[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 200 (Monday, October 17, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64020-64022]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26638]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0600; FRL-9479-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Adoption of Control Techniques Guidelines for Plastic Parts
and Business Machines Coatings

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of Maryland. This SIP revision includes
amendments to the Code of Maryland (COMAR) <IP_ADDRESS>, Volatile
Organic Compounds from Specific Processes, Paper, Fabric, Film and Foil
Coating, and adds new COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>-2, Plastic Parts and Business
Machines Coating. Maryland's SIP revision meets the requirement to
adopt Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for sources
covered by EPA's Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) standards for
plastic parts and business machines coatings and will help Maryland
attain and maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
for ozone. EPA is approving this revision concerning the adoption of
the CTG requirements for plastic parts and business machines coatings
in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective on November 16,
2011.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0600. All documents in the docket are listed in
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
confidential business information (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 either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for public inspection during normal
business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the
Maryland Department of the Environment, 1800 Washington Boulevard,
Suite 705, Baltimore, Maryland 21230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irene Shandruk,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 182(b)(2) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7511a(b)(2), requires that
states having moderate nonattainment areas for ozone revise their SIP
to include provisions requiring the implementation of RACT for certain
sources, including categories of volatile organic compound (VOC)
sources covered by a CTG document issued by the Administrator between
November 15, 1990 and the date of attainment. EPA originally developed
CTG standards for miscellaneous metal and plastic products, which
includes plastic parts and business machines coating, in 1978 and
revised them in 2008. Maryland subsequently made changes to its SIP
which adopted EPA's CTG standards for plastic parts and business
machines coatings. The formal SIP revision was submitted by Maryland to
EPA on June 22, 2011. On August 19, 2011 (76 FR 51922), EPA published a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for Maryland. The NPR proposed
approval of Maryland's SIP revision for adoption of the CTG standards
for plastic parts and business machines coatings. No comments were
received on the NPR.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    On June 22, 2011, the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE)
submitted to EPA a SIP revision (11-03) concerning the
adoption of the emission limits for plastic parts and business machines
coatings, part of the EPA miscellaneous metal and plastic parts
coatings CTG. EPA develops CTGs as guidance on control requirements for
source categories. States can follow the CTGs or adopt more restrictive
standards. The State of Maryland has adopted EPA's CTG standards for
plastic parts and business machine coating processes. These regulations
are in COMAR 26.11.19, Volatile Organic Compounds from Specific
Processes. Specifically, this revision amends the existing regulation
at section <IP_ADDRESS> by moving existing VOC coating standards for
plastic parts and vinyl from this section to a new section, COMAR
<IP_ADDRESS>-2, Plastic Parts and Business Machines Coating.
Additionally, coating standards for plastic parts and business machines
from EPA's CTG are being adopted into COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>-2, as well as
new definitions and application methods. Tables 1-3 below outline the
emission standards adopted by Maryland for plastic parts coatings,
business machines coatings, and printing standards.

                                    Table 1--Plastic Parts Coating Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Pounds of VOC     Kilograms of
                                                              Applicability     per gallon of     VOC per Liter
                   Coating installation                      (pounds of VOC      coating (as     of coating (as
                                                                per day)        applied minus     applied minus
                                                                                water)            water)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decorative coating of other plastic parts.................                20               5.9              0.70
General, one-component....................................                15               2.3              0.28
General, multi-component..................................                15               3.5              0.42
Electric dissipating coatings and shock-free coatings.....                15               6.7              0.80
Extreme performance.......................................                15               3.5              0.42
Metallic..................................................                15               3.5              0.42
Military specification, one-component.....................                15               2.8              0.34
Military specification, multi-component...................                15               3.5              0.42
Mold seal.................................................                15               6.3              0.76
Multi-colored coatings....................................                15               5.7              0.68
Optical coatings..........................................                15               6.7              0.80
Plastic vehicle parts.....................................                20               3.0              0.36
Vacuum-metalizing.........................................                15               6.7              0.80
Vinyl.....................................................                20               3.8              0.45
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  Table 2--Business Machines Coating Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Pounds of VOC     Kilograms of
                                                              Applicability     per gallon of     VOC per liter
                   Coating installation                      (pounds of VOC      coating (as     of coating (as
                                                                per day)        applied minus     applied minus
                                                                                water)            water)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prime coat................................................                15               2.9              0.35
Topcoat...................................................                15               2.9              0.35
Texture coat..............................................                15               2.9              0.35
Fog coat..................................................                15               2.9              0.26
Touchup and repair........................................                15               2.9              0.35
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                           Table 3--Printing Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Pounds of VOC     Kilograms of
                                                                                per gallon of     VOC per liter
            Printing installation              Applicability (pounds of VOC      coating (as     of coating (as
                                                         per day)               applied minus     applied minus
                                                                                water)            water)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plastic other than vinyl....................  Non-major source..............               5.8              0.69
Plastic other than vinyl....................  Major source as defined in                   3.8              0.45
                                               COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>B(4).
Vinyl.......................................  20............................               3.8              0.45
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other specific requirements concerning this rulemaking and the
rationale for EPA's action are explained in the NPR and the Technical
Support Document (TSD) and will not be restated here.
    No public comments were received on the NPR.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving Maryland's adoption of the CTG requirements for
plastic parts and business machines coatings as a revision to the
Maryland SIP.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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 Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     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 (Pub. L. 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 CAA; 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, this rule does not have Tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    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).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by December 16, 2011. 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 concerning Maryland's adoption of CTG standards for
plastic parts and business machines coatings 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, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

    Dated: October 03, 2011.
W.C. Early,
Acting, Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart V--Maryland

0
2. In Sec.  52.1070, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising
the entry for COMAR <IP_ADDRESS> and adding an entry for COMAR
<IP_ADDRESS>-2 to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1070  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                  EPA-Approved Regulations in the Maryland SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Additional
       Code of Maryland                                        State                             explanation/
  administrative  regulations         Title/subject          effective     EPA approval date  citation at 40 CFR
       (COMAR)  citation                                       date                                 52.1100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
                           26.11.19 Volatile Organic Compounds from Specific Processes

                                                  * * * * * * *
<IP_ADDRESS>...................  Paper, Fabric, Film, and         5/16/11  10/17/11 [Insert    Revisions to
                                 Foil Coating.                             page number where   Section title and
                                                                           the document        Sections .07A and
                                                                           begins].            .07C(3).

                                                  * * * * * * *
<IP_ADDRESS>-2.................  Plastic Parts and                5/16/11  10/17/11 [Insert    New Regulation.
                                 Business Machines                         page number where
                                 Coating.                                  the document
                                                                           begins].

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-26638 Filed 10-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Mark Wilson 08/ 01/ 2003 04: 47 PM To: pbeverly@ omb. eop. gov cc: Stephanie Daigle/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Jane Stewart Yeager/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Paul Lapsley/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Joan Crawford/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Lisaa Jones/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA Subject: SUBMITTING EPA'S OAR RULE: SAN 4676, RIN 2060 AK28 FOR OMB REVIEW To the OMB Docket Librarian:

I am attaching for official OMB review, a file containing EPA's OAR rule, SAN 4676; RIN 2060 AK28: Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment New Source Review: Equipment Replacement Provision of the Routine Maintenance, Repair and Replacement Exclusion. The rule is Final. I have also attached the Preamble language and the Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis. I will also fax a copy of the signed 12866 form.

Please reply to this e mail so that I am certain you have received this rule as well as the 12866 form.

Thank you, Mark Wilson ERP_ rule_ 8 01rr. wpd Environmental Protection Agency Office of Policy, Economics & Innovation Regulatory Management Staff 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Mail Code 1806A, Room 6440 Ariel Rios Washington, DC 20460 Phone: ( 202) 566 0356 Fax: ( 202) 564 7299


[Federal Register: February 4, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 23)]
[Notices]
[Page 6499]
[DOCID:fr04fe08-39]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. QF08-375-000]

Town of Tarboro, NC at Spongex LLC, Tarboro, NC; Notice of Filing

January 28, 2008.
    Take notice that on January 17, 2008, the Town of Tarboro, NC filed
with the Commission a notice of self-certification of a facility as a
qualifying cogeneration facility.
    This qualifying cogeneration facility consists of a 2000 kW
packaged diesel engine generator set operating on 2 fuel oil.
The package is set on a concrete pad. The system includes all necessary
switchgear and controls. The electricity is generated at 480 V, 3
phase, 60 Hz. The facility is located at Anaconda Road in Tarboro, NC.
    This qualifying facility interconnects with the Town of Tarboro's
electric distribution system. The facility will provide standby power
and occasionally supplementary power to Spongex LLC.
    A notice of self-certification does not institute a proceeding
regarding qualifying facility status; a notice of self-certification
provides notice that the entity making filing has determined the
facility meets the applicable criteria to be a qualifying facility. Any
person seeking to challenge such qualifying facility status may do so
by filing a motion pursuant to 18 CFR 292.207(d)(iii).
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-1923 Filed 2-1-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 222 (Monday, November 20, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80788-80790]
[FR Doc No: 2023-25541]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98924; File No. SR-GEMX-2023-14]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend GEMX
Options 7, Section 4 To Amend Route-Out Fees

November 14, 2023.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 1, 2023, Nasdaq GEMX, LLC (``GEMX'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's Pricing Schedule at
Options 7, Section 4, Other Options Fees and Rebates.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/gemx/rules, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's
Pricing Schedule at Options 7, Section 4, Other Options Fees and
Rebates. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Part A, Route-Out
Fees. The Routing Fees apply to executions of orders that are routed to
one or more exchanges in connection with the Options Order Protection
and Locked/Crossed Market Plan.
    Today, the Exchange assesses Market Makers,\3\ Non-Nasdaq GEMX
Market Makers (FarMM),\4\ Firm Proprietary \5\/Broker-Dealers \6\ and
Professional Customers \7\ a $0.55 per contract Penny Symbol Routing
Fee and a $1.09 Non-Penny Symbol Routing Fee to route to another
options exchange. Additionally, today, the Exchange assess Priority
Customers \8\ a $0.50 per contract Penny Symbol Routing Fee and a $0.90
Non-Penny Symbol Routing Fee to route to another options exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Market Makers'' refers to ``Competitive Market
Makers'' and ``Primary Market Makers'' collectively. See Options 1,
Section 1(a)(21).
    \4\ A ``Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Maker'' is a market maker as
defined in Section 3(a)(38) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, registered in the same options class on another options
exchange. See Options 7, Section 1(c).
    \5\ A ``Firm Proprietary'' order is an order submitted by a
member for its own proprietary account. See Options 7, Section 1(c).
    \6\ A ``Broker-Dealer'' order is an order submitted by a member
for a broker-dealer account that is not its own proprietary account.
See Options 7, Section 1(c).
    \7\ A ``Professional Customer'' is a person or entity that is
not a broker/dealer and is not a Priority Customer. See Options 7,
Section 1(c).
    \8\ A ``Priority Customer'' is a person or entity that is not a
broker/dealer in securities, and does not place more than 390 orders
in listed options per day on average during a calendar month for its
own beneficial account(s), as defined in Nasdaq GEMX Options 1,
Section 1(a)(36). Unless otherwise noted, when used in the Pricing
Schedule the term ``Priority Customer'' includes ``Retail''. See
Options 7, Section 1(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to instead assess a $0.60 per contract Penny
Symbol Routing Fee and a $1.20 Non-Penny Symbol Routing Fee to route to
another options exchange regardless of the capacity of the order. The
purpose of the proposed Routing Fees is to recoup costs incurred by the
Exchange when routing orders to other options exchanges on behalf of
options Members. In determining its proposed Routing Fees, the Exchange
took into account transaction fees assessed by other options exchanges,
the Exchange's projected clearing costs, and the projected
administrative, regulatory, and technical costs associated with routing
orders to other options exchanges. The Exchange will continue to use
its affiliated broker-dealer, Nasdaq Execution Services, to route
orders to other options exchanges. Routing services offered by the
Exchange are completely optional and market participants can readily
select between various providers of routing services, including other
exchanges and broker-dealers. Also, the Exchange notes that market
participants may elect to mark their orders as ``Do Not Route'' to
avoid any Routing Fees. The proposed structure for Routing Fees is
similar to another options market.\9\ The Exchange believes that the
proposed Routing Fees would enable the Exchange to recover the costs it
incurs to route orders to away markets after taking into account the
other costs associated with routing orders to other options exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See MEMX's Options Fee Schedule at https://info.memxtrading.com/us-options-trading-resources/us-options-fee-schedule/. MEMX assesses a $0.60 per contract Penny Symbol routing
fee and a $1.20 Non-Penny Symbol routing fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\10\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any
facility, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposed changes to its Routing Fees are reasonable
in several respects. As a threshold matter, the Exchange is subject to
significant competitive forces in the market for options securities
transaction services that constrain its pricing determinations in that
market. The fact that this market is competitive has long been
recognized by the courts. In NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange
Commission, the D.C. Circuit stated as follows: ``[n]o one disputes
that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC
explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of
securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing
agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for
execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share

percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly,
regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker
dealers' . . . .'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market
model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005),
70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Numerous indicia demonstrate the competitive nature of this market.
For example, clear substitutes to the Exchange exist in the market for
options security transaction services. The Exchange is only one of
seventeen options exchanges to which market participants may direct
their order flow. Within this environment, market participants can
freely and often do shift their order flow among the Exchange and
competing venues in response to changes in their respective pricing
schedules. As such, the proposal represents a reasonable attempt by the
Exchange to increase its liquidity and market.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend its Routing Fees such that all
Members would pay a $0.60 per contract Penny Symbol Routing Fee and a
$1.20 Non-Penny Symbol Routing Fee to route to another options
exchange, regardless of capacity, is reasonable because the proposed
Routing Fees would enable the Exchange to recover the costs it incurs
to route orders to away markets after taking into account the other
costs associated with routing orders to other options exchanges.
Routing services offered by the Exchange are completely optional and
market participants can readily select between various providers of
routing services, including other exchanges and broker-dealers. Also,
the Exchange notes that market participants may elect to mark their
orders as ``Do Not Route'' to avoid any Routing Fees. The proposed
structure for Routing Fees is similar to another options market.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See MEMX's Options Fee Schedule at https://info.memxtrading.com/us-options-trading-resources/us-options-fee-schedule/. MEMX assesses a $0.60 per contract Penny Symbol routing
fee and a $1.20 Non-Penny Symbol routing fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to amend its Routing Fees such that all
Members would pay a $0.60 per contract Penny Symbol Routing Fee and a
$1.20 Non-Penny Symbol Routing Fee, regardless of capacity, to route to
another options exchange is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because these uniform Routing Fees will apply equally to all options
Members.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
    In terms of intra-market competition, the Exchange's proposal to
amend its Routing Fees such that all Members would pay a $0.60 per
contract Penny Symbol Routing Fee and a $1.20 Non-Penny Symbol Routing
Fee, regardless of capacity, to route to another options exchange does
not impose an undue burden on competition because these uniform Routing
Fees will apply equally to all options Members.
    In terms of inter-market competition, the Exchange notes that it
operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants
can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a
particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at
other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange
must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other
options exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own
fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust
their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to
which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition
is extremely limited.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \15\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \16\ 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: (i) necessary or
appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of
investors; or (iii) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \16\ 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 (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
file number SR-GEMX-2023-14 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-GEMX-2023-14. 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 (https://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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and

copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not include
personal identifiable information in submissions; you should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. We may
redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted material
that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All submissions
should refer to file number SR-GEMX-2023-14 and should be submitted on
or before December 11, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-25541 Filed 11-17-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 76 (Thursday, April 22, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21380-21384]
[FR Doc No: 2021-08313]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-91594; File No. SR-CboeBZX-2021-030]

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

April 16, 2021.
    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 April 12, 2021, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the
``Exchange'' or ``BZX'') 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
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

    Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``BZX'' or ``BZX
Equities'') is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission

(``Commission'') a proposed rule change to amend its fee schedule. The
text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/regulation/rule_filings/bzx/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule as follows: (1)
Decrease the standard liquidity adding rebate and non-displayed
liquidity adding rebate, (2) modify the Add/Remove Volume Tiers, (3)
modify Tier 2 of the Step-Up Tiers, and (4) eliminate the Cross-Asset
Tape B Tier. The Exchange proposes to implement the proposed change to
its fee schedule on April 1, 2021.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange initially filed the proposed fee changes April
1, 2021 (SR-CboeBZX-2021-026). On April 12, 2021, the Exchange
withdrew that filing and submitted this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the
Exchange is only one of 16 registered equities exchanges, as well as a
number of alternative trading systems and other off-exchange venues
that do not have similar self-regulatory responsibilities under the
Exchange Act, to which market participants may direct their order flow.
Based on publicly available information,\5\ no single registered
equities exchange has more than 16% of the market share. Thus, in such
a low-concentrated and highly competitive market, no single equities
exchange possesses significant pricing power in the execution of order
flow. The Exchange in particular operates a ``Maker-Taker'' model
whereby it pays credits to members that add liquidity and assesses fees
to those that remove liquidity. The Exchange's fee schedule sets forth
the standard rebates and rates applied per share for orders that
provide and remove liquidity, respectively. Particularly, for
securities at or above $1.00, the Exchange provides a standard rebate
of $0.0020 per share for orders that add liquidity and assesses a fee
of $0.0030 per share for orders that remove liquidity. Additionally, in
response to the competitive environment, the Exchange also offers
tiered pricing which provides Members opportunities to qualify for
higher rebates or reduced fees where certain volume criteria and
thresholds are met. Tiered pricing provides an incremental incentive
for Members to strive for higher tier levels, which provides
increasingly higher benefits or discounts for satisfying increasingly
more stringent criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Cboe Global Markets, U.S. Equities Market Volume
Summary, Month-to-Date (March 29, 2021), available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_statistics/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Standard Liquidity Rebate and Non-Displayed Liquidity Adding Rebate
    As stated above, the Exchange currently provides a standard rebate
of $0.0020 per share for liquidity adding orders (i.e., those yielding
fee codes B,\6\ V,\7\ and Y \8\) in securities priced at or above
$1.00. Orders in securities priced below $1.00 that add liquidity are
provided a rebate of $0.00009. The Exchange now proposes to decrease
the current standard rebate of $0.0020 per share to $0.0018 per share
for orders that add liquidity for securities priced at or above $1.00.
Orders that add liquidity in securities priced below $1.00 would
continue to be provided a rebate of $0.00009. Although this proposed
standard rebate for liquidity adding orders is lower than the current
base rate for such orders, the proposed rebate is in line with similar
rebates for liquidity adding orders in place on other exchanges.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Orders yielding Fee Code ``B'' are displayed orders adding
liquidity to BZX (Tape B).
    \7\ Orders yielding Fee Code ``V'' are displayed orders adding
liquidity to BZX (Tape A).
    \8\ Orders yielding Fee Code ``Y'' are displayed orders adding
liquidity to BZX (Tape C).
    \9\ E.g., the Nasdaq base rebate ranges from $0.0015 to $0.0020
for liquidity adding orders in securities priced at or above $1.00.
See http://nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=PriceListTrading2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to decrease the rebate applied to non-
displayed, liquidity adding orders (i.e., orders yielding Fee Code
HB,\10\ HV,\11\ or HY \12\). The current rebate applied to non-
displayed liquidity adding orders is $0.00150 per share. Now, the
Exchange proposes to decrease the rebate to $0.00100 per share.
Although this proposed rebate for non-displayed liquidity adding orders
is lower than the current rate for such orders, the proposed rebate is
in line with similar rebates for non-displayed liquidity adding orders
in place on other exchanges.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Orders yielding Fee Code ``HB'' are non-displayed orders
adding liquidity to BZX (Tape B).
    \11\ Orders yielding Fee Code ``HV'' are non-displayed orders
adding liquidity to BZX (Tape A).
    \12\ Orders yielding Fee Code ``HY'' are non-displayed orders
adding liquidity to BZX (Tape C).
    \13\ E.g., the Nasdaq rebate for non-displayed orders ranges
from $0.0000 to $0.00220 for non-displayed liquidity adding orders.
See http://nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=PriceListTrading2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Add/Remove Volume Tiers
    Pursuant to footnote 1 of the Fee Schedule, the Exchange currently
offers Add Volume Tiers (tiers 1 through 5) that provide Members an
opportunity to receive an enhanced rebate from the standard rebate for
liquidity adding orders that yield fee codes B, V, and Y and meet
certain required volume-based criteria. Specifically, the Add Volume
Tiers are as follows:
     Tier 1 provides an enhanced rebate of $0.0025 per share to
a Member that has an ADAV \14\ of greater than or equal to 3,000,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ ``ADAV'' means average daily added volume calculated as the
number of shares added per day. ADAV is calculated on a monthly
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Tier 2 provides an enhanced rebate of $0.0027 per share to
a Member that has an ADAV as a percentage of TCV \15\ greater than or
equal to 0.10%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ ``TCV'' means total consolidated volume calculated as the
volume reported by all exchanges and trade reporting facilities to a
consolidated transaction reporting plan for the month for which the
fees apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Tier 3 provides an enhanced rebate of $0.0029 per share to
a Member that has an ADAV as a percentage of TCV greater than or equal
to 0.25%.
     Tier 4 provides an enhanced rebate of $0.0030 per share to
a Member that has an ADAV as a percentage of TCV greater than or equal
to 0.40%.
     Tier 5 provides an enhanced rebate of $0.0031 per share to
a Member that has an ADAV as a percentage of TCV greater than or equal
to 0.85%.
    Now, the Exchange proposes to modify the five Add Volume Tiers to
provide the enhanced rebate if a Member meets certain ADAV as a
percentage of TCV percentage thresholds or meets certain ADAV share
volume. Specifically, the Exchange

proposes to modify Tier 1 to require a certain ADAV as a percentage of
TCV or an ADAV over a certain volume threshold. Although the proposed
changes to Tier 1 result in more stringent criteria, Members still have
an opportunity to receive the additional rebate if they meet the tier
threshold. The Exchange also proposes to modify the Add Volume Tiers 2
through 5 to increase the existing ADAV as a percentage of TCV criteria
and offer an alternative criteria which requires an ADAV over a certain
volume threshold. The proposed changes to Tiers 2 through 5 are less
stringent than the existing criteria and are designed to encourage
Members to increase their liquidity adding volume on the Exchange.
Specifically, the proposed Add Volume Tiers are as follows:
     To meet the proposed criteria in Tier 1, a Member must
have an ADAV as a percentage of TCV equal to or greater than 0.08% or
an ADAV of greater than or equal to 8,000,000.
     To meet the proposed criteria in Tier 2, a Member must
have an ADAV as a percentage of TCV equal to or greater than 0.15% or
an ADAV of greater than or equal to 15,000,000.
     To meet the proposed criteria in Tier 3, a Member must
have an ADAV as a percentage of TCV equal to or greater than 0.35% or
an ADAV of greater than or equal to 35,000,000.
     To meet the proposed criteria in Tier 4, a Member must
have an ADAV as a percentage of TCV equal to or greater than 0.60% or
an ADAV of greater than or equal to 60,000,000.
     To meet the proposed criteria in Tier 5, a Member must
have an ADAV as a percentage of TCV equal to or greater than 1.00% or
an ADAV of greater than or equal to 100,000,000.
    The Exchange notes the Add Volume Tiers, as modified, continue to
be available to all Members and provide Members an opportunity to
receive an enhanced rebate. Moreover, the proposed changes are designed
to encourage Members to increase displayed liquidity on the Exchange,
which further contributes to a deeper, more liquid market and provides
even more execution opportunities for active market participants.
Tier 2 of the Step-Up Tiers
    The tiered pricing models set forth in footnote 2 of the fee
schedule (Step-Up Tiers) provides Members an opportunity to qualify for
an enhanced rebate on their orders that add liquidity where they
increase their relative liquidity each month over a predetermined
baseline. Tier 2 of the Step-Up Tiers provides an enhanced rebate of
$0.0033 per share to a Member that has a Step-Up Add TCV \16\ from
April 2020 equal to or greater than 0.30%. The Exchange notes that
step-up tiers are designed to encourage Members that provide displayed
liquidity on the Exchange to increase their order flow, which would
benefit all Members by providing greater execution opportunities on the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ ``Step-Up Add TCV'' means ADAV as a percentage of TCV in
the relevant baseline month subtracted from current ADAV as a
percentage of TCV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Now, the Exchange proposes to reduce the rebate provided under Tier
2 of the Step-Up Tiers to $0.0032 per share. While the Exchange is
proposing no change to the criteria of Tier 2 of the Step-Up Tiers, the
Exchange believes that the tier will continue to incentivize increased
order flow to the Exchange, which may contribute to a deeper, more
liquid market to the benefit of all market participants by creating a
more robust and well-balanced market ecosystem. Step-Up Tier 2, as
modified, continues to be available to all Members and provide Members
an opportunity to receive an enhanced rebate, albeit a reduced rebate.
The proposed rebate is in line with similar rebates for growth programs
in place on other exchanges.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ E.g., the Nasdaq Growth Program which offers members a
rebate of $0.0025 to members that meet certain execution volume and
increase their add volume as a percentage of TCV by 20% versus the
member's growth baseline. See http://nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=PriceListTrading2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cross-Asset Tape B Tier
    The Cross-Asset Tape B Tier is provided under footnote 12 of the
Fee Schedule and provides an enhanced rebate to orders yielding fee
code B. Specifically, the Cross-Asset Tape B Tier provides an enhanced
rebate of $0.0031 per share to a Member that has a Tape B Step-Up Add
TCV \18\ from February 2015 equal to or greater than 0.06% and has an
Options Market Maker Add OCV \19\ greater than or equal to 1.00%. The
Cross-Asset Tape B Tier is designed to encourage members that provide
displayed liquidity on the BZX Equities and BZX Options to increase
their order flow, which would benefit all Members by providing greater
execution opportunities on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ ``Step-Up Add TCV'' means ADAV as a percentage of TCV in
the relevant baseline month subtracted from current ADAV as a
percentage of TCV.
    \19\ ``Options Market Maker Add OCV'' for purposes of equities
pricing means ADAV resulting from Market Maker orders as a
percentage of OCV, using the definitions of ADAV, Market Maker and
OCV as provided under the Exchange's fee schedule for BZX Options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to eliminate the Cross-Asset Tape B Tier
as no Member has reached this tier in several months and the Exchange
the Exchange no longer wishes to, nor is it required to, maintain such
a tier.\20\ Further, the Exchange would rather redirect future
resources and funding into other programs and tiers intended to
incentivize increased order flow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The Exchange proposes to reserve Footnote 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\21\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5),\22\ in
particular, as it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation
of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its Members, issuers
and other persons using its facilities. The Exchange operates in a
highly competitive market in which market participants can readily
direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a
particular venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient. The
proposed rule changes reflect a competitive pricing structure designed
to incentivize market participants to direct their order flow to the
Exchange, which the Exchange believes would enhance market quality to
the benefit of all Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed amendment to
reduce the standard liquidity adding rebate and non-displayed liquidity
adding rebate is reasonable, equitable and non-discriminatory because
the proposed change represents a rebate decrease and such rebates are
equally applicable to all Members of the Exchange. Additionally, the
proposed rebates for liquidity adding orders are in-line with rebates
offered at other exchanges for similar transactions.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Supra notes 7 and 11[sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes the proposed changes to the Add Volume
Tiers and Tier 2 of the Step-Up Tiers are reasonable because each tier,
as modified, continues to be available to all Members and provide
Members an opportunity to receive an enhanced rebate. The Exchange next
notes that relative volume-based incentives and discounts have been
widely adopted by exchanges, including the Exchange, and are
reasonable, equitable, and non-discriminatory because they are open to
all Members on an equal basis and provide additional discounts that are
reasonably related to (i) the value to an

exchange's market quality and (ii) associated with higher levels of
market activity, such as higher levels of liquidity provision and/or
growth patterns. The Exchange also believes that the current enhanced
rebates under the Add Volume Tiers and proposed rebate under Tier 2 of
the Step-Up Tiers continue to be commensurate with the proposed and
existing criteria, respectively. That is, the rebates reasonably
reflect the difficulty in achieving the corresponding criteria as
amended.
    The Exchange believes that the changes to the Add Volume Tiers,
will benefit all market participants by incentivizing continuous
liquidity and, thus, deeper more liquid markets as well as increased
execution opportunities. Particularly, the proposed changes to the Add
Volume Tiers are designed to incentivize displayed liquidity, which
further contributes to a deeper, more liquid market and provide even
more execution opportunities for active market participants at improved
prices. This overall increase in activity deepens the Exchange's
liquidity pool, offers additional cost savings, supports the quality of
price discovery, promotes market transparency and improves market
quality, for all investors.
    The Exchange also believes that the proposed amendments to the Add
Volume Tiers and Tier 2 of the Step-Up Tiers represent an equitable
allocation of rebates and are not unfairly discriminatory because all
Members are eligible for the Add Volume Tiers and Tier 2 of the Step-Up
Tiers and would have the opportunity to meet the tiers' criteria and
would receive the proposed rebate if such criteria is met. The Exchange
also notes that proposed tiers/rebate will not adversely impact any
Member's ability to qualify for other reduced fee or enhanced rebate
tiers. Should a Member not meet the proposed criteria under any of the
proposed tiers, the Member will merely not receive that corresponding
enhanced rebate.
    The Exchange also believes the proposed amendment to remove the
Cross-Asset Tape B Tier is reasonable because no Member has achieved
this tier in several months. Furthermore, the Exchange is not required
to maintain this tier and Members still have a number of other
opportunities and a variety of ways to receive enhanced rebates,
including the proposed enhanced standard rebates for displayed orders
adding liquidity. The Exchange believes the proposal to eliminate the
Cross-Asset Tape B Tier is also equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it applies to all Members.
    As noted above, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive
market. The Exchange is only one of 16 equity venues to which market
participants may direct their order flow, and it represents a small
percentage of the overall market. It is also only one of several maker-
taker exchanges. Competing equity exchanges offer similar rates and
tiered pricing structures to that of the Exchange, including schedules
of rebates and fees that apply based upon members achieving certain
volume thresholds.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intramarket or intermarket competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Particularly, the proposed change applies to all liquidity adding
orders equally, and thus applies to all Members equally. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not impose any
burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purpose of the Act.
    As previously discussed, the Exchange operates in a highly
competitive market. Members have numerous alternative venues that they
may participate on and direct their order flow, including other
equities exchanges, off-exchange venues, and alternative trading
systems. Additionally, the Exchange represents a small percentage of
the overall market. Based on publicly available information, no single
equities exchange has more than 16% of the market share.\24\ Therefore,
no exchange possesses significant pricing power in the execution of
order flow. Indeed, participants can readily choose to send their
orders to other exchange and off-exchange venues if they deem fee
levels at those other venues to be more favorable. Moreover, the
Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over
regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services
in the securities markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the
Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining
prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation
of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in promoting
market competition in its broader forms that are most important to
investors and listed companies.'' \25\ The fact that this market is
competitive has also long been recognized by the courts. In
NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit
stated as follows: ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow
is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market
system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that
act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of
where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to
take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange
possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of
order flow from broker dealers'. . . .''.\26\ Accordingly, the Exchange
does not believe its proposed fee changes imposes any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Supra note 3[sic].
    \25\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
    \26\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) \27\ of the Act and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \28\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \28\ 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 Number SR-CboeBZX-2021-030 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-CboeBZX-2021-030. 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-CboeBZX-2021-030, and should be
submitted on or before May 13, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-08313 Filed 4-21-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: February 26, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 37)]
[Notices]
[Page 8369]
[DOCID:fr26fe07-77]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12580-001]

Shenango Dam Hydroelectric Company, LLC; Notice of Surrender of
Preliminary Permit

February 16, 2007.
    Take notice that Shenango Dam Hydroelectric Company, LLC, permittee
for the proposed Shenango Dam Project, has requested that its
preliminary permit be terminated. The permit was issued on August 18,
2005, and would have expired on July 31, 2008.\1\ The project would
have been located on the Shenango River in Mercer County, Pennsylvania.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 112 FERC ]62,154.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The permittee filed the request on February 6, 2007, and the
preliminary permit for Project No. 12580 shall remain in effect through
the thirtieth day after issuance of this notice unless that day is a
Saturday, Sunday, part-day holiday that affects the Commission, or
legal holiday as described in section 18 CFR 385.2007, in which case
the effective date is the first business day following that day. New
applications involving this project site, to the extent provided for
under 18 CFR Part 4, may be filed on the next business day.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-3217 Filed 2-23-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing, as an individual consumer, to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA to 180 days.  This would add 105 days for review and comment generation.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule raises hundreds of different questions I might want to respond to. I don’t have the luxury of devoting full time to providing my thoughts and comments on many of these issues.  I need time to research and provide thoughtful comments on these rules that, on first review, appear to adversely impact public health.  I have already spent many hours reviewing and researching these issues, but they take time. The FDA took many years to arrive at this Proposed Rule.   I not only believe it is reasonable, but also imperative, to allow the public six months to review and comment. As consumers, it is imperative that we be allowed appropriate time to provide our feedback.  Unlike Congress, I believe regulations should be read, researched and understood prior to putting legislation in place.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes.  As a former 43 year, 2-3 PAD smoker who tried quitting dozens of times with FDA approved products, I feel I have some expert knowledge on what works and what doesn't.  I believe that e cigarettes have improved my health and extended my life. I wish to provide you with more detail of my personal story, as well as including scientific and evidence based responses to your questions so that you can take my comments into account.

I am aware that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame.   I am also aware that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past.  I would therefore ask that you do so here.   There are some 47 million stakeholders that this regulation may negatively effect and time is needed for appropriate response on this important rule. I appreciate your consideration of my request and look forward to discussing this issue with you further.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 4, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 789-792]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31894]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2016-1019]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Apra Harbor, Guam

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to revise the existing safety zones
currently in effect at Naval Wharf Kilo in Apra Outer Harbor, Guam, by
adding a 500-yard permanent safety zone, hereinafter referred to as
Safety Zone D, to provide a buffer between the explosives regularly
handled on Naval Wharf Kilo, and the general public and maritime
operators. The addition of Safety Zone D would also reduce the
frequency of enforcement of Safety Zones A and B. This action also
eliminates from the regulation the requirement to post a sign when
Safety Zones A or B are being

enforced; during such enforcement periods, notification will occur via
a slight modification of the displayed visual indicators already
codified in the existing regulation as well as via a broadcast notice
to mariners. This rulemaking will better meet the needs of the
community and reduce the frequency that restrictions must be imposed
through the addition of a less restrictive permanent safety zone,
thereby enhancing the safe and efficient use of Apra Outer Harbor
Channel in the vicinity of Naval Wharf Kilo. We invite your comments on
this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before February 21, 2017. Requests for public meetings must
be received by the Coast Guard on or before January 30, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2016-1019 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email Chief Kristina Gauthier, Sector Guam
Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 671-255-
4866, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

BNM Broadcast Notice to Mariners
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    In 1990, Safety Zone B was established around the newly constructed
Naval Wharf Kilo. On February 10, 2015, the Coast Guard amended Apra
Harbor safety zone regulation in 33CFR 165.1401 to remove the 680-yard
permanent safety zone around Naval Wharf Kilo and add two intermittent
safety zones, Safety Zones A and B, with arcs of 1,000 and 1,400 yards
radius, respectively. Over the past 21 plus months, the Coast Guard has
evaluated the effect of these changes and their impact on the waters in
and around Naval Wharf Kilo. Based on this evaluation, the Coast Guard
has determined that an additional amendment to 33 CFR 165.1401
providing a 500-yard permanent safety zone around Naval Wharf Kilo is
necessary to enhance the safety of the waterway and reduce adverse
impacts to the maritime community and general public. This amendment
will also reduce the frequency of enforcement of Safety Zones A and B
and eliminate from the regulation the requirement to post a sign during
the enforcement periods of Safety Zones A or B; during such enforcement
periods notification will occur via a slight modification of the
displayed visual indicators already codified in the existing regulation
as well as via a broadcast notice to mariners.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of people
and vessels in the navigable waters of Apra Outer Harbor within a 500-
1,400 yard radius of Naval Wharf Kilo before, during, and after wharf
operations. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking pursuant to its
authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP proposes to amend 33 CFR 165.1401 to add Safety Zone D, a
500-yard permanent safety zone at Naval Wharf Kilo, to provide a buffer
between the explosives regularly handled on Naval Wharf Kilo, and the
general public and marine operators. Safety Zone D will greatly reduce
the enforcement periods of Safety Zones A and B. Safety zones A and B
will be enforced when the COTP determines that reasonable risks to the
public exist that may be minimized through zone enforcement.
Notification of enforcement of Safety Zones A will be provided via a
red (BRAVO) flag by day or single red light by night. Notification of
enforcement of Safety Zone B will be provided via 2 red (BRAVO) flags
by day or 2 red lights by night. When Safety Zone A or B is enforced,
the COTP will also provide notification via a broadcast notice to
mariners. Signs stating ``Safety Zone A'' and ``Safety Zone B,''
respectively, will not be posted. During enforcement of any safety
zone, no vessel or person may enter the zone without the express
permission from the COTP or his designated representative. The proposed
regulatory amendments appear at the end of this document.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    This proposed rule was developed after considering numerous
statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize
our analyses based on a number of these statutes and executive orders
and we discuss first amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing
rules, and of promoting flexibility. This NPRM has not been designated
a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management
and Budget.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zones. The
implementation of a 500-yard safety zone around Naval Wharf Kilo will
drastically minimize the number of days that vessel traffic will be
impacted under current parameters for activation of Safety Zone A.
Vessel traffic will continue to be permitted to pass through Safety
Zones A and B with the permission of the Captain of the Port. Moreover,
the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM
marine channel 16 about the zones.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
IV.A above this proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action
of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves the re-
establishment of a permanent safety zone around Naval Wharf Kilo and
the clarification of visual indicators utilized during the active
implementation of Safety Zones A and B. Normally such actions are
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of
Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary
environmental analysis checklist and Categorical Exclusion
Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed
rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.
    We plan to hold a public meeting to receive oral comments on this
NPRM and will announce the date, time, and location in a separate
document published in the Federal Register. If you signed up for docket
email alerts mentioned in the paragraph above, you will receive an
email notice when the public meeting notice is published and placed in
the docket.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1,
6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. In Sec.  165.1401, add paragraph (a)(3) and revise paragraph (b) to
read as follows:

Sec.  165.1401  Apra Harbor, Guam--safety zones.

    (a) * * *
    (3) The following is designated Safety Zone D: The waters of Apra
Outer Harbor encompassed within an arc of 500 yards radius centered at
the center of Naval Wharf Kilo, located at 13 degrees 26'44.5'' N. and
144 degrees 37'50.7'' E. (Based on World Geodetic System 1984 Datum).
    (b) Regulations. (1) Safety Zone A, described in paragraph (a) of
this

section, will only be enforced when Coast Guard Sector Guam issues a
Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the
zone and Naval Wharf Kilo, and a vessel berthed at Naval Wharf Kilo, is
displaying a red (BRAVO) flag by day or a red light by night.
    (2) Safety Zone B described in paragraph (a) of this section will
only be enforced when Coast Guard Sector Guam issues a Broadcast Notice
to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone and Naval Wharf
Kilo, and a vessel berthed at Naval Wharf Kilo, is displaying 2 red
(BRAVO) flags by day or 2 red lights by night.
    (3) Safety Zone D is permanent and will be enforced at all times.
    (4) Under general regulations in Sec.  165.23, during periods of
enforcement, entry into the Safety Zones A and B as described in
paragraph (a) of this section, is prohibited unless expressly
authorized by the Captain of the Port, Guam or a designated
representative. Entry into Safety Zone D is prohibited at all times
unless expressly authorized by the Captain of the Port, Guam or a
designated representative.

    Dated: December 5, 2016.
James B. Pruett,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Guam.
[FR Doc. 2016-31894 Filed 1-3-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: September 13, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 177)]
[Notices]
[Page 54104-54105]
[DOCID:fr13se06-128]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54408; File No. SR-DTC-2006-12]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
Relating to the LENS Service

September 6, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ notice is hereby given that on July 28, 2006, the
Depository Trust Company (``DTC'') 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
primarily by DTC. DTC filed the proposed rule change pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \2\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4) \3\ thereunder
so that the proposal was effective upon filing with the Commission. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The proposed rule change will discontinue the posting of Asset-
Backed Security notices on DTC's LENS system.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, DTC 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. DTC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B,
and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Commission has modified the text of the summaries
prepared by DTC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In 1991, DTC created the LENS service to reduce the amount of paper
that participants received in connection with DTC's distribution of
legal and other notices. Participants consequently could access such
notices through DTC's proprietary PTS 3270 terminal network.\5\ In
2000, DTC enhanced this process by making the LENS service available
over the Internet.\6\ Benefits of the LENS service include: (a)
Reducing distribution costs that are born by participants and (b)
allowing for other enhancements relating to notice distribution,
including: (i) The identification of CUSIP numbers, (ii) participants'
ability to search by CUSIP, (iii) participant access to a computer
record of past notices with automatic order capability, and (iv)
equitable billing (e.g. a participant only pays for those notices that
it orders).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 29291 (June 12, 1991),
56 FR 28190 (June 19, 1991) [File No. SR-DTC-91-08].
    \6\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-43964 (Feb. 14,
2001), 66 FR 1190 (Feb. 22, 2001) [File No. SR-DTC-2000-18].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recently, DTC has studied whether additional enhancements and
efficiencies can be brought to the LENS service in terms of the value
to participants of the information provided them through LENS and the
associated costs. As part of this process, DTC reviewed a current
practice relating to the posting of Asset-Backed Security (``ABS'')
notices on LENS.\7\ Such ABS notices are now generally available over
the Internet on the agents' Web sites and have been retrieved by DTC
and posted on LENS at considerable expense. In light of the
accessibility of ABS notices from other sources and the expense
incurred by DTC in retrieving the information, DTC consulted with many
of the participants with current subscriptions to the ABS portion of
LENS and learned that DTC's posting of this information on LENS is of
limited value versus the alternative of participants being able to
obtain much

of the information directly from agents' Web sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ ABS notices provide investment and financial information
specific to a respective ABS (e.g., monthly principal and interest
factors, credit worthiness, etc.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, DTC will no longer post ABS notices on LENS. DTC will
distribute an Important Notice to its participants to notify them of
this change to the LENS service and inform participants as to how they
may obtain DTC's assistance in obtaining ABS information.
    DTC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of Section 17A of the Act\8\ and the rules and regulations
thereunder because it controls costs associated with a service provided
by DTC and therefore does not significantly affect the respective
rights or obligations of DTC or persons using this service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    DTC does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any
impact or impose any burden on competition.

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

    DTC has not solicited or received written comments relating to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act\9\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4) \10\ thereunder because
it effects a change in an existing service of DTC that does not
adversely affect the safeguarding of securities or funds in DTC's
control or for which DTC is responsible and does not significantly
affect DTC's or its participants' respective rights or obligations. At
any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the
Commission may summarily abrogate 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, as amended, 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-DTC-2006-12 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-DTC-2006-12. 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 Section, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at DTC's principal office and on DTC's Web site
at http://www.dtc.org/impNtc/mor/index.html. 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 submission
should refer to File No. SR-DTC-2006-12 and should be submitted on or
before October 4, 2006.

    For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-15191 Filed 9-12-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: September 19, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 181)]
[Notices]
[Page 54809]
[DOCID:fr19se06-36]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[ Docket No. ID-4064-003]

Coons, Rick D.; Notice of Filing

September 13, 2006.
    Take notice that on August 25, 2006, Rick D. Coons filed an amended
application for authorization to hold interlocking positions for Wabash
Valley Power Association, Inc., Cooperative Energy Services Power
Marketing, LLC and Wabash Valley Energy Marketing, pursuant to Section
305(b) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 825d(b), Part 45 of the
Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR Part 45 and Order No. 664.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on September 29, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-15522 Filed 9-18-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P