[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 93 (Friday, May 13, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 29417]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10253]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-94869; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2022-13]

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

May 9, 2022.
    On March 9, 2022, NYSE Arca, Inc. filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to modify certain factors
relevant to the quote instability calculation for Discretionary Pegged
Orders. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on March 28, 2022.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94490 (Mar. 22,
2022), 87 FR 17376 (Mar. 28, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Commission is extending the 45-day time period for Commission
action on the proposed rule change. The Commission finds it appropriate
to designate a longer period within which to take action on the
proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the
proposed rule change. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\5\ the Commission designates June 26, 2022 as the date by which
the Commission shall either approve or disapprove, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the proposed rule
change (File No. SR-NYSEArca-2022-13).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id.

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

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-10253 Filed 5-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 212 (Friday, November 1, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65632-65634]
[FR Doc No: 2013-26090]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD13-7-000]

Centralized Capacity Markets in Regional Transmission
Organizations and Independent System Operators; Notice Allowing Post-
Technical Conference Comments

    On September 25, 2013, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) conducted a technical conference to consider how current
centralized capacity market rules and structures in the regions served
by ISO New England Inc. (ISO-NE), New York Independent System Operator,
Inc. (NYISO), and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) are supporting the
procurement and retention of resources necessary to meet future
reliability and operational needs.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ While the Commission recognizes that other regions are
considering similar issues, the technical conference focused solely
on the centralized capacity markets in the ISO-NE, NYISO and PJM
regions. Thus, post-technical conference comments should be focused
on those three regions as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All interested persons are invited to file post-technical
conference comments on any or all of the questions listed in the
attachment to this Notice. Commenters need not address every question.
Commenters are also invited to rely on or cite to testimony that was
previously filed in this docket and the technical conference transcript
in their comments. These comments must be filed with the Commission no
later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST) on Monday, December 9,
2013.
    For more information about this Notice, please contact:

Shiv Mani (Technical Information), Office of Energy Policy and
Innovation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Kate Hoke (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: October 25, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.

Post-Technical Conference Questions for Comment

1. Role of Capacity Markets and Definition of the Capacity Product

    Panelists discussed the definition of the capacity product and, in
particular, the relationship between the capacity and energy and
ancillary services markets, both today and in the future as electric
system needs change. In particular, panelists addressed the importance
of properly defining the capacity product, and whether additional
capacity products should be defined to recognize future system
operational needs. Some favored retention of the current design,
procuring a single capacity product focused on meeting basic resource
adequacy requirements, with any operational attributes needed to meet
system requirements procured in the energy and ancillary services
markets. Others favored an approach that would procure differentiated
products in capacity markets, incorporating attributes that meet
specific operational needs. In addition, panelists discussed how
different categories of resources (traditional generation, new
resources vs. existing resources, demand response, energy efficiency,
distributed generation, etc.) should be valued and accounted for in
centralized capacity markets.
     When procuring a single capacity product, as under current
market designs, are there certain fundamental performance standards
that capacity resources should be required to meet in the delivery year
to ensure resource adequacy? Should any such requirement change
depending on the type of resource (traditional generation, new
resources vs. existing resources, demand response, energy efficiency,
distributed generation, etc.)?
     Should existing capacity products be modified to reflect
various operational characteristics needed to meet system needs? If
there is a need for additional capacity products, how should those
products be defined and procured in light of the current one day in ten
year resource adequacy approach?
     Alternatively, if it is more appropriate to rely on energy
and ancillary services markets to obtain needed operational
characteristics, how can market participants and regulators be
confident that resources capable of providing such ancillary services
will be available in future periods? To what extent are the existing
categories of ancillary services adequate to meet current and future
operational needs without a forward market?
     What improvements are needed in how centralized capacity
markets determine qualification as a capacity resource? Do the
requirements to participate in the centralized capacity markets
accommodate all resources (whether supply-side, demand-side, or
imports) that are technically capable of providing the traditional
forward capacity product?
     As changes in technology and markets drive new system
needs, are modifications needed to existing methods for determining
resource adequacy requirements (i.e., the reserve margins centralized
capacity markets are designed to procure)?
     What is the role(s) of centralized capacity markets?
Should the centralized capacity markets function as a mandatory market
for procuring capacity or a residual market that entities only need to
use to meet their resource adequacy obligations that they cannot
otherwise meet through self-supply?

2. Accommodating State Policies and Self-Supply by Load Serving
Entities

    As discussed at the technical conference, States have policies to
maintain resource adequacy and procure specific resources to meet
environmental objectives. In addition, load serving entities are often
interested in supplying their own resource adequacy requirements; some
load serving entities (LSEs) have suggested that current centralized
capacity market designs do not allow them to do so effectively.
Incorporating States' policies and LSE preferences in the design of
capacity markets has raised challenges for the Commission in ensuring
the integrity of its wholesale markets.
     In what ways do the current centralized capacity market
designs facilitate, or hinder, the ability of market participants to
enter into arrangements to supply their own resource adequacy
requirements? Should the Commission consider changes to the current
capacity market designs to facilitate these arrangements? How would any
potential changes impact capacity market prices paid by LSEs and the
price signals provided to capacity resources?
     Some panelists suggested other potential modifications to
the existing centralized capacity markets to accommodate self-supply
and/or state policies, including limited or resource

class-specific exemptions from buyer-side mitigation rules, or
offsetting reductions in the amount of capacity procured in the
centralized capacity market. What are the advantages or disadvantages
of such changes? Are there additional potential changes to particular
design elements that should be considered to accommodate self-supply
and/or state policies? How would any potential changes accommodate the
long-term price signals that several panelists argued are necessary for
capacity investment?
     PJM offers LSEs the alternative to opt out of its capacity
auction by using the Fixed Resource Requirement (FRR) option. Should
such an alternative be offered in other eastern Regional Transmission
Organization (RTO)/Independent System Operator (ISO) centralized
capacity markets? Given that the FRR option was originally developed to
address a narrow set of circumstances facing the PJM region and its
market participants at that time, would modifications to this
alternative be appropriate to meet the needs of regions and market
participants today? For example, are there changes to the current FRR
option that could be adopted to allow increased flexibility for
entities looking to partially self-supply their capacity requirements
while preventing adverse impacts on the competitiveness of the market?

3. Market Design Elements

    Throughout the technical conference, comparisons of the RTO/ISO
capacity markets and market design elements were made, including
whether there is a need for consistency in the approach to capacity
markets across the eastern RTOs/ISOs and the interaction of the
capacity market with other RTO/ISO markets. Panelists suggested that
consistent approaches with respect to some design elements could
improve the ability of market participants to participate in multiple
markets.
     Slope of demand curve. A number of panelists commented
that a downward-sloping demand curve is preferable to a vertical demand
curve. What are the advantages and disadvantages of a sloped demand
curve versus a vertical demand curve? What are the key design criteria
appropriate to consider in establishing the slope of the demand curve
in each of the eastern RTO/ISO centralized capacity markets?
     Derivation of Resource Adequacy Requirements. Whether
using a sloped or vertical demand curve, RTOs/ISOs must attempt to
accurately assess future capacity needs in order to ensure resource
adequacy in the delivery year. Are there improvements to the derivation
of an RTO/ISO's resource adequacy requirement that would improve the
functioning of its capacity market? How do differences in the
derivation of resource adequacy requirements across the RTOs/ISOs
impact the markets? For RTOs/ISOs with three-year forward markets,
should the RTO/ISO procure 100 percent of its resource adequacy
requirement three years in advance of the delivery year, or is there a
portion of the resource adequacy requirement that can be reliably
procured closer to the delivery year? What are the advantages and
disadvantages of procuring a portion of the resource adequacy
requirement closer to the delivery year?
     Derivation of Net Cost of New Entry (CONE). Panelists did
not focus extensively on the derivation of Net CONE, although it was
discussed in the staff white paper. Are there improvements to the
derivation of Net CONE that would improve the functioning of capacity
markets? How do differences in the derivation of Net CONE across the
RTOs/ISOs impact the markets?
     Length of forward period. Panelists debated the merits of
a longer or shorter forward period in centralized capacity markets.
Some argued that a longer forward period can aid in managing
retirements; others argued that a shorter forward period facilitates
bilateral contracting. What are the advantages, disadvantages and
related considerations that may support longer or shorter forward
periods? Should the length of the forward period vary for different
categories of resources (traditional generation, new resources vs.
existing resources, demand response, energy efficiency, distributed
generation, etc.)?
     Length of commitment period. Commitment periods also vary
by RTO/ISO and by resource-type. Is there an ideal length of the
commitment period? Should the length of commitment period vary for
different categories of resources (traditional generation, new
resources vs. existing resources, demand response, energy efficiency,
distributed generation, etc.)? Does the length of the commitment period
impact the ability and willingness of buyers and sellers to enter into
bilateral contracts? How do differences in commitment periods across
the RTOs/ISOs impact the markets?
     Zones. Some panelists at the technical conference asserted
that capacity market zones are not sufficiently granular and do not
change often enough to reflect important market and system changes. Are
there advantages or disadvantages associated with increasing the
granularity of capacity zones? If so, what are they? What are the
challenges, advantages or disadvantages of a dynamic approach to
establishing capacity zones?
     Coordination of transmission planning and capacity market.
Price signals in the capacity markets also provide information to
transmission planners to the extent that transmission may substitute
for capacity resources. How can investment in capacity and transmission
planning be better coordinated? Should the capacity market planning
process and transmission planning process use common assumptions and
common planning horizons?
     Retirement notice. What role do retirement and mothballing
decisions and notification play in the operation of the eastern RTO/ISO
centralized capacity markets? Is there an ideal approach to retirement
or mothballing notification? What is the impact of different retirement
or mothballing notice procedures across the eastern RTOs/ISOs on the
market, resource adequacy and reliability?

4. Regulatory Certainty

    Several panelists stated the importance of regulatory certainty in
achieving capacity market stability. Regulatory certainty reduces risk
and thereby lowers barriers to entry in capacity markets. Conversely,
some panelists identified significant market design issues that, if
resolved, could improve capacity market efficacy. While recognizing
that regional differences may be necessary, some panelists suggested
that a minimum level of best practices across the three eastern RTO/ISO
centralized capacity markets also would lead to greater regulatory
certainty and provide inter-regional benefits.
     How should the Commission strike a reasonable balance in
adopting market rule changes when necessary without creating undue
regulatory uncertainty?
     What are the advantages and disadvantages of an RTO/ISO
regularly revisiting certain market design elements, such as NYISO's
triennial reset of its capacity demand curve?

5. Next Steps

    Conference panelists indicated that further direction from the
Commission could help to inform the development of appropriate eastern
RTO/ISO centralized capacity market design elements in the future.
     What Commission action would be an appropriate next step
with respect to those markets?

     Are there outstanding issues or questions raised by, but
not fully discussed at, the conference that should be considered in
this proceeding?
     Are there other issues that, if addressed, would help the
centralized capacity markets ensure resource adequacy in a just and
reasonable and not unduly discriminatory manner (e.g., enhancements to
the energy and ancillary services markets) that should be considered by
the Commission in another forum?

[FR Doc. 2013-26090 Filed 10-31-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: December 18, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 242)]
[Notices]
[Page 67290-67292]
[DOCID:fr18de09-112]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61143; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2009-108]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
of Proposed Rule Change Modifying the NYSE Arca Realtime Reference
Prices Service

December 10, 2009.
    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 December 1, 2009, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or
``Exchange''), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by 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\ 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

    NYSE Arca proposes (1) to add data elements to its ``NYSE Arca
Realtime Reference Prices'' service and (2) to add a usage-based fee
alternative for that service. The text of the proposed rule change is
available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and
http://www.nyse.com at the Exchange'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 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 those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    In File No. SR-NYSEArca-2009-32 (the ``NYSE Arca Realtime Reference
Prices Filing''),\4\ the Exchange established a fixed monthly fee for
its NYSE Arca-only market data service that allows a vendor to
redistribute on a real-time basis last sale prices of transactions that
take place on the Exchange. The NYSE Arca Realtime Reference Prices
service provides a low-cost service that makes real-time prices widely
available to many millions of casual investors, provides vendors with a
real-time substitute for delayed prices, and relieves vendors of all
administrative burdens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-60002 (May 29,
2009), 74 FR 26901 (June 4, 2009) (File No. SR-NYSEArca-2009-32)
(the ``Approval Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The service allows internet service providers, traditional market
data vendors, and others (``NYSE Arca-Only Vendors'') to make available
NYSE Arca

Realtime Reference Prices on a real-time basis.\5\ NYSE Arca Realtime
Reference Prices information includes last sale prices for all
securities that are traded on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange notes that it makes the NYSE Realtime Reference
Prices available to vendors no earlier than it makes those prices
available to the processor under the CTA Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to make the following changes to the service
and its fees:
a. Data Elements
    Currently, the NYSE Arca Realtime Reference Price service includes
only prices. It does not include the size of each trade and does not
include bid/ask quotations. For each security, the Exchange is
proposing to add the following data elements to the service:

 High price
 Low price
 Cumulative volume

    The Exchange anticipates that it will update these data elements
every second, though initially it will update them once per minute. A
security's high (low) price will reflect the highest (lowest) price at
which the security has traded on the Exchange during the trading
session through the point in time at which it is disseminated. Further,
the cumulative volume will reflect a security's aggregate volume during
a trading session through the point in time at which it is last
disseminated. The Exchange believes that adding these data elements
will make the product more attractive to the customers of NYSE Arca-
Only Vendors.
b. Usage-Based Fee
    The NYSE Arca Realtime Reference Price service features a flat,
fixed monthly vendor fee of $30,000 and no user-based fees. For that
fee, the NYSE Arca-Only Vendor may provide unlimited NYSE Arca Realtime
Reference Prices to an unlimited number of the NYSE Arca-Only Vendor's
subscribers and customers without having to differentiate between
professional subscribers and nonprofessional subscribers, without
having to account for the extent of access to the data, and without
having to report the number of users.
    The Exchange proposes to establish as an alternative to the fixed
monthly fee a fee of $.004 for each real-time reference price that a
NYSE Arca-Only Vendor disseminates to its customers. The Exchange
proposes to limit a NYSE Arca-Only Vendor's exposure under this
alternative fee by setting $30,000, the same amount as the fixed
monthly rate, as the maximum fee that an NYSE Arca-Only Vendor would
have to pay for real-time reference prices that it disseminates in any
calendar month pursuant to the per-query fee.
    In order to take advantage of the per-query fee, a NYSE Arca-Only
Vendor must document in its Exhibit A that it has the ability to
measure accurately the number of queries and must have the ability to
report aggregate query quantities on a monthly basis.
    The Exchange will impose the per-query fee only on the
dissemination of real-time reference prices. NYSE Arca-Only Vendors may
provide delayed data services in the same manner as they do today.
    The per-query charge is imposed on NYSE Arca-Only Vendors, not end-
users, and is payable on a monthly basis. Because it represents a new
and additional alternative to the monthly fixed fee, NYSE Arca-Only
Vendors may elect to disseminate NYSE Arca Realtime Reference Prices
pursuant to the per-query fee rather than the fixed monthly fee.
c. Justification of Fee
    The NYSE Arca Realtime Reference Prices service enables internet
service providers and traditional vendors that have large numbers of
casual investors as subscribers and customers to contribute to the
Exchange's operating costs in a manner that is appropriate for their
means of distribution. Adding a per-query payment option will reduce
the costs of the service to some of those internet service providers
and traditional vendors. For the reasons explained above, the Exchange
believes that this will enable NYSE Arca Realtime Reference Prices
vendors to make a more appropriate contribution to the Exchange's
operating costs.
    In establishing the per-query fee, the Exchange took into
consideration several factors, including:
    (1) The fees that Nasdaq and NYSE are charging for similar services
and that NYSE Amex has proposed to charge;
    (2) Consultation with some of the entities that currently receive
the service or that the Exchange anticipates may commence to take
advantage of the service;
    (3) The contribution of market data revenues that the Exchange
believes is appropriate for entities that are most likely to take
advantage of the proposed service;
    (4) The contribution that revenues accruing from the proposed fees
will make to meet the overall costs of the Exchange's operations;
    (5) The savings in administrative and reporting costs that the NYSE
Arca Realtime Reference Prices service will provide to NYSE Arca-Only
Vendors; and
    (6) The fact that the proposed fee would provide an attractive
alternative to existing fees under the CTA Plan and to NYSE Arca's
monthly flat fee, an alternative that vendors will purchase only if
they determine that the perceived benefits outweigh the cost.
    The Exchange believes that the level of the per-query fee is
consistent with the approach set forth in the order by which the
Commission approved ArcaBook fees for NYSE Arca.\6\ In the ArcaBook
Approval Order, the Commission stated that ``when possible, reliance on
competitive forces is the most appropriate and effective means to
assess whether the terms for the distribution of non-core data are
equitable, fair and reasonable, and not unreasonably discriminatory.''
\7\ It noted that if significant competitive forces apply to a
proposal, the Commission will approve it unless a substantial
countervailing basis exists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Release [sic] No. 59039 (December 2, 2008), 73 FR 74770
(December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-21) (the ``ArcaBook Approval
Order'').
    \7\ Id. at 74771.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYSE Arca Realtime Reference Prices constitute ``non-core data.''
The Exchange does not require a central processor to consolidate and
distribute the product to the public pursuant to joint-SRO plans.
Rather, the Exchange distributes the product voluntarily.
    In the case of NYSE Arca Realtime Reference Prices, both of the two
types of competitive forces that the Commission described in the
ArcaBook Approval Order are present: The Exchange has a compelling need
to attract order flow and the product competes with a number of
alternative products.
    The Exchange must compete vigorously for order flow to maintain its
share of trading volume. This requires the Exchange to act reasonably
in setting market data fees for non-core products such as NYSE Arca
Realtime Reference Prices. The Exchange hopes that NYSE Arca Realtime
Reference Prices will enable vendors to distribute NYSE Arca last sale
price data widely among investors, and thereby provide a means for
promoting the Exchange's visibility in the marketplace.
    In addition to the need to attract order flow, the availability of
alternatives to NYSE Arca Realtime Reference Prices significantly
constrain the prices at which the Exchange can market NYSE Arca
Realtime Reference Prices. All national securities exchanges, the
several Trade Reporting Facilities of FINRA, and ECNs that produce

proprietary data, as well as the core data feed, are all sources of
competition for NYSE Arca Realtime Reference Prices. Currently, NYSE
and Nasdaq offer similar services. (In addition, the Exchange
anticipates that NYSE Amex will soon file for approval of a counterpart
product.)
    The information available in NYSE Arca Realtime Reference is
included in the CTA core data feed, which also includes the size of
trades, as well as last sale information from other markets. Even
though NYSE Arca Realtime Reference Prices omits size and provides
prices that are not consolidated with those of other markets, investors
may select it as a less expensive alternative to the CTA Plan's
consolidated last sale price services for certain purposes. (Rule
603(c) of Regulation NMS requires vendors to make the core data feeds
available to customers when trading and order-routing decisions can be
implemented.)
d. Amendment to Exhibit C
    In providing NYSE Arca Realtime Reference Prices, the Exchange
supplements the standard Network A Vendor Form with an Exhibit C that
provides certain terms and conditions that are unique to the NYSE Arca
Realtime Reference Prices service, such as the replacement of end-user
agreements with a hyperlink to a notice and a labeling requirement. One
of those supplemental conditions provides that the NYSE Arca-Only
Vendor will only distribute last sale prices as part of the service.
Because this filing proposes to expand the permissible universe of data
elements that a NYSE Arca-Only Vendor may disseminate, the Exchange
proposes to amend the Exhibit C. The proposed revised version of
Exhibit C is attached to the proposed rule change as Exhibit 4 and
Exhibit 5. Exhibit 4 is marked to show the proposed changes to the
current version of Exhibit C. Exhibit 5 is a clean, unmarked version.
2. Statutory Basis
    The basis under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'')
for the proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(4)
\8\ that an exchange have rules that provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its members
and other persons using its facilities and the requirements under
Section 6(b)(5) \9\ that the rules of an exchange be designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade and not to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would benefit investors by facilitating
their prompt access to widespread, free, real-time pricing information
contained in the NYSE Arca Realtime Reference Prices service. In
addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed per-query fee would
provide pricing flexibility to entities that determine to provide the
NYSE Arca Realtime Reference Prices service.

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

    NYSE Arca Realtime Reference Prices proposes to provide an
alternative fee (the per-query fee) to existing fees and does not alter
or rescind any existing fees. In addition, it amounts to a competitive
response to the products that Nasdaq and NYSE make available. For those
reasons, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change
will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from
members or other interested parties.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve the proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-NYSEArca-2009-108 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2009-108. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, on official
business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2009-108 and should be submitted on or before
January 8, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-30078 Filed 12-17-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 78 (Friday, April 22, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 23631]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09310]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2016-0187]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Newark Bay, Jersey City, NJ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Lehigh Valley Drawbridge across the
Newark Bay, mile 4.3, at Jersey City, New Jersey. This deviation is
necessary to allow the bridge owner to replace rails and ties at the
bridge. This deviation allows the bridge to remain closed for 26 hours
for two days.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. on June 5, 2016 to 7
p.m. on June 13, 2016.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2016-0187] is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH''. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Joe M. Arca, Project Officer, First
Coast Guard District, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Lehigh Valley Drawbridge across Newark
Bay, mile 4.3, at Jersey City, New Jersey, has a vertical clearance in
the closed position of 35 feet at mean high water and 39 feet at mean
low water. The existing bridge operating regulations are found at 33
CFR 117.5.
    The waterway is transited by seasonal recreational vessels and
commercial vessels of various sizes.
    The bridge owner, Consolidated Rail Corporation (CONRAIL),
requested a temporary deviation from the normal operating schedule to
facilitate replacement of the rails and ties at the bridge.
    Under this temporary deviation, the Lehigh Valley Drawbridge may
remain in the closed position for 26 hours, from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. on
June 5, 2016 and from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on June 6, 2016, and a rain date
from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. on June 12, 2016 and from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on
June 13, 2016.
    Vessels able to pass under the bridge in the closed position may do
so at any time. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and
there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass.
    The Coast Guard will inform the users of the waterways through our
Local Notice and Broadcast to Mariners of the change in operating
schedule for the bridge so that vessel operations can arrange their
transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: April 18, 2016.
C.J. Bisignano,
Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2016-09310 Filed 4-21-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: November 21, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 224)]
[Notices]
[Page 67348-67349]
[DOCID:fr21no06-39]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0064; FRL-8244-2]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Modification and Variance Requests. EPA ICR
Number: 0029.09. OMB Control Number: 2040-0068

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing
approved collection. This ICR is scheduled to expire on November 30,
2006. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or
sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending
at OMB. This ICR describes the nature of the information collection and
its estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before December 21,
2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OW-2002-0064, to (1) EPA online using FDMS (our preferred method), by
e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Water Docket, Mail Code 4101T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB at: Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynn Stabenfeldt, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On March 7, 2006 (71 FR 11407-11411), EPA sought comments on
this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments on the
draft ICR.

    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0064, which is available for public viewing at the
Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading
Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Water Docket
is<PHONE_NUMBER>. An electronic version of the public docket is
available through the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov.
 Use FDMS to submit or view public comments,

access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to
access those documents in the public docket that are available
electronically. Once in the system key in the docket ID number
identified above.
    Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB
within 30 days of this notice. EPA's policy is that public comments,
whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available
for public viewing in FDMS as EPA receives them and without change,
unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other
information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA
identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide
a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is
placed in FDMS. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted
material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified
as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose
disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the
official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in
FDMS.
    Title: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Modification and Variance Requests.
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 0029.09, OMB Control No. 2040-0068.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on November 30th, 2006.
Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor
the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.
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 OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: This ICR calculates the burden and costs associated with
modifications and variances made to NPDES permits and to the National
Sewage Sludge Management Program permit requirements. The regulations
specified at 40 CFR 122.62 and 122.63 specify information a facility
must report in order for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
to determine whether a permit modification is warranted. A NPDES permit
applicant may request a variance from the conditions that would
normally be imposed on the applicant's discharge. An applicant must
submit information so the permitting authority can assess whether the
facility is eligible for a variance, and what deviation from Clean
Water Act (CWA) provisions is necessary. In general, EPA and authorized
States use the information to determine whether: (1) The conditions or
requirements that would warrant a modification or variance exist, and
2) the progress toward achieving the goals of the (CWA) will continue
if the modification or variance is granted. Other uses for the
information provided include: Updating records on permitted facilities,
supporting enforcement actions, and overall program management,
including policy and budget development and responding to Congressional
inquiries.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 11.9
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: NPDES permit applicants that request
a variance or modification of the NPDES or sewage sludge management
conditions.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 11,785.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 280,224 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $10,423,930, which includes $0 capital
or O&M costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: The estimated decrease in burden is
23,773 hours compared to the total estimated burden hours currently
identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. This change is
primarily the result of (1) Changes and adjustments in the number and
types of permits administered by the states and EPA under the NPDES
program. Non-NPDES authorized states continue to apply for NPDES
program authorization. (2) EPA's continuous effort to improve the
quality of data in its PCS database. This change may reflect more
accurate data rather than a significant change in the number of permits
actually administered. (3) EPA does not anticipate Variance Requests
for Fundamentally Different Factors.

    Dated: November 9, 2006.
Oscar Morales,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. E6-19637 Filed 11-20-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 237 (Wednesday, December 9, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79261-79262]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27017]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Hazardous Materials: Notice of Actions on Special Permits

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: Notice of actions on special permit applications.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures governing the application
for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of
Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given
that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the
application described herein.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 8, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC
20590.
    Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in
triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include
a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald Burger, Chief, Office of
Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits Division, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Copies of the applications are available for
inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington DC.
    This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is
published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous
materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 1, 2020.
Donald P. Burger,
Chief, General Approvals and Permits Branch.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Nature of the special permits
       Application No.                 Applicant          Regulation(s) affected              thereof
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Special Permits Data--Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11380-M......................  Baker Hughes Oilfield     173.302(a)(1)...........  To modify the special permit
                                Operations LLC.                                     to authorize an improved
                                                                                design of the cylinders.
13250-M......................  Pacific Consolidated      173.302(a)(1)...........  To modify the special permit
                                Industries LLC.                                     to authorize an extension of
                                                                                cylinder life utilizing the
                                                                                Modal Acoustic Emission
                                                                                (MAE) test method.
14509-M......................  Pacific Consolidated      173.302(a),               To modify the special permit
                                Industries LLC.           173.302(f)(3),            to authorize an extension of
                                                          173.302(f)(4),            cylinder life utilizing the
                                                          173.302(f)(5),            Modal Acoustic Emission
                                                          173.304(a),               (MAE) test method.
                                                          175.501(e)(3).
16560-M......................  Lightstore, Inc.........  173.302(a)..............  To modify the special permit
                                                                                to authorize additional 2.1
                                                                                and 2.2 hazmat and to
                                                                                authorize an increase in the
                                                                                allowable maximum working
                                                                                pressure of certain
                                                                                cylinders.
20973-M......................  Olin Winchester LLC.....  172.203(a),               To modify the special permit
                                                          173.63(b)(2)(v).          to remove the requirement
                                                                                for carrying a copy of the
                                                                                permit on each vessel,
                                                                                aircraft or motor vehicle
                                                                                transporting packages
                                                                                covered by the permit.
21014-N......................  Volvo Cars of North       ........................  To authorize the
                                America, LLC.                                       transportation in commerce
                                                                                of lithium ion batteries
                                                                                exceeding 35 kg net weight
                                                                                by cargo-only aircraft.
21059-N......................  Union Pacific Railroad    172.203(a), 174.24,       To authorize the use of
                                Company Inc.              174.26(a).                electronic means to maintain
                                                                                and communicate on-board
                                                                                train consist information in
                                                                                lieu of paper documentation
                                                                                when hazardous materials are
                                                                                transported by rail.
21063-N......................  Cobham Mission Systems    173.302(a)(1)...........  To authorize the
                                Orchard Park Inc.                                   transportation in commerce
                                                                                of certain gases in non-
                                                                                refillable, non-DOT
                                                                                specification cylinders.
21067-N......................  Stainless Tank &          172.203(a), 178.345-2,    To authorize the manufacture,
                                Equipment Co., LLC.       178.346-2, 178.347-2,     mark, sale, and use of DOT
                                                          178.348-2.                400 series cargo tanks
                                                                                fabricated using certain
                                                                                stainless steels and other
                                                                                materials not authorized as
                                                                                materials of construction by
                                                                                Sec.   178.345-2.
21084-N......................  Samsung SDI America, Inc  172.101(j)..............  To authorize the
                                                                                transportation in commerce
                                                                                of lithium batteries in
                                                                                excess of 35 kg by cargo-
                                                                                only aircraft.
21085-N......................  Omron Robotics and        172.101(j),               To authorize the
                                Safety Technologies,      173.185(b)(3).            transportation in commerce
                                Inc.                                                of certain lithium batteries
                                                                                in alternative packaging and
                                                                                exceeding 35 kg aboard cargo-
                                                                                only aircraft.
21104-N......................  Kelley Fuels, Inc.......  172.336(c)..............  To authorize the
                                                                                transportation in commerce
                                                                                of cargo tanks containing
                                                                                either gasoline or diesel
                                                                                fuel with a placard
                                                                                permanently marked with a
                                                                                ``1203'' UN number
                                                                                identification mark.

21130-N......................  Tatonduk Outfitters       175.9(b)................  To authorize the acceptance
                                Limited.                                            and transportation in
                                                                                commerce of hazardous
                                                                                materials to be used for
                                                                                zero-gravity research
                                                                                experiments conducted aboard
                                                                                the aircraft during
                                                                                parabolic flight operations
                                                                                for from the point of origin
                                                                                airport to the return of the
                                                                                aircraft to that same
                                                                                airport.
21131-N......................  Department of Defense US  173.185(a),               To authorize the
                                Army Military Surface     173.185(e)(6).            transportation in commerce
                                Deployment &                                        of low production lithium
                                Distribution Command.                               ion batteries that have not
                                                                                passed the required tests in
                                                                                the UN Manual of Tests and
                                                                                Criteria.
21132-N......................  Northwest Energetic       173.56(a)...............  To authorize the
                                Services LLC.                                       transportation in commerce
                                                                                of bags of explosives which
                                                                                are marked with an incorrect
                                                                                EX number.
21138-N......................  LG Chem, Ltd............  173.185(f)(3)...........  To authorize the
                                                                                transportation in commerce
                                                                                aboard motor vehicle of
                                                                                defective lithium-ion
                                                                                batteries in 4G fiberboard
                                                                                outer boxes that were used
                                                                                to transport replacement
                                                                                batteries.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Special Permits Data--Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20245-M......................  Jaguar Instruments Inc..  173.302(a), 173.304(a)..  To modify the special permit
                                                                                to update reporting
                                                                                procedure, update cylinder
                                                                                design drawings and
                                                                                incorporate ICAO references
                                                                                to the permit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Special Permits Data--Withdrawn
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15689-M......................  Mercedes-Benz Research &  172.200, 172.301(c),      To modify the permit to
                                Development North         177.834(h).               authorize a larger cylinder
                                America, Inc.                                       to be utilized in the test
                                                                                equipment.
21121-N......................  Mountain Flame Propane,   173.315(j)(2)(iv).......  To authorize the
                                Inc.                                                transportation in commerce
                                                                                of more than one container
                                                                                of liquid propane gas on a
                                                                                motor vehicle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2020-27017 Filed 12-8-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P