[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 163 (Friday, August 21, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51828-51830]
[FR Doc No: 2020-18349]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-89580; File No. SR-IEX-2020-11]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Investors Exchange LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend IEX
Rules 2.220(a)(7) and 11.410(a) To Include MEMX LLC in the List of Away
Trading Centers to Which the Exchange Routes and the Market Data
Sources the Exchange Will Use To Determine MEMX's Top of Book Quotation

August 17, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the

``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given that
on August 12, 2020, the Investors Exchange LLC (``IEX'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Act,\4\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\5\ IEX is filing with the Commission a
proposed rule change to amend IEX Rules 2.220(a)(7) and 11.410(a) to
include MEMX LLC (``MEMX'') in the list of away trading centers to
which the Exchange routes and the market data sources the Exchange will
use to determine MEMX's Top of Book \6\ quotation, in anticipation of
MEMX's planned launch. The Exchange has designated this rule change as
``non-controversial'' under Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \7\ and
provided the Commission with the notice required by Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \6\ See IEX Rule 11.410(a)(1).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
website at www.iextrading.com, at the principal office of the Exchange,
and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
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 statement [sic] may be examined
at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory
organization has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C
below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend IEX Rules 2.220(a)(7) \9\ and
11.410(a) \10\ to include MEMX LLC (``MEMX'') in the list of away
trading centers to which the Exchange routes and the market data
sources the Exchange will use to determine Top of Book \11\ quotations,
in anticipation of MEMX's planned exchange launch on September 4,
2020.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ IEX Rule 2.220(a)(7) lists the away trading centers that IEX
Services LLC (``IEX Services'') routes to as outbound router for the
Exchange.
    \10\ IEX Rule 11.410(a) specifies the market data sources for
each away trading center that the Exchange uses for necessary price
reference points.
    \11\ See IEX Rule 11.410(a)(1).
    \12\ See https://memx.com/memx-update/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend IEX Rule 2.220(a)(7)
to add MEMX LLC to the list of away trading centers to which IEX
Services routes orders. As set forth in IEX Rule 11.230(b)(2), IEX
Services routes eligible orders to away trading centers with accessible
Protected Quotations in compliance with Regulation NMS Rule 611.\13\
The Exchange must include MEMX in its list of away trading centers to
which it routes, because MEMX's best-priced, displayed quotation will
be a Protected Quotation under Regulation NMS Rule 600(b)(62) \14\ for
purposes of Regulation NMS Rule 611.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 242.611.
    \14\ 17 CFR 242.600(b)(62).
    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88806 (May 4,
2020), 85 FR 27451, 27461 (May 8, 2020) (File No. 10-237) (Order
approving MEMX application for registration as a national securities
exchange).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to amend and update the table in IEX
Rule 11.410(a) specifying the primary and secondary sources for MEMX
market data as a result of MEMX's establishment of MEMOIR Depth and
MEMOIR Top \16\ (``MEMX Market Data Feeds'' or ``direct feeds''). As
specified in IEX Rule 11.410(a)(2), the Exchange uses market data from
each away trading center that produces a Protected Quotation \17\ to
determine each away trading center's Top of Book quotation, as well as
the NBBO \18\ for certain reporting, regulatory and compliance systems
within IEX. As proposed, the Exchange will use the direct feeds as the
primary source to determine MEMX's Top of Book quotes. The Exchange
also proposes to use securities information processor (``SIP'') data,
i.e., CQS SIP data for securities reported under the Consolidated
Quotation Services and Consolidated Tape Association plans and UQDF SIP
data for securities reported under the Nasdaq Unlisted Trading
Privileges plan, as the secondary source to determine MEMX's Top of
Book quotes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See MEMX Rule 13.8.
    \17\ See IEX Rule 1.160(bb).
    \18\ See IEX Rule 1.160(u).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is not proposing any other changes to IEX Rules
2.220(a)(7) and 11.410. The proposed changes do not alter the manner in
which orders are handled or routed by the Exchange.
2. Statutory Basis
    IEX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 6(b) \19\ of the Act in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \20\ in particular, in that it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons discussed in the Purpose section, the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change removes impediments to and
perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and protects investors
and the public interest because including MEMX in the list of away
trading centers to which IEX routes and including the MEMX Market Data
Feeds in the primary sources of market data the Exchange will use to
determine away trading center Top of Book quotes (with the SIP as the
secondary source) will facilitate the Exchange's compliance with the
applicable requirements of Regulation NMS.
    Additionally, adding MEMX to the list of away trading centers to
which IEX routes and listing the MEMX Market Data Feeds as the primary
source of market data the Exchange will use to determine away trading
center Top of Book quotes (with the SIP as the secondary source)
provides transparency with respect to the away trading centers to which
IEX Services may route orders and the source of market data the
Exchange will use to determine MEMX's Top of Book quotes.

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

    IEX does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance

of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the proposed
update does not impact competition in any respect since its purpose is
to enhance transparency with respect to the operation of the Exchange
and its use of market data feeds, and to update an away market name.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \21\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \22\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \23\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \24\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \24\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change will merely amend IEX rules to reflect the
launch of MEMX as an away trading center with a Protected Quote and
specify that IEX will route orders to MEMX and use the MEMX Market Data
Feeds as the primary source, and the SIP as the secondary source, to
determine MEMX's Top of Book quotation.
    The Exchange believes that waiver of the operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because it will allow the Exchange to implement the proposed rule
change concurrent with MEMX's exchange launch of equities trading,
thereby facilitating IEX's compliance with the applicable requirements
of Regulation NMS and providing clarity to market participants with
respect to whether IEX routes to MEMX and how IEX determines MEMX's Top
of Book quotation. The Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day
operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest because the proposed rule change does not raise any new
or novel issues. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the operative
delay and designates the proposal as operative upon filing.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission also has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \26\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-IEX-2020-11 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-IEX-2020-11. 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 will also be available for inspection
and copying at the IEX's principal office and on its internet website
at www.iextrading.com. 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-IEX-2020-11
and should be submitted on or before September 11, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\27\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-18349 Filed 8-20-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: July 29, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 145)]
[Notices]
[Page 44801]
[DOCID:fr29jy10-60]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1923-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2010-0002]

Wyoming; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Wyoming (FEMA-1923-DR), dated July 14, 2010,
and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: July 14, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Recovery Directorate,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated July 14, 2010, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Wyoming resulting from flooding during the period of June 4-18,
2010, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major
disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in
the State of Wyoming.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Steven S. Ward, of FEMA is appointed
to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Wyoming have been designated as
adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Fremont County and the portions of the Wind River Indian
Reservation that lie within Fremont County for Public Assistance.
    All counties and Tribes within the State of Wyoming are eligible
to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2010-18589 Filed 7-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 21, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10591-10592]
[FR Doc No: 2023-03473]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-96910; File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2023-011]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Applicable Exchange Rules, Usage of Data Feeds, To Disclose That
the Exchange Will Utilize Direct Data Feeds From MEMX LLC

February 14, 2023.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on February 9, 2023, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``EDGX'') proposes to
update Rule 13.4(a), Usage of Data feeds, to disclose that the Exchange
will utilize direct data feeds from MEMX LLC (``MEMX'') when
performing: (i) order handling; (ii) order routing; (iii) order
execution; and (iv) related compliance processes. The Exchange has
designated the proposed rule change as noncontroversial and provided
the Commission with notice required by Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) under the
Act. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/options/regulation/rule_filings/edgx/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to update Exchange Rule 13.4(a) \3\ regarding
the public disclosure of the sources of data that the Exchange utilizes
when performing: (i) order handling; (ii) order routing; (iii) order
execution; and (iv) related compliance processes. The Exchange
currently utilizes MEMX market data from the Consolidated Quotation
system (``CQS'')/UTP Quotation Data Feed (``UQDF'') for these purposes
on EDGX. The Exchange intends to begin to utilize MEMX's direct feeds
in place of market data from the CQS/UQDF. Accordingly, the Exchange
seeks to amend Exchange Rule 13.4(a) to reflect that the Exchange will
utilize MEMX's direct feeds in place of market data from the CQS/UQDF
when performing order handling, order execution, routing, and related
compliance processes for equity securities on EDGX. Once the Exchange
begins to utilize direct feeds from MEMX, the Exchange will begin to
utilize the CQS/UQDF as a secondary source of data from MEMX on EDGX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange plans to implement the proposed rule change on
a date that will be circulated in a notice from the CboeTrade Desk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of section 6(b) of the Act.\4\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
section 6(b)(5) \5\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
section 6(b)(5) \6\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes that its proposal to update
Exchange Rule 13.4(a) to include the MEMX direct feeds will ensure that
the Rule correctly identifies and publicly states on a market-by-market
basis all the specific network processor and proprietary data feeds
that the Exchange utilizes for the handling, routing, and execution of
orders, and for performing the regulatory compliance checks related to
each of those functions. The proposed rule change also removes
impediments to and perfects the mechanisms of a free and open market to
protect investors and the public interest because it provides
additional specificity, clarity and transparency.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Rather, the Exchange
believes the proposal will enhance competition by because including all
of the exchanges enhances transparency and enables investors to better
assess the quality of the Exchange's execution and routing services.
The Exchange also believes the proposal will enhance competition
because it will potentially enhance the performance of its order
handling and execution of orders in equity securities by receiving
market data directly from MEMX. Finally, the proposed rule change will
not impact competition between market participants because it will
affect all market participants equally.

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

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

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \7\ and Rule

19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\8\ Because the proposed rule change does not:
(i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative prior to 30 days from the date on which it was filed,
or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, if consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed
rule change has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the
Act \9\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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 under
section 19(b)(2)(B) \11\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2023-011 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2023-011. 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-CboeEDGX-2023-011 and should be
submitted on or before March 14, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-03473 Filed 2-17-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 97 (Monday, May 20, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29398-29399]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11891]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Form N-SAR. OMB Control No. 3235-0330, SEC File No. 270-292.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments

on the collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans
to submit this existing collection of information to the Office of
Management and Budget (``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    Form N-SAR (OMB Control No. 3235-0330, 17 CFR 249.330) is the form
used by all registered investment companies with the exception of face
amount certificate companies, to comply with the periodic filing and
disclosure requirements imposed by Section 30 of the Investment Company
Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.) (``Investment Company Act''), and
of rules 30a-1 and 30b1-1 thereunder (17 CFR 270.30a-1 and 17 CFR
270.30b1-1). The information required to be filed with the Commission
assures the public availability of the information and permits
verification of compliance with Investment Company Act requirements.
Registered unit investment trusts are required to provide this
information on an annual report filed with the Commission on Form N-SAR
pursuant to rule 30a-1 under the Investment Company Act, and registered
management investment companies must submit the required information on
a semi-annual report on Form N-SAR pursuant to rule 30b1-1 under the
Investment Company Act.
    The Commission estimates that the total number of respondents is
3,270 and the total annual number of responses is 5,770 ((2,500
management investment company respondents x 2 responses per year) +
(770 unit investment trust respondents x 1 response per year)). The
Commission estimates that each registrant filing a report on Form N-SAR
would spend, on average, approximately 14.25 hours in preparing and
filing reports on Form N-SAR and that the total hour burden for all
filings on Form N-SAR would be 82,223 hours.
    The collection of information under Form N-SAR is mandatory.
Responses to the collection of information will not be kept
confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: May 14, 2013.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-11891 Filed 5-17-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 56 (Thursday, March 22, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12486-12488]
[FR Doc No: 2018-05631]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0267; FRL-9975-78--Region 7]

Approval of Implementation Plans; State of Iowa; Elements of the
Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve certain elements of a 2013 State Implementation Plan
(SIP) submission from the State of Iowa for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). States
are required to have a SIP that provides for the implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. Whenever EPA promulgates a
new or revised NAAQS, states are required to make a SIP submission
establishing that the existing approved SIP has provisions necessary to
address various requirements to address the new or revised NAAQS or to
add such provisions. These SIPs submissions are commonly referred to as
``infrastructure'' SIPs. The infrastructure SIP requirements are
designed to ensure that the structural components of each state's air
quality management program are adequate to meet the state's
responsibilities under the CAA.

DATES: This final rule is effective on April 23, 2018.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0267. All documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov or please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heather Hamilton, Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by
addressing the following:

I. Background
II. What is being addressed in this document?
III. Have the requirements for approval of the SIP submission been
met?
IV. EPA's Response to Comments
V. What action is EPA taking?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    EPA received Iowa's 2010 SO2 NAAQS infrastructure SIP
submission on July 29, 2013. On September 29, 2017, EPA proposed to
approve elements of this submission. See 82 FR 45550. In conjunction
with the September 29, 2017 notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR), EPA
issued a direct final rule (DFR) approving the same elements of the
2010 SO2 NAAQS infrastructure SIP. See 82 FR 45497. However,
in the DFR, EPA stated that if EPA received adverse comments by October
30, 2017, the action would be withdrawn and not take effect. EPA
received three comments prior to the close of the comment period which
were adverse. EPA withdrew the DFR on November 14,2017. See 82 FR
54300. This action is a final rule based on the NPR. A detailed
discussion of Iowa's SIP submission and EPA's rationale for approving
the SIP submission were provided in the DFR and the associated
Technical Support Document in the docket for this rulemaking and will
not be restated here, except to the extent relevant to our response to
the public comment we received.

II. What is being addressed in this document?

    EPA is approving certain elements of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS
infrastructure SIP submission from the State of Iowa received on July
29, 2013. Specifically, EPA is approving Iowa's submission with regard
to the following elements of section 110(a)(2): (A), (B), (C),
(D)(i)(II)--prevent of significant deterioration of air quality (prong
3), (D)(ii), (E) through (H), and (J) through (M).
    EPA is not taking action at this time on the following elements for
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--significant
contribution to nonattainment (prong 1) and interfering with
maintenance of the NAAQS (prong 2), and section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--
protection of visibility (prong 4).

III. Have the requirements for approval of the SIP submission been met?

    The state met the public notice requirements for SIP submission in
accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The state initiated public comment from
April 6, 2013, to May 8, 2013. One comment was received and adequately
addressed in the final SIP submission. This submission also satisfied
the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In addition,
as explained above and in more detail in the technical support document
which is part of the docket for this rulemaking, the submission meets
the applicable substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including
section 110 and implementing regulations.

IV. EPA's Response to Comments

    The public comment period on EPA's proposed rule opened September
29, 2017, the date of its publication in the Federal Register, and
closed on October 30, 2017. During this period, EPA received three
public comments on the proposal to approve certain elements of Iowa's
2010 SO2 infrastructure SIP submission, one of which is
addressed below. The other two comments were not specific to this
action, which is concerned with evaluating whether Iowa has the
required elements in place to implement, maintain, and enforce the
NAAQS, and thus no further response is required.
    Comment: The commenter stated that EPA must act on 110(a)(2)(D)(I)
prong 1 (significant contribution to nonattainment), prong 2
(interference with maintenance), and 110(a)(2)(D)(II), prong 4
(interference with visibility protection.) The commenter asserted that
EPA had stated in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for the proposed
action that ``EPA WILL NOT ACT on [prongs 1, 2 and 4]'' (emphasis added
in comment). The commenter went on to state that EPA was therefore
stating that it ``will never act and does not need to act on these
elements.'' The

commenter further stated that EPA does not have the discretionary
authority to not act on a state's submission. The commenter indicated
that if EPA does not believe prongs 1 and 2 are approvable, then EPA
must disapprove; if EPA does not believe prong 4 is approvable due to
the lack of an approved regional haze program, then EPA must disapprove
the state's submission and promulgate a FIP to address regional haze.
The commenter concluded by stating that the comment letter constitutes
notice of intent to sue the agency for failure to perform its
nondiscretionary duty under 110(k)(2) to act on Iowa's prongs 1, 2, and
4.
    EPA's response: EPA disagrees with this comment. First, EPA's TSD
\1\ does not state that ``EPA will not act'' on the SIP submission with
respect to prongs 1, 2, and 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D), and does not
imply that EPA ``will never act and does not need to act on these
elements.'' Rather, the TSD states, ``With this action, EPA will not be
acting on 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--prongs 1 and 2, and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--
prong 4.'' That is, the TSD merely explains that EPA is not taking
action on prongs 1, 2, and 4 in this rulemaking, not that it does not
have an obligation to act on those elements of the SIP submission at
issue, or that it will never do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ www.regulations.gov, Docket: EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0267,
Supporting Documents; R7 Technical Support Document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is not required to act on the prong 1, 2, or 4 elements of
Iowa's 2010 SO2 infrastructure SIP submission in this
particular rulemaking. Although EPA agrees with the commenter that it
has an obligation to take action under section 110(k) on SIP
submissions, EPA disagrees with the argument that the Agency cannot
elect to act on individual parts or elements of a state's
infrastructure SIP submission in separate rulemakings, as it deems
appropriate. Section 110(k) of the CAA authorizes EPA to approve a SIP
submission in full, disapprove it in full, or approve it in part and
disapprove it in part, or conditionally approve it in full or in part,
depending on the extent to which such plan meets the requirements of
the CAA. This authority to approve state SIP submissions in separable
parts was included in the 1990 Amendments to the CAA to overrule a
decision in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit holding that EPA
could not approve individual measures in a SIP submission without
either approving or disapproving the plan as a whole. See S. Rep. No.
101-228, at 22, 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3385, 3408 (discussing the express
overruling of Abramowitz v. EPA, 832 F.2d 1071 (9th Cir. 1987)).
    EPA interprets its authority under section 110(k) of the CAA as
affording the Agency the discretion to approve, disapprove, or
conditionally approve, individual elements of Iowa's infrastructure SIP
submission for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. EPA views discrete
infrastructure SIP requirements, such as the requirements of
110(a)(2)(d)(i)(I) and (II), as severable from other infrastructure SIP
elements and interprets section 110(k) as allowing it to act on
individual severable elements or requirements in a SIP submission. In
short, EPA has the discretion under section 110(k) of the CAA to act
upon the various individual elements of a state's infrastructure SIP
submission, separately or together, as appropriate. EPA will address
the remaining elements of Iowa's 2010 SO2 infrastructure SIP
submission in a separate rulemaking action or actions.
    In EPA's rulemaking proposing to approve Iowa's infrastructure SIP
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, EPA stated that it was not
taking any action with respect to the good neighbor provisions in
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for this NAAQS. EPA understands the
commenter's concern with respect to interstate transport. EPA will
evaluate whether it is appropriate to make a finding of failure to
submit in a separate action as the state did not make a submission to
satisfy 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
    With respect to the comment on prong 4 in particular, although
EPA's evaluation of a state's SIP submission can be related to the
status of that state's regional haze program,\2\ Iowa's regional haze
program is not relevant here because EPA is not taking action on that
element of Iowa's SO2 infrastructure SIP submission in this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA's 2013 Guidance of Infrastructure State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) provides that ``[o]ne way in which prong 4 may be
satisfied for any relevant NAAQS is through an air agency's
confirmation in its infrastructure SIP submission that it has an
approved regional haze SIP. . . . .'' 2013 Guidance at 33, https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/urbanair/sipstatus/docs/Guidance_on_Infrastructure_SIP_Elements_Multipollutant_FINAL_Sept_2013.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, a public comment submitted on a proposal does not
constitute notice of intent to sue the Administrator for failure to
perform a nondiscretionary duty. Clean Air Act section 304(b)(2)
requires 60 days' notice of a civil action against the Administrator
for an alleged failure to perform a non-discretionary duty to the
Administrator. EPA's regulations require that service of notice to the
Administrator ``shall be accomplished by certified mail addressed to
the Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC
20460.'' 40 CFR 54.2(a). The commenter's public comment submitted via
regulations.gov does not satisfy the regulatory requirements for
notices of intent to file suit against the Administrator for failure to
perform a non-discretionary duty.

V. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is taking final action to approve Iowa's 2013 infrastructure
SIP submission for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS with regard to the
following elements of section 110(a)(2): (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II)--
prevent significant deterioration of air quality (prong 3), (D)(ii),
(E) through (H), and (J) through (M).
    EPA is not taking action on sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), prongs 1
and 2, and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), prong 4. The agency will act on those
elements of the SIP submission in a separate rulemaking action or
action.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 21, 2018. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Sulfur dioxide, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 8, 2018.
James B. Gulliford,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52
as set forth below:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart Q--Iowa

0
2. Section 52.820 is amended by adding new paragraph (e)(47) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.820  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Iowa Nonregulatory SIP Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Applicable
   Name of nonregulatory SIP        geographic or         State       EPA approval date        Explanation
            revision             nonattainment area  submittal date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
(47) Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)  Statewide.........       7/23/2013  3/22/2018, [Insert  This action addresses
 Infrastructure Requirements                                          Federal Register    the following CAA
 2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS.                                           citation].          elements:
                                                                                110(a)(2)(A), (B),
                                                                                (C), D(i)(II) prong 3
                                                                                only, D(ii), (E), (F),
                                                                                (G), (H), (J), (K),
                                                                                (L), and (M). [EPA-R07-
                                                                                OAR-2017-0267; FRL-
                                                                                9975-78-Region 7].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2018-05631 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Home Address: 	City: 	State:

Equipment Specification, Design, and Documentation

Equipment	1.1 Condenser mfr., model, & serial #:

1.2 Evaporator mfr., model, & serial #:

1.3 ARI reference number:

	Design	2.1 Heat gain calculation method compliant with Manual J or equivalent, using the following assumptions? 1               	Yes / No

	           2.1.1   Outdoor Design Temperature:

           a) 99.0% design as published in ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals, OR

           b) Based on prevailing local practice reflecting documented weather data

Yes / No

Yes / No

	           2.1.2  Indoor setpoint set at 75° F	Yes / No

	           2.1.3   Infiltration rate set at ‘Tight’	Yes / No

	2.2 Duct design method compliant with Manual D or equivalent? 3                   	Yes / No

	2.3 Equipment specification method compliant with Manual S or equivalent? 3      	Yes / No

	2.4 Terminal design method compliant with Manual T or equivalent? 3	Yes / No

	2.5 In Warm, Humid counties in Climate Zones 1-3, equipment’s sensible heat ratio < 0.70 or stand-alone ENERGY STAR qualified humidifier installed? 4	Yes / No / N/A

	2.6  Corrosion-resistant drain pan, properly sloped to drainage system 5	Yes / No

Documentation	3.1 ARI certificate attached?	Yes / No

Field Verification	Design

Value	Field

Value	Variance In Values

Equipment Capacity	4.1 Latent heat gain (BTUH): 6

4.2 Sensible heat gain (BTUH): 6

4.3 Total heat gain (BTUH): 6

	Air Flow	5.1 Airflow at evaporator (CFM): 6,7

5.2 Duct static pressure – supply (WC): 6

5.3 Duct static pressure – return (WC): 6

5.4 Fan motor type (fixed speed, variable speed):

	N/A

	5.5 Fan speed setting (CFM): 6

	Refrigerant Charge 8

	6.1 Refrigerant type (R-22, R-410a):

	N/A

	6.2 Metering device (TXV, fixed orifice):

	N/A

	6.3 Return air temp. (°F dry bulb /  °F wet bulb): 9	N/A

N/A

	6.4 Supply air temp. ( °F dry bulb /  °F wet bulb): 9	N/A

N/A

	6.5 Outdoor ambient air temp. at condenser (°F dry bulb):	N/A

N/A

	6.6 Liquid line temperature & pressure (°F / psi):	N/A

N/A

	6.7 Suction line temperature & pressure (°F / psi):	N/A

N/A

	6.8 Condensing temperature (°F): 10	N/A

N/A

	6.9 Evaporating temperature (°F): 11	N/A

N/A

	6.10 For non-Lennox TXV devices:                                  Subcooling temp. (condensing temp – liquid line temp.) 12

6.11 For Lennox TXV devices:                                            Approach temp. (liquid line temp.–outdoor ambient temp.)13

6.12 For fixed orifice devices:                                          Superheat temp. (suction line temp. – evaporating temp.):14

	Technician name: 	Equipment Installation Date:

Technician Signature: 	Company Name:

This checklist applies to split air conditioners, unitary air conditioners, and air-source/water-source heat pumps up to 65,000 BTU/H.  All other equipment is exempt.

This checklist shall be provided by the EPA-approved verifier to the HVAC contractor who shall complete one checklist for each system.  Upon completion, the HVAC contractor shall return the checklist(s) to the EPA-approved verifier for review.

Cooling loads shall be calculated, equipment capacity shall be selected, and duct systems shall be sized according to the latest editions of ACCA Manuals J, S, D, & T, respectively, ASHRAE 2001 Handbook of Fundamentals, or an equivalent procedure.  Maximum oversizing limit for air conditioners and air-source and ground-source heat pumps is 15% with the exceptions that single-speed air-source and ground-source heat pumps in buildings with heating loads that exceed cooling loads have a limit of 25%; and multi-stage heat pumps do not have a strict limit, but should be sized to allow adequate humidity control in the cooling mode.  The following operating conditions must be used in the sizing calculations and verified by the rater:

Outdoor temperatures must be the 99.0% design temperatures as published in the ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals for the home’s location or most representative city for which design temperature data are available. Note that a higher outdoor air design temperature may be used if it represents prevailing local practice by the HVAC industry and reflects extreme climate conditions that can be documented with recorded weather data;

Indoor temperatures must be 75°F for cooling, and;

Infiltration rate must be selected as “tight”, or the equivalent term.

In specifying equipment, the next available size may be used. In addition, indoor and outdoor coils must be matched in accordance with ARI standards.

Equipment shall have a sensible heat ratio < 0.70 or an ENERGY STAR qualified stand-alone dehumidifier must be installed in home. This requirement applies only to homes that are located in both Climate Zones 1, 2 or 3 and in Warm, Humid counties as identified by Tables N1101.2 and N1101.2.1 of the 2004 Supplement to the IRC, respectively.

Corrosion-resistant materials include stainless steel and plastic.  Drain pan shall drain condensate line to drainage system, rather than just depositing underneath foundation.

Measured field value shall be within 5% of design value.

Measured air volume shall be determined using a “true flow” anemometer or pressure matching (i.e., duct blaster).

Climate conditions, such as cold weather, may make it impossible to verify proper refrigerant charge. In such cases, a TXV must be installed.

Air temperatures shall be measured in ducts near evaporator and not in conditioned building space.

Calculated using liquid line pressure measured value.

Calculated using suction line pressure measured value.

Field value must be within 3°F of design value.

Field value must be within 1°F of design value.

Field value must be within 5°F of design value.

OMB Control No. xxxx-xxxx

ENERGY STAR Qualified Homes

HVAC Quality Installation Contractor Checklist 1,2

EPA Form 5900-175

The government estimates the average time needed to fill out this form is 1.00 hours and welcomes suggestions for reducing this effort. Send comments (referencing OMB Control Number) to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. EPA (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460.


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 14, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40456-40460]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17388]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-86608; File No. SR-MIAX-2019-35]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Options Regulatory Fee

August 8, 2019.
    Pursuant to the provisions of 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 August 1, 2019, Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC (``MIAX Options'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule
change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have
been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Options Fee
Schedule (the ``Fee Schedule'') to adjust its Options Regulatory Fee
(``ORF'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings, at MIAX's principal
office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    Currently, the Exchange charges an ORF in the amount of $0.0029 per
contract side. The Exchange proposes to decrease this ORF to $0.0020
per contract side. In light of historical and projected volume changes
and shifts in the industry and on the Exchange, as well as changes to
the Exchange's regulatory cost structure, the Exchange is proposing to
change the amount of ORF that will be collected by the Exchange. The
Exchange's proposed change to the ORF should balance the Exchange's
regulatory revenue against the anticipated regulatory costs.
    The per-contract ORF will continue to be assessed by MIAX to each
MIAX Member for all options transactions, including Mini Options,
cleared or ultimately cleared by the Member which are cleared by the
Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') in the ``customer'' range,
regardless of the exchange on which the transaction occurs. The ORF
will be collected by OCC on behalf of MIAX from either (1) a Member
that was the ultimate clearing firm for the transaction or (2) a non-
Member that was the ultimate clearing firm where a

Member was the executing clearing firm for the transaction. The
Exchange uses reports from OCC to determine the identity of the
executing clearing firm and ultimate clearing firm.
    To illustrate how the ORF is assessed and collected, the Exchange
provides the following set of examples. If the transaction is executed
on the Exchange and the ORF is assessed, if there is no change to the
clearing account of the original transaction, then the ORF is collected
from the Member that is the executing clearing firm for the
transaction. (The Exchange notes that, for purposes of the Fee
Schedule, when there is no change to the clearing account of the
original transaction, the executing clearing firm is deemed to be the
ultimate clearing firm.) If there is a change to the clearing account
of the original transaction (i.e., the executing clearing firm ``gives-
up'' or ``CMTAs'' the transaction to another clearing firm), then the
ORF is collected from the clearing firm that ultimately clears the
transaction- the ultimate clearing firm. The ultimate clearing firm may
be either a Member or non-Member of the Exchange. If the transaction is
executed on an away exchange and the ORF is assessed, then the ORF is
collected from the ultimate clearing firm for the transaction. Again,
the ultimate clearing firm may be either a Member or non-Member of the
Exchange. The Exchange notes, however, that when the transaction is
executed on an away exchange, the Exchange does not assess the ORF when
neither the executing clearing firm nor the ultimate clearing firm is a
Member (even if a Member is ``given-up'' or ``CMTAed'' and then such
Member subsequently ``gives-up'' or ``CMTAs'' the transaction to
another non-Member via a CMTA reversal). Finally, the Exchange will not
assess the ORF on outbound linkage trades, whether executed at the
Exchange or an away exchange. ``Linkage trades'' are tagged in the
Exchange's system, so the Exchange can readily tell them apart from
other trades. A customer order routed to another exchange results in
two customer trades, one from the originating exchange and one from the
recipient exchange. Charging ORF on both trades could result in double-
billing of ORF for a single customer order, thus the Exchange will not
assess ORF on outbound linkage trades in a linkage scenario. This
assessment practice is identical to the assessment practice currently
utilized by the Exchange's affiliates, MIAX PEARL, LLC (``MIAX PEARL'')
and MIAX Emerald, LLC (``MIAX Emerald'').\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 85163 (February 15,
2019), 84 FR 5798 (February 22, 2019) (SR-PEARL-2019-01); 85251
(March 6, 2019), 84 FR 8931 (March 12, 2019) (SR-EMERALD-2019-01).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a practical matter, when a transaction that is subject to the
ORF is not executed on the Exchange, the Exchange lacks the information
necessary to identify the order entering member for that transaction.
There are a multitude of order entering market participants throughout
the industry, and such participants can make changes to the market
centers to which they connect, including dropping their connection to
one market center and establish themselves as participants on another.
For these reasons, it is not possible for the Exchange to identify, and
thus assess fees such as an ORF, on order entering participants on away
markets on a given trading day. Clearing members, however, are
distinguished from order entering participants because they remain
identified to the Exchange on information the Exchange receives from
OCC regardless of the identity of the order entering participant, their
location, and the market center on which they execute transactions.
Therefore, the Exchange believes it is more efficient for the operation
of the Exchange and for the marketplace as a whole to collect the ORF
from clearing members.
    The Exchange monitors the amount of revenue collected from the ORF
to ensure that it, in combination with other regulatory fees and fines,
does not exceed regulatory costs. In determining whether an expense is
considered a regulatory cost, the Exchange reviews all costs and makes
determinations if there is a nexus between the expense and a regulatory
function. The Exchange notes that fines collected by the Exchange in
connection with a disciplinary matter offset ORF.
    As discussed below, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to
charge the ORF only to transactions that clear as customer at the OCC.
The Exchange believes that its broad regulatory responsibilities with
respect to a Member's activities supports applying the ORF to
transactions cleared but not executed by a Member. The Exchange's
regulatory responsibilities are the same regardless of whether a Member
enters a transaction or clears a transaction executed on its behalf.
The Exchange regularly reviews all such activities, including
performing surveillance for position limit violations, manipulation,
front-running, contrary exercise advice violations and insider trading.
These activities span across multiple exchanges.
    The ORF is designed to recover a material portion of the costs to
the Exchange of the supervision and regulation of Members' customer
options business, including performing routine surveillances and
investigations, as well as policy, rulemaking, interpretive and
enforcement activities. The Exchange believes that revenue generated
from the ORF, when combined with all of the Exchange's other regulatory
fees and fines, will cover a material portion, but not all, of the
Exchange's regulatory costs. The Exchange notes that its regulatory
responsibilities with respect to Member compliance with options sales
practice rules have been allocated to the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority (``FINRA'') under a 17d-2 Agreement. The ORF is not designed
to cover the cost of options sales practice regulation.
    The Exchange will continue to monitor the amount of revenue
collected from the ORF to ensure that it, in combination with its other
regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed the Exchange's total
regulatory costs. The Exchange will continue to monitor MIAX regulatory
costs and revenues at a minimum on a semi-annual basis. If the Exchange
determines regulatory revenues exceed or are insufficient to cover a
material portion of its regulatory costs, the Exchange will adjust the
ORF by submitting a fee change filing to the Commission. The Exchange
will notify Members of adjustments to the ORF via regulatory circular
at least 30 days prior to the effective date of the change.
    The Exchange believes it is reasonable and appropriate for the
Exchange to charge the ORF for options transactions regardless of the
exchange on which the transactions occur. The Exchange has a statutory
obligation to enforce compliance by Members and their associated
persons under the Act and the rules of the Exchange and to surveil for
other manipulative conduct by market participants (including non-
Members) trading on the Exchange. The Exchange cannot effectively
surveil for such conduct without looking at and evaluating activity
across all options markets. Many of the Exchange's market surveillance
programs require the Exchange to look at and evaluate activity across
all options markets, such as surveillance for position limit
violations, manipulation, front-running and contrary exercise advice
violations/expiring exercise declarations. While much of this activity
relates to the execution of orders, the ORF is assessed on and
collected from clearing firms. The Exchange, because it lacks access to

information on the identity of the entering firm for executions that
occur on away markets, believes it is appropriate to assess the ORF on
its Members' clearing activity, based on information the Exchange
receives from OCC, including for away market activity. Among other
reasons, doing so better and more accurately captures activity that
occurs away from the Exchange over which the Exchange has a degree of
regulatory responsibility. In so doing, the Exchange believes that
assessing ORF on Member clearing firms equitably distributes the
collection of ORF in a fair and reasonable manner. Also, the Exchange
and the other options exchanges are required to populate a consolidated
options audit trail (``COATS'') \4\ system in order to surveil a
Member's activities across markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ COATS effectively enhances intermarket options surveillance
by enabling the options exchanges to reconstruct the market promptly
to effectively surveil certain rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to its own surveillance programs, the Exchange works
with other SROs and exchanges on intermarket surveillance related
issues. Through its participation in the Intermarket Surveillance Group
(``ISG''),\5\ the Exchange shares information and coordinates inquiries
and investigations with other exchanges designed to address potential
intermarket manipulation and trading abuses. The Exchange's
participation in ISG helps it to satisfy the requirement that it has
coordinated surveillance with markets on which security futures are
traded and markets on which any security underlying security futures
are traded to detect manipulation and insider trading.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ISG is an industry organization formed in 1983 to coordinate
intermarket surveillance among the SROs by co-operatively sharing
regulatory information pursuant to a written agreement between the
parties. The goal of the ISG's information sharing is to coordinate
regulatory efforts to address potential intermarket trading abuses
and manipulations.
    \6\ See Section 6(h)(3)(I) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that charging the ORF across markets avoids
having Members direct their trades to other markets in order to avoid
the fee and to thereby avoid paying for their fair share for
regulation. If the ORF did not apply to activity across markets then a
Member would send their orders to the least cost, least regulated
exchange. Other exchanges do impose a similar fee on their members'
activity,\7\ including the activity of those members on MIAX, MIAX
PEARL and MIAX Emerald.\8\ The Exchange notes that there is established
precedent for an SRO charging a fee across markets, namely, FINRAs
Trading Activity Fee \9\ and the NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American''),
NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca''), Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``CBOE''), Nasdaq
PHLX LLC (``Phlx''), Nasdaq ISE, LLC (``ISE''), Nasdaq GEMX, LLC
(``GEMX'') and BOX Exchange LLC (``BOX'') ORF. While the Exchange does
not have all the same regulatory responsibilities as FINRA, the
Exchange believes that, like other exchanges that have adopted an ORF,
its broad regulatory responsibilities with respect to a Member's
activities, irrespective of where their transactions take place,
supports a regulatory fee applicable to transactions on other markets.
Unlike FINRA's Trading Activity Fee, the ORF applies only to a Member's
customer options transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Similar regulatory fees have been instituted by Nasdaq PHLX
LLC (``Phlx'') (See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61133
(December 9, 2009), 74 FR 66715 (December 16, 2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-
100)); Nasdaq ISE, LLC (``ISE'') (See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 61154 (December 11, 2009), 74 FR 67278 (December 18,
2009) (SR-ISE-2009-105)); and Nasdaq GEMX, LLC (``GEMX'') (See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70200 (August 14, 2013) 78 FR
51242 (August 20, 2013) (SR-Topaz-2013-01)).
    \8\ See supra note 3.
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47946 (May 30,
2003), 68 FR 34021 (June 6, 2003) (SR-NASD-2002-148).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange specifies in the Fee Schedule that the
Exchange may only increase or decrease the ORF semi-annually, and any
such fee change will be effective on the first business day of February
or August. In addition to submitting a proposed rule change to the
Commission as required by the Act to increase or decrease the ORF, the
Exchange notifies participants via a Regulatory Circular of any
anticipated change in the amount of the fee at least 30 calendar days
prior to the effective date of the change. The Exchange believes that
by providing guidance on the timing of any changes to the ORF, the
Exchange makes it easier for participants to ensure their systems are
configured to properly account for the ORF.
    The Exchange is proposing to decrease the ORF from $0.0029 to
$0.0020, as of August 1, 2019. In light of recent market volumes on the
Exchange and changes to the Exchange's regulatory costs, the Exchange
is proposing to decrease the amount of ORF that will be collected by
the Exchange. As noted above, the Exchange regularly reviews its ORF to
ensure that the ORF, in combination with its other regulatory fees and
fines, does not exceed regulatory costs. The Exchange believes this
adjustment will permit the Exchange to cover a material portion of its
regulatory costs, while not exceeding regulatory costs.
    In connection with this filing, the Exchange notes that its
affiliates, MIAX PEARL and MIAX Emerald, will also be adjusting the ORF
fees that each of those exchanges charge. Including the proposed
adjustments to ORF of both MIAX PEARL and MIAX Emerald with the
proposed adjustment by the Exchange, MIAX and its affiliates' ORF will
see a net decrease from $0.0063 to $0.0053 with the proposed
adjustments for August 1, 2019.
    The Exchange notified Members via a Regulatory Circular of the
proposed change to the ORF at least thirty (30) calendar days prior to
the proposed operative date, on July 1, 2019.\10\ The Exchange believes
that the prior notification to market participants will ensure market
participants are prepared to configure their systems to properly
account for the ORF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See MIAX Options Regulatory Circular 2019-42 available at
https://www.miaxoptions.com/sites/default/files/circular-files/MIAX_Options_RC_2019_42.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
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 an equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons
using its facilities. The Exchange also believes the proposal furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \13\ in that it is
designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general to protect investors and the
public interest and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination
between customers, issuers, brokers and dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that decreasing the ORF from $0.0029 to
$0.0020, as of August 1, 2019, is reasonable because the Exchange's
collection of ORF needs to be balanced against the amount of regulatory
costs incurred by the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed
adjustments noted herein will serve to balance the Exchange's
regulatory revenue against the anticipated regulatory costs.
    The Exchange believes that decreasing the ORF from $0.0029 to
$0.0020, as of August 1, 2019, is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it is

objectively allocated to Members in that it is charged to all Members
on all their transactions that clear as customer at the OCC. Moreover,
the Exchange believes the ORF ensures fairness by assessing fees to
those Members that are directly based on the amount of customer options
business they conduct. Regulating customer trading activity is much
more labor intensive and requires greater expenditure of human and
technical resources than regulating non-customer trading activity,
which tends to be more automated and less labor-intensive. As a result,
the costs associated with administering the customer component of the
Exchange's overall regulatory program are materially higher than the
costs associated with administering the non-customer component (e.g.,
Member proprietary transactions) of its regulatory program.
    The ORF is designed to recover a material portion of the costs of
supervising and regulating Members' customer options business including
performing routine surveillances and investigations, as well as policy,
rulemaking, interpretive and enforcement activities. The Exchange will
monitor the amount of revenue collected from the ORF to ensure that it,
in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not
exceed the Exchange's total regulatory costs. The Exchange has designed
the ORF to generate revenues that, when combined with all of the
Exchange's other regulatory fees, will be less than or equal to the
Exchange's regulatory costs, which is consistent with the Commission's
view that regulatory fees be used for regulatory purposes and not to
support the Exchange's business side. In this regard, the Exchange
believes that the proposed decrease to the fee is reasonable.
    The Exchange believes that continuing to limit changes to the ORF
to twice a year on specific dates with advance notice is reasonable
because it gives participants certainty on the timing of changes, if
any, and better enables them to properly account for ORF charges among
their customers. The Exchange believes that continuing to limit changes
to the ORF to twice a year on specific dates is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because it will apply in the same manner to all
Members that are subject to the ORF and provide them with additional
advance notice of changes to that fee.
    The Exchange believes that collecting the ORF from non-Members when
such non-Members ultimately clear the transaction (that is, when the
non-Member is the ``ultimate clearing firm'' for a transaction in which
a Member was assessed the ORF) is an equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees, and other charges among its members and issuers and other
persons using its facilities. The Exchange notes that there is a
material distinction between ``assessing'' the ORF and ``collecting''
the ORF. The ORF is only assessed to a Member with respect to a
particular transaction in which it is either the executing clearing
firm or ultimate clearing firm. The Exchange does not assess the ORF to
non-Members. Once, however, the ORF is assessed to a Member for a
particular transaction, the ORF may be collected from the Member or a
non-Member, depending on how the transaction is cleared at OCC. If
there was no change to the clearing account of the original
transaction, the ORF would be collected from the Member. If there was a
change to the clearing account of the original transaction and a non-
Member becomes the ultimate clearing firm for that transaction, then
the ORF will be collected from that non-Member. The Exchange believes
that this collection practice continues to be reasonable and
appropriate, and was originally instituted for the benefit of clearing
firms that desired to have the ORF be collected from the clearing firm
that ultimately clears the transaction.

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

    MIAX does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act. This proposal does not create an unnecessary
or inappropriate intra-market burden on competition because the ORF
applies to all customer activity, and is designed to enable the
Exchange to recover a material portion of the Exchange's cost related
to its regulatory activities. It also supplements the regulatory
revenue derived from non-customer activity. This proposal does not
create an unnecessary or inappropriate inter-market burden on
competition because it is a regulatory fee that supports regulation in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange is obligated to
ensure that the amount of regulatory revenue collected from the ORF, in
combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed
regulatory costs. Unilateral action by MIAX in establishing fees for
services provided to its Members and others using its facilities will
not have an impact on competition. In the highly competitive
environment for equity options trading, MIAX does not have the market
power necessary to set prices for services that are unreasonable or
unfairly discriminatory in violation of the Act. The Exchange's ORF, as
described herein, is comparable to fees charged by other options
exchanges for the same or similar services. The Exchange believes that
continuing to limit the changes to the ORF to twice a year on specific
dates with advance notice is not intended to address a competitive
issue but rather to provide Members with better notice of any change
that the Exchange may make to the ORF.

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,\14\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \15\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \15\ 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_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-MIAX-2019-35 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 No. SR-MIAX-2019-35. 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 No. SR-MIAX-2019-35, and should be submitted on or
before September 4, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-17388 Filed 8-13-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


MEMORANDUM 		 Date:	January 31, 2014

Subject:	Pesticide Active Ingredient Production Risk Modeling File

From:	Nick Parsons, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/RCG 		 To:	EPA Docket File (EPA-HQ-OAR-2011 - 0435)

The attached "PAI_ModFiles_20130813.zip" file contains the emissions inventory used for the risk modeling of the Pesticide Active Ingredient Production (PAI) source category.


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 92 (Friday, May 11, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 22061]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10134]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9977-95--Region 2]

Proposed CERCLA Section 122(h) Cost Recovery Settlement for the
Global Landfill Superfund Site, Middlesex County, New Jersey

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 122(i) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as
amended (``CERCLA''), notice is hereby given by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (``EPA''), Region 2, of a proposed cost recovery
settlement agreement pursuant to section 122(h) of CERCLA, between the
EPA and 15 settling parties (``Settling Parties'') regarding the Global
Landfill Superfund Site (``Site''), located in Middlesex County, New
Jersey. Pursuant to the proposed cost recovery settlement agreement,
Settling Parties shall pay $345,000 to EPA in reimbursement of past
response costs incurred by EPA at the Site, as well as all future
response costs incurred by EPA in connection with the Site. In
exchange, EPA covenants not to sue or take administrative action
against Settling Parties pursuant to section 107(a) of CERCLA, for
EPA's past response costs or EPA's future response costs as those costs
are defined in the proposed settlement agreement.
    For 30 days following the date of publication of this document, EPA
will receive written comments concerning the proposed cost recovery
settlement agreement. Comments to the proposed settlement agreement
should reference the Global Landfill Superfund Site, Index No. CERCLA-
02-2018-2012. EPA will consider all comments received during the 30-day
public comment period and may modify or withdraw its consent to the
settlement agreement if comments received disclose facts or
considerations that indicate that the proposed settlement agreement is
inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. EPA's response to comments will
be available for public inspection at EPA's Region 2 offices located at
290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before June 11, 2018.

ADDRESSES: The proposed settlement agreement is available for public
inspection at EPA's Region 2 offices. To request a copy of the proposed
settlement agreement, please contact the EPA employee identified below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Juan M. Fajardo, Assistant Regional
Counsel, Office of Regional Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region 2, 290 Broadway--17th Floor, New York, NY 10007. Email:
[email protected]; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 25, 2018.
John Prince,
Acting Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2018-10134 Filed 5-10-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 56 (Wednesday, March 23, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15515-15516]
[FR Doc No: 2016-06503]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER16-1202-000]

The Energy Group of America, Inc.; Supplemental Notice That
Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section
204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
The Energy Group of America, Inc.'s application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard

to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part
34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is
April 6, 2016.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 17, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-06503 Filed 3-22-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P