2010) (SR-
CBOE-2010-051); 63244 (November 4, 2010), 75 FR 69148 (November 10,
2010) (SR-CBOE-2010-100); 63721 (January 14, 2011), 76 FR 3929
(January 21, 2011) (SR-CBOE-2011-001); and 65280 (September 7,
2011), 76 FR 56838 (September 14, 2011) (SR-CBOE-2011-083).
    \7\ The PULSe workstation offers the ability to route orders to
any market including, among others, CBOE/CBSX affiliate C2 Options
Exchange, Incorporated (``C2''). To the extent a CBOE/CBSX TPH that
is also a C2 TPH obtains a PULSe workstation through CBOE, it is not
necessary for that TPH to obtain a separate PULSe workstation
through C2 to route orders to C2. See, e.g., SR-CBOE-2010-100 and
SR-CBOE-2011-083, note 5, supra. It is also not necessary for that
TPH to utilize the services of a Routing Intermediary to route
orders to C2. As such, to the extent a CBOE/CBSX TPH is also a C2
TPH, the ``Away-Market Routing'' and ``Routing Intermediary'' fees
detailed in the Exchange Fees Schedule are not be applicable because
the fees are only applicable for away-market routing. The TPH would
not be away-market routing, but instead would be submitting orders
directly to CBOE as a CBOE TPH, CBSX as a CBSX TPH or C2 as a C2
TPH, as applicable, where the TPH's activity would be subject to the
transaction fee schedule of CBOE, CBSX or C2, respectively. To the
extent a CBOE/CBSX TPH is not a C2 TPH, the Away-Market Routing and
Routing Intermediary fees would apply for the CBOE/CBSX TPH's
executions on C2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first purpose of this proposed rule change is to adopt a CBOE/
CBSX Routing fee. This fee would be payable by a TPH that makes the
PULSe workstation available to non-TPHs and would only be applicable
for routing to CBOE/CBSX from such non-TPH PULSe workstations. The fee
would be $0.02 per contract or share equivalent for the first 1 million
contracts or share equivalent executed in a month on CBOE/CBSX that
originate from the non-TPH PULSe workstations made available by the
TPH, and $0.03 per contract or share equivalent for each additional
contract or share equivalent executed on CBOE/CBSX in the same month
from the non-TPH PULSe workstations made available by the TPH.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange notes that C2 is submitting a similar rule
change to introduce a ``C2 Routing'' fee that will be applicable to
C2 TPHs. See SR-C2-2011-028. To the extent that a CBOE TPH making
the non-TPH PULSe workstations available is not also a CBSX TPH or a
C2 TPH, routing from the non-TPH workstations to CBSX or C2 would
not be considered ``CBOE/CBSX Routing'' or ``C2 Routing,''
respectively, and, therefore, would not be subject to those fees (it
would instead be considered ``away-market routing'' and subject to
the Away-Market Routing and Routing Intermediary fees described
above). To the extent that a CBOE TPH making the non-TPH PULSe
workstations available is also a CBSX TPH or C2 TPH, routing from
the non-TPH workstations to CBSX or C2 would be considered ``CBOE/
CBSX Routing'' or ``C2 Routing,'' respectively, and therefore would
be subject to the respective fee.
    Example 2: Assume a CBOE TPH that is not a C2 TPH makes a PULSe
workstation available to Non-TPH User A. To the extent that orders
originating from Non-TPH User A's PULSe workstation are routed to
CBOE, any resulting executions would be subject to the CBOE/CBSX
Routing fee. To the extent that orders originating from Non-TPH User
A's PULSe workstation are routed to C2, any resulting executions
would be considered away-market routing and subject to the Away-
Market Routing and Routing Intermediary fees (and not subject to the
C2 Routing fee).
    Example 1: Assume a CBOE TPH that is also a C2 TPH makes a PULSe
workstation available to Non-TPH User A. To the extent that orders
originating from Non-TPH User A's PULSe workstation are routed to
CBOE, any resulting executions would be subject to the CBOE/CBSX
Routing fee. To the extent that orders originating from Non-TPH User
A's PULSe workstation are routed to C2, any resulting executions
would be subject to the C2 Routing fee. (Given the CBOE TPH's status
as a C2 TPH, such orders are not considered away-market routing and
therefore are not subject to the Away-Market Routing and Routing
Intermediary fees.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CBOE/CBSX Routing fee will allow for the recoupment of the
costs of developing, maintaining, and supporting the PULSe workstation
and for income from the value-added services being provided through use
of the PULSe workstation. The Exchange believes the fee structure
represents an equitable allocation of reasonable fees in that the same
fees will be applicable to all TPHs that make PULSe workstations
available to non-TPHs. The Exchange also believes that the
establishment of the fee, which is payable by TPHs only for
transactions originating from non-TPH workstations, is equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory because non-TPHs are able to obtain the
benefits of utilizing the PULSe workstation--including the ability to
route orders to the Exchange--without becoming a TPH (and incurring the
associated costs of TPH membership). In addition, the Exchange believes
that the $0.02/$0.03 CBOE/CBSX Routing fee is reasonable and
appropriate in light of the facts that it is small in relation to the
total costs typically incurred in routing and executing orders and that
the amount is comparable to the Exchange's existing Routing
Intermediary fee for away-market routing. The Exchange notes that the
lower $0.02 rate for the first 1 million contracts or share equivalent
(as compared to the $0.03 rate for each additional contract or share
equivalent) is reasonable in that it is designed to help attract and
encourage use of the PULSe workstation. The Exchange also notes that
use of the PULSe workstation, and the routing technology available
through the PULSe workstation, are not compulsory. The service is
offered as a convenience and is not the exclusive means available to
send or route orders to CBOE or CBSX (or another market).
    The second purpose of this proposed rule change is to revise and
expand on the description in the Fees Schedule text of the ``Routing
Intermediary'' fee.\9\ In particular, the Exchange is renaming the fee
from ``Routing Intermediary'' fee to ``Away-Market Routing
Intermediary'' fee. Because this fee is only applicable when a Routing
Intermediary is routing to away markets, the Exchange believes this
change in title will be more descriptive and helpful to persons reading
the Fees Schedule. Likewise, the Exchange is expanding on the
description in the text to make clear that the ``Away-Market Routing
Intermediary'' fee is payable by a Routing Intermediary and is only
applicable for away-market routing from any PULSe workstation. The
expanded description also makes clear that the fee rates are determined
based on the aggregate level of transactions across all away-markets
and across all PULSe workstations for which firm serves as the Routing
Intermediary. This level of detail on the meaning and application of
the fee was previously included in the discussion section of prior rule
filings and is consistent with the Exchange's original intent and
understanding the fee structure.\10\ The Exchange is simply proposing
to include the clarifying information within the text of the Fees
Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ This fee is currently $0.02 per contract or share equivalent
for the first 1 million contracts or share equivalent executed in a
month and $0.03 per contract or share equivalent for each additional
contract or share equivalent executed in the same month.
    \10\ See, e.g., SR-CBOE-2011-083, note 5, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Act,\11\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of
the Act,\12\ in particular, in that it is designed to provide for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among
TPHs in that the same fees are applicable to all TPHs that utilize the
PULSe workstation or make it available to non-TPHs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the CBOE/CBSX Routing fee in particular, the
Exchange believes that the establishment of the CBOE/CBSX Routing fee,
which is payable by TPHs only for transactions originating from non-TPH
workstations, is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because,
from the TPH perspective, as indicated above, the same fees are
applicable to all TPHs that make the PULSe workstation available to
non-TPHs. In addition, because non-TPHs are able to obtain the benefits
of utilizing the PULSe workstation--including the ability to route
orders to the Exchange--without becoming a TPH (and incurring the
associated costs of TPH membership), the Exchange believes it is
equitable and not unfairly

discriminatory for the Exchange to assess the CBOE/CBSX Routing fee to
TPHs for executions of orders originating from non-TPH PULSe
workstations. The Exchange believes that the $0.02/$0.03 CBOE/CBSX
Routing fee rate itself--which will allow for the recoupment of the
costs of developing, maintaining, and supporting the PULSe workstation
and for income from the value-added services being provided through use
of the PULSe workstation--is reasonable and appropriate in light of the
facts that it is small in relation to the total costs typically
incurred in routing and executing orders and that the amount is
comparable to the Exchange's existing Routing Intermediary fee for
away-market routing. The Exchange also believes that the lower $0.02
rate for the first 1 million contracts or share equivalent (as compared
to the $0.03 rate for each additional contract or share equivalent) is
reasonable in that it is designed to help attract and encourage use of
the PULSe workstation. Finally, in our consideration that the fee is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory, the Exchange note that use
of the PULSe workstation, and the routing technology available through
the PULSe workstation, are not compulsory. The service is offered as a
convenience and is not the exclusive means available to send or route
orders to CBOE or CBSX (or another market).

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of purposes of the Act.

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

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

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

    The proposed rule change is designated by the Exchange as
establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge, thereby
qualifying for effectiveness on filing pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \13\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
\14\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2011-092 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2011-092. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of 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-CBOE-2011-092 and should be
submitted on or before November 1, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-26139 Filed 10-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


 ADVANCE \y63

	UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

	REGION III

1650 Arch Street

	Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19103-2029

										November 17, 2009

Mr. David K. Paylor, Director

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality

P.O. Box 1105

Richmond, Virginia 23218

Dear Mr. Paylor:

On October 15, 2009, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received
a revision to the Virginia State Implementation Plan (SIP) from the
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality pertaining to the revised
definition of “Volatile organic compound,” as well as administrative
changes to 21 other definitions listed in Section 5-10-20 of 9VAC5,
Chapter 10. EPA has determined that the submittal is administratively
and technically complete, and is reviewing it to prepare a Direct Final
Rulemaking Notice (DFRN) action.

If members of your staff have any questions, they may direct them to
Harold A. Frankford, Immediate Office of the Air Protection Division, at
(215) 814-2108.  He is the principal contact for this rulemaking.

	Sincerely,

						Marcia L. Spink, for

           Judith M. Katz, Director

Air Protection Division

	Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474


                            Responsiveness Summary

Introduction 	 	A Notice of Intent to Delete for the Electro-Coatings, Inc. Superfund Site was published in the Federal Register on July 11, 2019 [84 FR 33046].  The publication of this notice was intended to inform the public that EPA planned to delete the Site from the National Priorities List, and provide a 30-day public comment period on the proposed deletion.  The closing date for comments on the Notice of Intent to Delete was August 12, 2019.  Only one written comment was received.  This comment is available in the Information Repositories.  In addition, this  public comment was considered in EPA's final decision to delete the Site from the NPL.

Responsiveness Summary

	The Responsiveness Summary has been prepared to provide responses to comments submitted to EPA during the 30-day public comment period regarding the Notice of Intent to Delete [84 FR 33046] of the Electro-Coatings, Inc. Superfund Site.  The original comment is summarized below and available at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1989-0011, with the support materials under document type "Public Submissions", and at the information repositories at the following addresses: EPA Region 7 Records Center, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; and The Cedar Rapids Downtown Public Library, located at 450 Fifth Avenue SE, Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52401.

Comment:  Mr. Charles Job, Submitter's Representative Organization: National Ground Water Association

Docket Number: EPA-HQ-SFUND-1989-0011. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provided original estimates of cleanup costs many years ago. EPA should succinctly state and report publicly the activities conducted to clean up the site and that will continue to be conducted to protect public health and the environment at the site along with reporting the costs incurred by all parties to date and estimates of costs to be incurred in the future by all parties. This information on current total costs and estimates of future estimates should be routinely reported for all sites that are to be deleted or partially deleted from the National Priorities List. Cost comparisons of past estimates to current cumulative costs should also be included. This information will facilitate public understanding of the cost of remediating these sites of significant contamination of the environment and the resources the public relies on that are managed in public trust by federal and state governments.

Response:

1  -  First EPA would like to thank you for your comments. The deletion of this Superfund facility from the NPL has been conducted in accordance with CERCLA and the NCP.

2  -  The remedy components are described in detail in pages 2-5 in the FCOR present in the deletion docket.  Actions taken are described in detail in both the FCOR and the NOID.

3 - There is a 2007 RA Report described in the FCOR.  The RA Report identifies the activities conducted to clean up the site. The RA Report has been added to the docket and a copy was mailed to you.

4 - The work was performed by the Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) under a CD with the state as a state-lead enforcement action.  PRP costs are considered privileged business information not available to EPA and not required to be reported. The State was consulted and confirmed this information.

5  -  No additional CERCLA actions are specified in the NOID. There will be no more FYRs, so there are no future financial obligations.


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 24, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53723-53724]
[FR Doc No: 2018-23218]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of a Renewed Approval of Information Collection: QSA Customer
Feedback Report

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on the following collection of information was
published on August 15, 2018. The collection involves the voluntary
submission of responses to survey questions. The information is
collected from holders of FAA production approvals and selected
suppliers and provides them an opportunity to offer their input on how
well the agency is performing the administration and conduct of the
Aircraft Certification Systems Quality System Audit (QSA). The
information to be collected will be used to promote continuous
improvement initiatives and industry dialog in the FAA oversight
process.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by November 23, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be
addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of
Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
[email protected], or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW, Washington,
DC 20503.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Hall at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0605.
    Title: QSA Customer Feedback Report.
    Form Numbers: FAA Form 8100-7.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment
period soliciting comments on the following collection of information
was published on August 15, 2018 (83 FR 40619). The feedback
information collection is voluntary and is collected by way of a self-
addressed stamped envelope. It is used by local field offices,
manufacturing inspection offices and the surveillance and oversight
policy section of AIR-600 to improve the administration and conduct of
the QSA at the local and national levels. Improvements to FAA Order
8120.23, Certificate Management of Production Approval Holders, have
been and will continue to be included as policy evolves as a direct
benefit of the on-going collection of that feedback information. It
will also be used for reporting as a Customer Service Standard in
fulfillment of Executive Order 12862, Setting Customer Service
Standards, dated September 11, 1993.
    Respondents: There are approximately 190 holders of FAA production
approvals responding annually. This metric was updated from the 60 day
FRN as a wider sampling was taken to more accurately validate and
maintain consistency with supporting statement responses. Audit
frequencies change from year to year as due dates range from 12 to 48
months. Accordingly, the sampling period was adjusted to capture the
most recent three year period that full data was readily available.
    Frequency: Feedback information is collected about thirty days
after conclusion of the oversight activity. The feedback provided is
voluntarily submitted by the audited facility on occasion which is
predicated on their audit due date frequency.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 30 Minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 95 hours.

    Issued in Washington, DC on October 18, 2018.
Barbara Hall,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, Performance, Policy, and
Records Management Branch, ASP-110.
[FR Doc. 2018-23218 Filed 10-23-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: February 12, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 28)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 7004-7006]
[DOCID:fr12fe09-13]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0045; Directorate Identifier 2007-NE-53-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG
Model BR700-715A1-30, BR700-715B1-30, and BR700-715C1-30 Turbofan
Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    Repair Scheme BRG3086 Issue 1 instructs the repair of the High
Pressure (HP) Compressor Front Drum Assembly Damping Grooves. This
repair has an impact on the life of the High Pressure (HP)
Compressor Front Drum Assembly.

We are proposing this AD to prevent failure of front HP compressor
rotors, which could result in an uncontained engine failure and damage
to the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 16, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
the same as the Mail address provided in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jason Yang, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2009-0045;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NE-53-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact
with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search
function of the Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any
of our dockets, including, if provided, the name of the individual who
sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy
Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65
FR 19477-78).

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2007-0050-E, dated February 26, 2007 (referred
to after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    Repair Scheme BRG3086 Issue 1 instructs the repair of the High
Pressure (HP) Compressor Front Drum Assembly Damping Grooves. This
repair has an impact on the life of the High Pressure (HP)
Compressor Front Drum Assembly. This EAD has been raised to mandate
certain specific CAUTION notes related to specific subtasks of the
BR715 Time Limits Manual (TLM) T-715-3BR instructing a reduced life
for certain Serial Numbers (S/N) of the High Pressure (HP)
Compressor Front Drum Assemblies Part No. BRH20070 after repair
BRG3086 Issue 1 has been applied and Part No. BRR21918 after repair
BRG3086 Issue 1 has been applied. Results for each individual repair
case are listed in the latest revision of Non-Modification Service
Bulletin SB-BR700-72-A900437.

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (RRD) has issued Alert Service
Bulletin (ASB) SB-BR700-72-A900437, Revision 1, dated April 18, 2007.
The actions described in this service information are intended to
correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of the
Federal Republic of Germany, and is approved for operation in the
United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the Federal
Republic of Germany, they have notified us of the unsafe condition
described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are
proposing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by the
EASA, and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist
or develop on other products of the same type design. We are proposing
this AD to require removing the affected HPC front drum assemblies from
operation before reaching the new, reduced life limit.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have found it necessary to differ from the MCAI as follows:
     We don't require operators to amend the Time Limits
Manual.
     We don't allow the operators to show compliance by using
RRD ASB SB-BR700-72-A900437, initial issue, dated February 26, 2007.
Some of the affected parts are not included in the initial issue of the
ASB.
     We have incorporated in this proposed AD, the life
reduction Table for the HPC drum assemblies, by serial number (SN),
that are specified in RRD ASB SB-BR700-72-A900437, Revision 1, dated
April 18, 2007.
     HPC drum assembly, P/N BRH20070 is not affected by the
proposed AD; since only certain HPC drums with P/N BRR21918 were
affected in accordance with RRD ASB SB-BR700-72-A900437, Revision 1,
dated April 18, 2007.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 14 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 10 work-hours per product to comply with this
proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required
parts would cost about $100,000 per product. Based on these figures, we
estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be
$1,411,200. Our cost estimate is exclusive of possible warranty
coverage.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (formerly BMW Rolls-Royce GmbH
and BMW Rolls-Royce Aero Engines): Docket No. FAA-2009-0045;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NE-53-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by March 16, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG model
BR700-715A1-30, BR700-715B1-30, and BR700-715C1-30 turbofan engines.
These engines are installed on, but not limited to, McDonnell
Douglas 717-200 airplanes.

Reason

    (d) Repair Scheme BRG3086 Issue 1 instructs the repair of the
High Pressure (HP) Compressor Front Drum Assembly Damping Grooves.
This repair has an impact on the life of the High Pressure (HP)
Compressor Front Drum Assembly.

    We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of front HP compressor
rotors, which could result in an uncontained engine failure and
damage to the airplane.

Actions and Compliance

    (e) Remove the following HPC drum assemblies from operation
before reaching the life limit specified in Table 1 of this AD.

                                 Table 1--Cyclic Life by Part Number and Mission
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             High Pressure (HP) Compressor Rotor Front Disc Assembly
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       A1-30      B1-30 and C1-30     A1-30      C1-30 Tropical
               Part No.                 Serial No.     design         designs        Hawaiian      and derated
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRR21918.............................         1107        6,600             4,500        6,600             3,800
BRR21918.............................         1120        6,800             4,700        6,800             4,000
BRR21918.............................         1122        7,000             4,900        7,000             4,100
BRR21918.............................         1144        7,300             5,000        7,300             4,200
BRR21918.............................         1154        6,800             4,700        6,800             4,000
BRR21918.............................         1163        6,800             4,700        6,800             4,000
BRR21918.............................         1166        6,500             4,500        6,500             3,800
BRR21918.............................         1194        6,900             4,800        6,900             4,000
BRR21918.............................         1217        7,000             4,900        7,000             4,100
BRR21918.............................         1232        7,200             5,000        7,200             4,200
BRR21918.............................         1255        7,300             5,100        7,300             4,300
BRR21918.............................         1259        7,500             5,200        7,500             4,400
BRR21918.............................         1271        7,300             5,100        7,300             4,300

BRR21918.............................         1292        7,300             5,100        7,300             4,300
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs
for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19.

Related Information

    (g) Refer to MCAI Emergency Airworthiness Directive 2007-0050-E,
dated February 26, 2007, and Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG
Alert Service Bulletin SB-BR700-72-A900437, Revision 1, dated April
18, 2007, for related information. Contact Rolls-Royce Deutschland
Ltd & Co KG, Eschenweg 11, Dahlewitz, 15827 Blankenfelde-Mahlow,
Germany; telephone 49 (0) 33-7086-1768; fax 49 (0) 33-7086-3356, or
go to: http://www.rolls-royce.com/deutschland/en/default.htm, for a
copy of this service information.
    (h) Contact Jason Yang, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification
Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for more information
about this AD.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on January 21, 2009.
Peter A. White,
Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
 [FR Doc. E9-3017 Filed 2-11-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 92 (Thursday, May 12, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29192-29193]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10145]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-94865; File No. SR-NYSEAMER-2022-15]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule
Change To Amend Rule 7.31-E(h)(3)

May 6, 2022.
    On March 9, 2022, NYSE American LLC 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 modify certain factors
relevant to the quote instability calculation for Discretionary Pegged
Orders. The proposed rule change was

published for comment in the Federal Register on March 28, 2022.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94487 (Mar. 22,
2022), 87 FR 17349 (Mar. 28, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding, or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day after publication of the notice for this proposed rule change
is May 12, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is extending the 45-day time period for Commission
action on the proposed rule change. The Commission finds it appropriate
to designate a longer period within which to take action on the
proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the
proposed rule change. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\5\ the Commission designates June 26, 2022, as the date by which
the Commission shall either approve or disapprove, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the proposed rule
change (File No. SR-NYSEAMER-2022-15).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-10145 Filed 5-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


The Connectivity cost includes external fees paid to connect to
other exchanges, cabling and switches, as described above. For purposes
of Full Service MEO Ports, the Exchange also includes a portion of its
costs related to

External Market Data, as described below.
Data Center
    Data Center costs includes an allocation of the costs the Exchange
incurs to provide physical connectivity in the third-party data centers
where it maintains its equipment as well as related costs (the Exchange
does not own the Primary Data Center or the Secondary Data Center, but
instead, leases space in data centers operated by third parties).
External Market Data
    External Market Data includes fees paid to third parties, including
other exchanges, to receive and consume market data from other markets.
The Exchange included External Market Data fees to the provision of
application sessions as such market data is also necessary here (in
addition to physical connectivity) to offer certain services related to
such sessions, such as validating orders on entry against the national
best bid and national best offer and checking for other conditions
(e.g., whether a symbol is halted). This allocation was included as
part of the internet Services cost described above.\129\ Thus, as
market data from other Exchanges is consumed at the application session
level in order to validate orders before additional processing occurs
with respect to such orders, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to
allocate a small amount of such costs to application sessions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \129\ The Exchange notes that MEMX separately allocated 7.5% of
its external market data costs to providing physical connectivity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hardware and Software Maintenance and Licenses
    Hardware and Software Licenses includes hardware and software
licenses used to monitor the health of the order entry services
provided by the Exchange, as described above.
Monthly Depreciation
    All physical assets and software, which also includes assets used
for testing and monitoring of order entry infrastructure, were valued
at cost, depreciated or leased over periods ranging from three to five
years. Thus, the depreciation cost primarily relates to servers
necessary to operate the Exchange, some of which is owned by the
Exchange and some of which is leased by the Exchange in order to allow
efficient periodic technology refreshes. The Exchange allocated 3.9% of
all depreciation costs to providing Full Service MEO Ports. In contrast
to physical connectivity, described above, the Exchange did allocate
depreciation costs for depreciated software necessary to operate the
Exchange to Full Service MEO Ports because such software is related to
the provision of such connectivity.
Allocated Shared Expenses
    Finally, a limited portion of general shared expenses was allocated
to overall Full Service MEO Ports costs as without these general shared
costs the Exchange would not be able to operate in the manner that it
does and provide application sessions. The costs included in general
shared expenses include general expenses of the Exchange, including
office space and office expenses (e.g., occupancy and overhead
expenses), utilities, recruiting and training, marketing and
advertising costs, professional fees for legal, tax and accounting
services (including external and internal audit expenses), and
telecommunications costs. The Exchange again notes that the cost of
paying directors to serve on its Board of Directors is included in the
calculation of Allocated Shared Expenses, and thus a portion of such
overall cost amounting to less than 4.0% of the overall cost for
directors was allocated to providing Full Service MEO Ports. The
Exchange notes that the 3.6% allocation of general shared expenses for
Full Service MEO Ports is lower than that allocated to general shared
expenses for physical connectivity based on its allocation methodology
that weighted costs attributable to each Core Service based on an
understanding of each area. While Full Service MEO Ports have several
areas where certain tangible costs are heavily weighted towards
providing such service (e.g., Data Centers, as described above), 10Gb
ULL connectivity requires a broader level of support from Exchange
personnel in different areas, which in turn leads to a broader general
level of cost to the Exchange. The total monthly cost of $137,012 was
divided by the number of Full Service MEO Ports the Exchange maintained
at the time that proposed pricing was determined (20 total; 16 Full
Service MEO Port, Bulk, and 4 Full Service MEO Port, Single), to arrive
at a cost of approximately $6,851 per month, per Full Service MEO Port.
Cost Analysis--Additional Discussion
    In conducting its Cost Analysis, the Exchange did not allocate any
of its expenses in full to any core services (including physical
connectivity or Full Service MEO Ports) and did not double- count any
expenses. Instead, as described above, the Exchange allocated
applicable cost drivers across its core services and used the same Cost
Analysis to form the basis of this proposal and the filings the
Exchange submitted proposing fees for proprietary data feeds offered by
the Exchange. For instance, in calculating the Human Resources expenses
to be allocated to physical connections, the Exchange has a team of
employees dedicated to network infrastructure and with respect to such
employees the Exchange allocated network infrastructure personnel with
a high percentage of the cost of such personnel (42.9%) given their
focus on functions necessary to provide physical connections. The
salaries of those same personnel were allocated only 12.3% to Full
Service MEO Ports and the remaining 44.8% was allocated to 1Gb
connectivity, other port services, transaction services, membership
services and market data. The Exchange did not allocate any other Human
Resources expense for providing physical connections to any other
employee group, outside of a smaller allocation of 16.9% for 10Gb ULL
connectivity or 17.3% for the entire network, of the cost associated
with certain specified personnel who work closely with and support
network infrastructure personnel. In contrast, the Exchange allocated
much smaller percentages of costs (6.0% or less) across a wider range
of personnel groups in order to allocate Human Resources costs to
providing Full Service MEO Ports. This is because a much wider range of
personnel are involved in functions necessary to offer, monitor and
maintain Full Service MEO Ports but the tasks necessary to do so are
not a primary or full-time function.
    In total, the Exchange allocated 26.9% of its personnel costs to
providing physical connections and 8.3% of its personnel costs to
providing Full Service MEO Ports, for a total allocation of 35.2% Human
Resources expense to provide these specific connectivity services. In
turn, the Exchange allocated the remaining 64.8% of its Human Resources
expense to membership services, transaction services, other port
services and market data. Thus, again, the Exchange's allocations of
cost across core services were based on real costs of operating the
Exchange and were not double-counted across the core services or their
associated revenue streams.
    As another example, the Exchange allocated depreciation expense to
all core services, including physical connections and Full Service MEO
Ports, but in different amounts. The Exchange believes it is reasonable
to allocate the identified portion of such expense because such expense
includes the actual cost of the computer

equipment, such as dedicated servers, computers, laptops, monitors,
information security appliances and storage, and network switching
infrastructure equipment, including switches and taps that were
purchased to operate and support the network. Without this equipment,
the Exchange would not be able to operate the network and provide
connectivity services to its Members and non-Members and their
customers. However, the Exchange did not allocate all of the
depreciation and amortization expense toward the cost of providing
connectivity services, but instead allocated approximately 62.1% of the
Exchange's overall depreciation and amortization expense to
connectivity services (58.2% attributed to 10Gb ULL physical
connections and 3.9% to Full Service MEO Ports). The Exchange allocated
the remaining depreciation and amortization expense (approximately
37.9%) toward the cost of providing transaction services, membership
services, other port services and market data.
    The Exchange notes that its revenue estimates are based on
projections across all potential revenue streams and will only be
realized to the extent such revenue streams actually produce the
revenue estimated. The Exchange does not yet know whether such
expectations will be realized. For instance, in order to generate the
revenue expected from connectivity, the Exchange will have to be
successful in retaining existing clients that wish to maintain physical
connectivity and/or Full Service MEO Ports or in obtaining new clients
that will purchase such services. Similarly, the Exchange will have to
be successful in retaining a positive net capture on transaction fees
in order to realize the anticipated revenue from transaction pricing.
    The Exchange notes that the Cost Analysis is based on the
Exchange's 2023 fiscal year of operations and projections. As such, the
Exchange believes that its costs will remain relatively similar in
future years. It is possible however that such costs will either
decrease or increase. To the extent the Exchange sees growth in use of
connectivity services it will receive additional revenue to offset
future cost increases.
    However, if use of connectivity services is static or decreases,
the Exchange might not realize the revenue that it anticipates or needs
in order to cover applicable costs. Accordingly, the Exchange is
committing to conduct a one-year review after implementation of these
fees. The Exchange expects that it may propose to adjust fees at that
time, to increase fees in the event that revenues fail to cover costs
and a reasonable mark-up of such costs. Similarly, the Exchange would
propose to decrease fees in the event that revenue materially exceeds
our current projections. In addition, the Exchange will periodically
conduct a review to inform its decision making on whether a fee change
is appropriate (e.g., to monitor for costs increasing/decreasing or
subscribers increasing/decreasing, etc. in ways that suggest the then-
current fees are becoming dislocated from the prior cost-based
analysis) and would propose to increase fees in the event that revenues
fail to cover its costs and a reasonable mark-up, or decrease fees in
the event that revenue or the mark-up materially exceeds our current
projections. In the event that the Exchange determines to propose a fee
change, the results of a timely review, including an updated cost
estimate, will be included in the rule filing proposing the fee change.
More generally, we believe that it is appropriate for an exchange to
refresh and update information about its relevant costs and revenues in
seeking any future changes to fees, and the Exchange commits to do so.
Projected Revenue \130\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \130\ For purposes of calculating revenue for 10Gb ULL
connectivity, the Exchange used projected revenues for February
2023, the first full month for which it will provide dedicated 10Gb
ULL connectivity to the Exchange and cease operating a shared 10Gb
ULL network with MIAX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed fees will allow the Exchange to cover certain costs
incurred by the Exchange associated with providing and maintaining
necessary hardware and other network infrastructure as well as network
monitoring and support services; without such hardware, infrastructure,
monitoring and support the Exchange would be unable to provide the
connectivity services. Much of the cost relates to monitoring and
analysis of data and performance of the network via the subscriber's
connection(s). The above cost, namely those associated with hardware,
software, and human capital, enable the Exchange to measure network
performance with nanosecond granularity. These same costs are also
associated with time and money spent seeking to continuously improve
the network performance, improving the subscriber's experience, based
on monitoring and analysis activity. The Exchange routinely works to
improve the performance of the network's hardware and software. The
costs associated with maintaining and enhancing a state-of-the-art
exchange network is a significant expense for the Exchange, and thus
the Exchange believes that it is reasonable and appropriate to help
offset those costs by amending fees for connectivity services.
Subscribers, particularly those of 10Gb ULL connectivity, expect the
Exchange to provide this level of support to connectivity so they
continue to receive the performance they expect. This differentiates
the Exchange from its competitors. As detailed above, the Exchange has
five primary sources of revenue that it can potentially use to fund its
operations: transaction fees, fees for connectivity services,
membership and regulatory fees, and market data fees. Accordingly, the
Exchange must cover its expenses from these five primary sources of
revenue.
    The Exchange's Cost Analysis estimates the annual cost to provide
10Gb ULL connectivity services at $11,567,509. Based on current 10Gb
ULL connectivity services usage, the Exchange would generate annual
revenue of approximately $17,496,000. This represents a modest profit
of 34% when compared to the cost of providing 10Gb ULL connectivity
services. The Exchange's Cost Analysis estimates the annual cost to
provide Full Service MEO Port services at $1,644,132. Based on current
Full Service MEO Port services usage, the Exchange would generate
annual revenue of approximately $1,644,000. This represents a small
negative margin when compared to the cost of providing Full Service MEO
Port services. Even if the Exchange earns those amounts or
incrementally more, the Exchange believes the proposed fees are fair
and reasonable because they will not result in excessive pricing or
supra-competitive profit, when comparing the total expense of the
Exchange associated with providing 10Gb ULL connectivity and Full
Service MEO Port services versus the total projected revenue of the
Exchange associated with network 10Gb ULL connectivity and Full Service
MEO Port services.
* * * * *
    The Exchange has operated at a cumulative net annual loss since it
launched operations in 2017.\131\ The Exchange has operated at a net
loss due to a number of factors, one of which is choosing to forgo
revenue by offering certain products, such as connectivity, at lower
rates than other options

exchanges to attract order flow and encourage market participants to
experience the high determinism, low latency, and resiliency of the
Exchange's trading systems. The Exchange should not now be penalized
for seeking to raise its fees in light of necessary technology changes
and its increased costs after offering such products as discounted
prices. Therefore, the Exchange believes the proposed fees are
reasonable because they are based on both relative costs to the
Exchange to provide dedicated 10Gb ULL connectivity and Full Service
MEO Ports, the extent to which the product drives the Exchange's
overall costs and the relative value of the product, as well as the
Exchange's objective to make access to its Systems broadly available to
market participants. The Exchange also believes the proposed fees are
reasonable because they are designed to generate annual revenue to
recoup the Exchange's costs of providing dedicated 10Gb ULL
connectivity and Full Service MEO Ports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \131\ The Exchange has incurred a cumulative loss of $79 million
since its inception in 2017 to 2021. See Exchange's Form 1/A,
Application for Registration or Exemption from Registration as a
National Securities Exchange, filed July 28, 2021, available at
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/vprr/2100/21000461.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that its revenue estimate is based on
projections and will only be realized to the extent customer activity
actually produces the revenue estimated. As a competitor in the hyper-
competitive exchange environment, and an exchange focused on driving
competition, the Exchange does not yet know whether such projections
will be realized. For instance, in order to generate the revenue
expected from 10Gb ULL connectivity and Full Service MEO Ports, the
Exchange will have to be successful in retaining existing clients that
wish to utilize 10Gb ULL connectivity and Full Service MEO Ports and/or
obtaining new clients that will purchase such access. To the extent the
Exchange is successful in encouraging new clients to utilize 10Gb ULL
connectivity and Full Service MEO Ports, the Exchange does not believe
it should be penalized for such success. The Exchange, like other
exchanges, is, after all, a for-profit business, which provides
economic value to its Members. To the extent the Exchange has mispriced
and experiences a net loss in clients, the Exchange could experience a
net reduction in revenue. While the Exchange believes in transparency
around costs and potential revenue, the Exchange does not believe that
these estimates should form the sole basis of whether or not a proposed
fee is reasonable or can be adopted.
    Further, the proposal reflects the Exchange's efforts to control
its costs, which the Exchange does on an ongoing basis as a matter of
good business practice. A potential profit margin should not be judged
alone based on its size, but is also indicative of costs management and
whether the ultimate fee reflects the value of the services provided.
For example, a profit margin on one exchange should not be deemed
excessive where that exchange has been successful in controlling its
costs, but not excessive where on another exchange where that exchange
is charging comparable fees but has a lower profit margin due to higher
costs. Doing so could have the perverse effect of not incentivizing
cost control where higher costs alone could be used to justify fees
increases.
The Proposed Pricing Is Not Unfairly Discriminatory and Provides for
the Equitable Allocation of Fees, Dues, and Other Charges
    The Exchange believes that the proposed fees are reasonable, fair,
equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory because they are designed to
align fees with services provided and will apply equally to all
subscribers.
10Gb ULL Connectivity
    The Exchange believes that the proposed fees are equitably
allocated among users of the network connectivity and port
alternatives, as the users of 10Gb ULL connections consume
substantially more bandwidth and network resources than users of 1Gb
ULL connection. Specifically, the Exchange notes that 10Gb ULL
connection users account for more than 99% of message traffic over the
network, driving other costs that are linked to capacity utilization,
as described above, while the users of the 1Gb ULL connections account
for less than 1% of message traffic over the network. In the Exchange's
experience, users of the 1Gb connections do not have the same business
needs for the high-performance network as 10Gb ULL users.
    The Exchange's high-performance network and supporting
infrastructure (including employee support), provides unparalleled
system throughput with the network ability to support access to several
distinct options markets. To achieve a consistent, premium network
performance, the Exchange must build out and maintain a network that
has the capacity to handle the message rate requirements of its most
heavy network consumers. These billions of messages per day consume the
Exchange's resources and significantly contribute to the overall
network connectivity expense for storage and network transport
capabilities. The Exchange must also purchase additional storage
capacity on an ongoing basis to ensure it has sufficient capacity to
store these messages to satisfy its record keeping requirements under
the Exchange Act.\132\ Thus, as the number of messages an entity
increases, certain other costs incurred by the Exchange that are
correlated to, though not directly affected by, connection costs (e.g.,
storage costs, surveillance costs, service expenses) also increase.
Given this difference in network utilization rate, the Exchange
believes that it is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly
discriminatory that the 10Gb ULL users pay for the vast majority of the
shared network resources from which all market participants' benefit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \132\ 17 CFR 240.17a-1 (recordkeeping rule for national
securities exchanges, national securities associations, registered
clearing agencies and the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Full Service MEO Ports
    The tiered pricing structure for Full Service MEO Ports has been in
effect since 2018.\133\ The Exchange now proposes a pricing structure
that is used by the Exchange's affiliates, MIAX and MIAX Emerald,
except with lower pricing for each tier for Full Service MEO Ports
(Bulk) and a flat fee for Full Service MEO Ports (Single). Members that
are frequently in the highest tier for Full Service MEO Ports consume
the most bandwidth and resources of the network. Specifically, like
above for the 10Gb ULL connectivity, the Exchange notes that the Market
Makers who reach the highest tier for Full Service MEO Ports (Bulk)
account for approximately greater than 84% of ADV on the Exchange,
while Market Makers that are typically in the lowest Tier for Full
Service MEO Ports, account for approximately less than 14% of ADV on
the Exchange. The remaining 1% is accounted for by Market Makers who
are frequently in the middle Tier for Full Service MEO Ports (Bulk).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \133\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82867 (March 13,
2018), 83 FR 12044 (March 19, 2018) (SR-PEARL-2018-07).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To achieve a consistent, premium network performance, the Exchange
must build out and maintain a network that has the capacity to handle
the message rate requirements of its most heavy network consumers.
Billions of messages per day consume the Exchange's resources and
significantly contribute to the overall network connectivity expense
for storage and network transport capabilities. The Exchange must also
purchase additional storage capacity on an ongoing basis to ensure it
has sufficient capacity to store these messages as part of it
surveillance program and to satisfy its record keeping requirements
under the

Exchange Act.\134\ Thus, as the number of connections a Market Maker
has increases, the related pull on Exchange resources also increases.
The Exchange sought to design the proposed tiered-pricing structure to
set the amount of the fees to relate to the number of connections a
firm purchases. The more connections purchased by a Market Maker likely
results in greater expenditure of Exchange resources and increased cost
to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \134\ 17 CFR 240.17a-1 (recordkeeping rule for national
securities exchanges, national securities associations, registered
clearing agencies and the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further believes that the proposed fees are
reasonable, equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory
because, for the flat fee, the Exchange provides each Member two (2)
Full Service MEO Ports for each matching engine to which that Member is
connected. Unlike other options exchanges that provide similar port
functionality and charge fees on a per port basis,\135\ the Exchange
offers Full Service MEO Ports as a package and provides Members with
the option to receive up to two Full Service MEO Ports per matching
engine to which it connects. The Exchange currently has twelve (12)
matching engines, which means Members may receive up to twenty-four
(24) Full Service MEO Ports for a single monthly fee, that can vary
based on certain volume percentages. The Exchange currently assesses
Members a fee of $5,000 per month in the highest Full Service MEO
Port--Bulk Tier, regardless of the number of Full Service MEO Ports
allocated to the Member. Assuming a Member connects to all twelve (12)
matching engines during a month, with two Full Service MEO Ports per
matching engine, this results in a cost of $208.33 per Full Service MEO
Port--Bulk ($5,000 divided by 24) for the month. This fee has been
unchanged since the Exchange adopted Full Service MEO Port fees in
2018.\136\ Members will continue to receive two (2) Full Service MEO
Ports to each matching engine to which they are connected for the
single flat monthly fee. Assuming a Member connects to all twelve (12)
matching engines during the month, and achieves the highest Tier for
that month, with two Full Service MEO Ports (Bulk) per matching engine,
this would result in a cost of $500 per Full Service MEO Port ($12,000
divided by 24).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \135\ See supra notes 95 to 102 and accompanying text.
    \136\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82867 (March 13,
2018), 83 FR 12044 (March 19, 2018) (SR-PEARL-2018-07).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Intra-Market Competition
    The Exchange believes the proposed fees will not result in any
burden on intra-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed fees
will allow the Exchange to recoup some of its costs in providing 10Gb
ULL connectivity and Full Service MEO Ports at below market rates to
market participants since the Exchange launched operations. As
described above, the Exchange has operated at a cumulative net annual
loss since it launched operations in 2017 \137\ due to providing a low-
cost alternative to attract order flow and encourage market
participants to experience the high determinism and resiliency of the
Exchange's trading Systems. To do so, the Exchange chose to waive the
fees for some non-transaction related services and Exchange products or
provide them at a very lower fee, which was not profitable to the
Exchange. This resulted in the Exchange forgoing revenue it could have
generated from assessing any fees or higher fees. The Exchange could
have sought to charge higher fees at the outset, but that could have
served to discourage participation on the Exchange. Instead, the
Exchange chose to provide a low-cost exchange alternative to the
options industry, which resulted in lower initial revenues. Examples of
this are 10Gb ULL connectivity and Full Service MEO Ports, for which
the Exchange only now seeks to adopt fees at a level similar to or
lower than those of other options exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \137\ See supra note 131.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed fee
increase for the 10Gb ULL connection change would place certain market
participants at the Exchange at a relative disadvantage compared to
other market participants or affect the ability of such market
participants to compete. As is the case with the current proposed flat
fee, the proposed fee would apply uniformly to all market participants
regardless of the number of connections they choose to purchase. The
proposed fee does not favor certain categories of market participants
in a manner that would impose an undue burden on competition.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would
place certain market participants at the Exchange at a relative
disadvantage compared to other market participants or affect the
ability of such market participants to compete. In particular, Exchange
personnel has been informally discussing potential fees for
connectivity services with a diverse group of market participants that
are connected to the Exchange (including large and small firms, firms
with large connectivity service footprints and small connectivity
service footprints, as well as extranets and service bureaus) for
several months leading up to that time. The Exchange does not believe
the proposed fees for connectivity services would negatively impact the
ability of Members, non-Members (extranets or service bureaus), third-
parties that purchase the Exchange's connectivity and resell it, and
customers of those resellers to compete with other market participants
or that they are placed at a disadvantage.
    The Exchange does anticipate, however, that some market
participants may reduce or discontinue use of connectivity services
provided directly by the Exchange in response to the proposed fees. In
fact, as mentioned above, one Member will terminate their membership on
January 1, 2023 as a direct result of the proposed fee changes. The
Exchange does not believe that the proposed fees for connectivity
services place certain market participants at a relative disadvantage
to other market participants because the proposed connectivity pricing
is associated with relative usage of the Exchange by each market
participant and does not impose a barrier to entry to smaller
participants. The Exchange believes its proposed pricing is reasonable
and, when coupled with the availability of third-party providers that
also offer connectivity solutions, that participation on the Exchange
is affordable for all market participants, including smaller trading
firms. As described above, the connectivity services purchased by
market participants typically increase based on their additional
message traffic and/or the complexity of their operations. The market
participants that utilize more connectivity services typically utilize
the most bandwidth, and those are the participants that consume the
most resources from the network. Accordingly, the proposed fees for
connectivity services do not favor certain categories of market
participants in a manner that would impose a burden on competition;
rather, the

allocation of the proposed connectivity fees reflects the network
resources consumed by the various size of market participants and the
costs to the Exchange of providing such connectivity services.
Inter-Market Competition
    The Exchange also does not believe that the proposed rule change
will result in any burden on inter-market competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As
discussed above, options market participants are not forced to connect
to all options exchanges. There is no reason to believe that our
proposed price increase will harm another exchange's ability to
compete. There are other options markets of which market participants
may connect to trade options at higher rates than the Exchange's. There
is also a range of alternative strategies, including routing to the
exchange through another participant or market center or accessing the
Exchange indirectly. Market participants are free to choose which
exchange or reseller to use to satisfy their business needs.
Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe its proposed fee changes
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
    The Exchange also believes that the proposed fees for 10Gb
connectivity are appropriate and warranted in light of it bifurcating
10Gb connectivity between the Exchange and MIAX and would not impose
any burden on competition because this is a technology driven change
that would assist the Exchange in recovering costs related to providing
dedicating 10Gb connectivity to the Exchange while enabling it to
continue to meet current and anticipated demands for connectivity by
its Members and other market participants. Separating its 10Gb network
from MIAX would enable the Exchange to better compete with other
exchanges by ensuring it can continue to provide adequate connectivity
to existing and new Members, which may increase in ability to compete
for order flow and deepen its liquidity pool, improving the overall
quality of its market.
    The proposed rates for 10Gb ULL connectivity are also driven by the
Exchange's need to bifurcate its 10Gb ULL network shared with MIAX so
that it can continue to meet current and anticipated connectivity
demands of all market participants. Similarly, and also in connection
with a technology change, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe'') amended access
and connectivity fees, including port fees.\138\ Specifically, Cboe
adopted certain logical ports to allow for the delivery and/or receipt
of trading messages--i.e., orders, accepts, cancels, transactions, etc.
Cboe established tiered pricing for BOE and FIX logical ports, tiered
pricing for BOE Bulk ports, and flat prices for DROP, Purge Ports, GRP
Ports and Multicast PITCH/Top Spin Server Ports. Cboe argued in its fee
proposal that the proposed pricing more closely aligned its access fees
to those of its affiliated exchanges, and reasonably so, as the
affiliated exchanges offer substantially similar connectivity and
functionality and are on the same platform that Cboe migrated to.\139\
Cboe also justified its proposal by stating that, ``. . . the Exchange
believes substitutable products and services are in fact available to
market participants, including, among other things, other options
exchanges a market participant may connect to in lieu of the Exchange,
indirect connectivity to the Exchange via a third-party reseller of
connectivity and/or trading of any options product, including
proprietary products, in the Over-the-Counter (OTC) markets.'' \140\
Cboe stated in its proposal that,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \138\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90333 (November 4,
2020), 85 FR 71666 (November 10, 2020) (SR-CBOE-2020-105). The
Exchange notes that Cboe submitted this filing after the Staff
Guidance and contained no cost based justification.
    \139\ Id. at 71676.
    \140\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rule structure for options exchanges are also fundamentally
different from those of equities exchanges. In particular, options
market participants are not forced to connect to (and purchase market
data from) all options exchanges. For example, there are many order
types that are available in the equities markets that are not utilized
in the options markets, which relate to mid-point pricing and pegged
pricing which require connection to the SIPs and each of the equities
exchanges in order to properly execute those orders in compliance with
best execution obligations. Additionally, in the options markets, the
linkage routing and trade through protection are handled by the
exchanges, not by the individual members. Thus not connecting to an
options exchange or disconnecting from an options exchange does not
potentially subject a broker-dealer to violate order protection
requirements. Gone are the days when the retail brokerage firms (such
as Fidelity, Schwab, and eTrade) were members of the options
exchanges--they are not members of the Exchange or its affiliates, they
do not purchase connectivity to the Exchange, and they do not purchase
market data from the Exchange. Accordingly, not only is there not an
actual regulatory requirement to connect to every options exchange, the
Exchange believes there is also no ``de facto'' or practical
requirement as well, as further evidenced by the recent significant
reduction in the number of broker-dealers that are members of all
options exchanges.\141\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \141\ Id. at 71676.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal also referenced the National Market System Plan
Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail (``CAT NMS Plan''),\142\ wherein
the Commission discussed the existence of competition in the
marketplace generally, and particularly for exchanges with unique
business models. The Commission acknowledged that, even if an exchange
were to exit the marketplace due to its proposed fee-related change, it
would not significantly impact competition in the market for exchange
trading services because these markets are served by multiple
competitors.\143\ Further, the Commission explicitly stated that
``[c]onsequently, demand for these services in the event of the exit of
a competitor is likely to be swiftly met by existing competitors.''
\144\ Finally, the Commission recognized that while some exchanges may
have a unique business model that is not currently offered by
competitors, a competitor could create similar business models if
demand were adequate, and if a competitor did not do so, the Commission
believes it would be likely that new entrants would do so if the
exchange with that unique business model was otherwise profitable.\145\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \142\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 86901 (September
9, 2019), 84 FR 48458 (September 13, 2019) (File No. S7-13-19).
    \143\ Id.
    \144\ Id.
    \145\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Cboe also filed to establish a monthly fee for Certification
Logical Ports of $250 per Certification Logical Port.\146\ Cboe
reasoned that purchasing additional Certification Logical Ports, beyond
the one Certification Logical Port per logical port type offered in the
production environment free of charge, is voluntary and not required in
order to participate in the production

environment, including live production trading on the Exchange.\147\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \146\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94512 (March 24,
2002), 87 FR 18425 (March 30, 2022) (SR-Cboe-2022-011). Cboe offers
BOE and FIX Logical Ports, BOE Bulk Logical Ports, DROP Logical
Ports, Purge Ports, GRP Ports and Multicast PITCH/Top Spin Server
Ports. For each type of the aforementioned logical ports that are
used in the production environment, the Exchange also offers
corresponding ports which provide Trading Permit Holders and non-
TPHs access to the Exchange's certification environment to test
proprietary systems and applications (i.e., ``Certification Logical
Ports'').
    \147\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94512 (March 24,
2002), 87 FR 18425 (March 30, 2022) (SR-Cboe-2022-011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its statutory basis, Cboe justified the new port fee by stating
that it believed the Certification Logical Port fee were reasonable
because while such ports were no longer completely free, TPHs and non-
TPHs would continue to be entitled to receive free of charge one
Certification Logical Port for each type of logical port that is
currently offered in the production environment.\148\ Cboe noted that
other exchanges assess similar fees and cited to NASDAQ LLC and
MIAX.\149\ Cboe also noted that the decision to purchase additional
ports is optional and no market participant is required or under any
regulatory obligation to purchase excess Certification Logical Ports in
order to access the Exchange's certification environment.\150\ Finally,
similar proposals to adopt a Certification Logical Port monthly fee
were filed by Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc.,\151\ BZX,\152\ and Cboe EDGA
Exchange, Inc.\153\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \148\ Id. at 18426.
    \149\ Id.
    \150\ Id.
    \151\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94507 (March 24,
2002), 87 FR 18439 (March 30, 2022) (SR-CboeBYX-2022-004).
    \152\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94511 (March 24,
2002), 87 FR 18411 (March 30, 2022) (SR-CboeBZX-2022-021).
    \153\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94517 (March 25,
2002), 87 FR 18848 (March 31, 2022) (SR-CboeBZX-2022-021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Cboe fee proposals described herein were filed subsequent to
the D.C. Circuit decision in Susquehanna Int'l Grp., LLC v. SEC, 866
F.3d 442 (D.C. Cir. 2017), meaning that such fee filings were subject
to the same (and current) standard for SEC review and approval as this
proposal. In summary, the Exchange requests the Commission apply the
same standard of review to this proposal which was applied to the
various Cboe and Cboe affiliated markets' filings with respect to non-
transaction fees. If the Commission were to apply a different standard
of review to this proposal than it applied to other exchange fee
filings it would create a burden on competition such that it would
impair the Exchange's ability to make necessary technology driven
changes, such as bifurcating its 10Gb ULL network, because it would be
unable to monetize or recoup costs related to that change and compete
with larger, non-legacy exchanges.
* * * * *
    In conclusion, as discussed thoroughly above, the Exchange
regrettably believes that the application of the Revised Review Process
and Staff Guidance has adversely affected inter-market competition
among legacy and non-legacy exchanges by impeding the ability of non-
legacy exchanges to adopt or increase fees for their market data and
access services (including connectivity and port products and services)
that are on parity or commensurate with fee levels previously
established by legacy exchanges. Since the adoption of the Revised
Review Process and Staff Guidance, and even more so recently, it has
become extraordinarily difficult to adopt or increase fees to generate
revenue necessary to invest in systems, provide innovative trading
products and solutions, and improve competitive standing to the benefit
of non-legacy exchanges' market participants. Although the Staff
Guidance served an important policy goal of improving disclosures and
requiring exchanges to justify that their market data and access fee
proposals are fair and reasonable, it has also negatively impacted non-
legacy exchanges in particular in their efforts to adopt or increase
fees that would enable them to more fairly compete with legacy
exchanges, despite providing enhanced disclosures and rationale under
both competitive and cost basis approaches provided for by the Revised
Review Process and Staff Guidance to support their proposed fee
changes.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\154\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \155\ thereunder.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change,
the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such
action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether
the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \154\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \155\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-PEARL-2022-62 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-PEARL-2022-62. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-PEARL-2022-62 and should be submitted on
or before February 7, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\156\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \156\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-00662 Filed 1-13-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 30, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4192-4193]
[FR Doc No: 2018-01788]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[P-2444-028]

Northern States Power Company; Notice of Application Accepted for
Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Extension of time request.
    b. Project No.: 2444-028.
    c. Date Filed: December 8, 2017, and supplemented January 12, 2018.
    d. Applicant: Northern States Power Company.
    e. Name of Project: White River Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the White River in Ashland
County, Wisconsin.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. William P. Zawacki, Director of Hydro
Plants, 1414 W. Hamilton Ave., P.O. Box 8, Eau Claire, WI 54702, (715)
737-1136.
    i. FERC Contact: Steven Sachs,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].
    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests
is 30 days from the issuance of this notice by the Commission. The
Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments,
motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling
system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/doc-sfiling/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact
information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at [email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll
free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please
send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing
should include docket number P-2444-028.
    k. Description of Request: The applicant requests an extension
until January 31, 2021 to continue operating the project under the
temporarily amended Reservoir Operating Plan. The amended plan allows
the applicant to operate the reservoir up to an elevation of 712.6 feet
above mean sea level, or one foot above the normally required maximum
elevation. The applicant has been allowed to operate with the higher
reservoir elevation since August 1, 2016 due to a turbine failure,
which limited operational flexibility. At the end of the extended
period, the applicant would return to the previously required elevation
or request that the temporary amendment be made permanent.
    l. Locations of the Applications: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE, Room 2A, Washington, DC
20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. The filing may also be viewed on
the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits
in the docket number field to access the document. You may also
register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to
be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email
[email protected], for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Motions to Intervene, or Protests: Anyone may submit
comments, a motion to intervene, or a protest in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, motions to
intervene, or protests must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1)
bear in all capital letters the title COMMENTS, MOTION TO INTERVENE, or
PROTEST as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the
applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing
responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the
person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, motions
to intervene, or protests must set forth their evidentiary basis and
otherwise comply with the

requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or
protests should relate to project works which are the subject of the
temporary variance request. Agencies may obtain copies of the
application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or
motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the
applicant specified in the particular application. If an intervener
files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits
of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular
resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that
resource agency. A copy of all other filings in reference to this
application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons
listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this
proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    Dated: January 23, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-01788 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P