[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 118 (Thursday, June 18, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36921-36923]
[FR Doc No: 2020-13127]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 89066/June 12, 2020; File No. 4-757]

 Securities Exchange Act of 1934; Order Denying Stay; In the
Matter of Order Directing the Exchanges and the Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority To Submit a New National Market System Plan
Regarding Consolidated Equity Market Data

    On June 1, 2020, Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, Nasdaq BX, Inc., and
Nasdaq PHLX LLC filed a petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit seeking review of the Commission's Order
Directing the Exchanges and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority
to Submit a New National Market System (``NMS'') Plan Regarding
Consolidated Equity Market Data (the ``Governance Order''), which was
approved by the Commission on May 6, 2020 and later published in the
Federal Register. See 85 FR 28702 (May 13, 2020). On June 3, 2020,
petitioners filed with the Commission a motion to stay the effect of
the Governance Order pending final resolution of their petition for
review.
    Pursuant to Section 25(c)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act'') and Section 705 of the Administrative Procedure Act,
the Commission has discretion to stay its order directing the self-
regulatory organizations (``SROs'') to jointly develop, and file with
the Commission by August 11, 2020, a single New Consolidated Data Plan
that replaces the three current Equity Data Plans if it finds that
``justice so requires.'' 15 U.S.C. 78y(c)(2); 5 U.S.C. 705. The
Commission has determined, however, that petitioners have not met their
burden to demonstrate that the extraordinary remedy of a stay of the
Commission's Governance Order is warranted. Petitioners have not
established sufficient irreparable harm, petitioners' legal challenges
to the Order lack merit, and the public interest would be served by the
SROs complying with the requirements of the Order.
    1. The Commission finds that petitioners' stay request overstates
the harm that will result from their compliance with the Governance
Order. Petitioners assert that, in the absence of a stay, they ``will
incur immediate and significant upfront costs in drafting the New
Consolidated Data Plan, seeking Commission approval of the plan, and,
if approved, implementing the plan.'' Stay Mot. 16. But the Governance
Order does not establish a New Consolidated Data Plan. It requires the
SROs to file a

proposed plan with the Commission. Pursuant to Regulation NMS Rule 608,
the New Consolidated Data Plan submitted in response to the Governance
Order ``will itself be published for public comment prior to any
Commission decision to disapprove or to approve the plan with any
changes or subject to any conditions the Commission deems necessary or
appropriate after considering public comment.'' 85 FR at 28705; see 17
CFR 242.608. Through that process, interested parties will still be
able to comment on the proposed plan, and the Commission will review
the plan and may make changes or add conditions before issuing a
subsequent order approving or disapproving a new plan. Petitioners thus
err by claiming that they will incur significant upfront costs in
implementing a plan if the Governance Order is not stayed.
    Similarly, petitioners wrongly assert that there would be any
actions taken pursuant to a New Consolidated Data Plan that would have
to be unwound in the absence of a stay. Stay Mot. 16-17. As the
Governance Order makes clear, the current Equity Data Plans will remain
in place until a New Consolidated Data Plan has been approved by the
Commission and implemented. See 17 CFR 242.608(b)(1); 85 FR at 28705,
28728. The proposed plan, moreover, must include provisions for the
orderly transition of functions and responsibilities from the three
existing Equity Data Plans. Id. at 28729. And any approval order will
be subject to judicial review at that time.
    Petitioners also overstate the harm from compliance with the
Governance Order itself, including drafting the New Consolidated Data
Plan and seeking Commission approval. For example, the SROs will be
able to use their extensive expertise and experience in NMS plan
operation to efficiently formulate the specific terms and provisions of
the proposed New Consolidated Data Plan. 85 FR at 28711. The Commission
anticipates that proposal costs will be further reduced because most of
the detailed provisions relating to the operation of the existing
Equity Data Plans could be imported into the New Consolidated Data Plan
without substantial effort or great cost. Id. And to the extent
governance provisions in the New Consolidated Data Plan would differ
from those in the existing Equity Data Plans, the Governance Order
prescribes the content of these provisions, further reducing the costs
of preparing the new plan. Id. at 28729. We therefore do not believe
that any harm resulting from compliance with the Governance Order
warrants a stay.
    2. Petitioners have not shown a likelihood of success on the
merits. Exchange Act Section 11A permits the Commission ``to authorize
or require'' SROs ``to act jointly'' with respect to ``matters as to
which they share authority under this chapter in planning, developing,
operating, or regulating a national market system.'' 15 U.S.C. 78k-
1(a)(3)(B). Rule 608 likewise provides that ``[a]ny two or more self-
regulatory organizations, acting jointly, may file a national market
system plan'' and that ``[s]elf-regulatory organizations are authorized
to act jointly in'' ``[p]lanning, developing, and operating any
national market subsystem or facility contemplated by a national market
system plan,'' ``[p]reparing and filing a national market system
plan,'' and ``[i]mplementing or administering an effective national
market system plan.'' 17 CFR 242.608(a). In petitioners' view, the
statutory and regulatory references to ``acting jointly'' mean that
SROs--and only SROs--may have voting power on an NMS operating
committee.
    The Commission has already considered and rejected that argument.
In the Governance Order, the Commission determined that granting non-
SROs voting power is consistent with Section 11A and Rule 608(a).
Despite petitioners' challenge, nothing in the text of either Section
11A or Rule 608(a) demonstrates that ``acting jointly'' means ``acting
jointly and exclusively.'' Rather, paragraph (2) of Section 11A(a)
contains a broad grant of authority to the Commission, directing it
``to use its authority'' under the Exchange Act ``to facilitate the
establishment of a national market system for securities'' in
accordance with certain broad congressional findings and objectives. 15
U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(2). Paragraph (3) then references the Commission's
ability to authorize or require SROs to act jointly, and nothing in the
text or structure of paragraph (3) undermines the Commission's grant of
authority in paragraph (2) or compels the conclusion that joint SRO
action must mean exclusive SRO action. The Commission's grant of
authority to SROs in Rule 608(a)(3) likewise authorizes SROs to act
jointly but, in doing so, does not by implication limit the
Commission's authority to set forth a governance structure that
includes non-SROs with some measure of voting power on an NMS plan
operating committee. Rather, as the Governance Order notes, both
Section 11A and Rule 608 are silent as to the participation of non-SROs
in the operation of the plan. 85 FR at 28715. The Governance Order's
allocation of voting power to non-SROs is thus consistent with Section
11A and Rule 608(a).
    The Governance Order does not discount the important role SROs play
in plan governance. But it balances that role against the need for,
among other things, more viewpoints on plan operating committees. The
Commission has determined that ``the distribution of voting power''
described in the Governance Order ``appropriately strikes th[e]
balance'' between broader representation and the SROs' statutory and
regulatory responsibilities, ``by providing for meaningful input from a
broad range of stakeholders while also ensuring that the SROs retain
sufficient voting power to act jointly on behalf of the plan pursuant
to their regulatory responsibilities.'' 85 FR at 28722.
    Petitioners' other challenges presented in their stay motion were
already rejected in the Governance Order.
    3. The Governance Order serves a strong public interest. The
governance model for the Equity Data Plans was established in 1970s.
Since then, critical developments in the equities markets--including
the heightening of an inherent conflict of interest between the for-
profit and regulatory roles of the exchanges and the concentration of
voting power in the Equity Data Plans among a few large exchange
groups--have demonstrated the need for an updated governance model. The
public interest will be served by the enhanced decisionmaking and
innovation in the provision of equity market data that will result from
the governance changes outlined in the Governance Order. And the
governance of the consolidated data feeds can be improved by
consolidating the three existing, separate Equity Data Plans into a
single New Consolidated Data Plan that will reduce existing
redundancies, inefficiencies, and inconsistencies between and among the
Equity Data Plans. See 85 FR at 28711; Proposed Order, 85 FR 2164,
2166-74 (Jan. 14, 2020). Moreover, as the Order explains,
``[a]ddressing the issues with the current governance structure of the
Equity Data Plans discussed in this Order is a key step in responding
to broader concerns about the consolidated data feeds.'' 85 FR at 28702
& n.11. Any further delay in taking this first step toward establishing
a new governance structure will impede the achievement of these
benefits.
    Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 25(c)(2) of the
Exchange Act and Section 705 of the Administrative Procedure Act that
petitioners' motions for a stay be denied.

    By the Commission.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-13127 Filed 6-17-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 150 (Friday, August 3, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38110-38112]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16603]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0508; FRL-9981-69--Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Under the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Maryland. The State of Maryland's SIP revision satisfies the
volatile organic compound (VOC) reasonably available control technology
(RACT) requirements under the 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air
quality standard (NAAQS). The State of Maryland will address RACT for
oxides of nitrogen (NOX) in another SIP submission.
Maryland's RACT submittal for the 2008 ozone NAAQS includes (1)
certification that previously adopted RACT controls in Maryland's SIP
that were approved by EPA under the 1-hour ozone and 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS are based on the currently available technically and economically
feasible controls, and that they continue to represent RACT; (2) a
negative declaration demonstrating that no facilities exist in the
state for the applicable control technique guideline (CTG) categories;
and (3) adoption of new or more stringent RACT determinations. This
action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 4,
2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2018-0508 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory A. Becoat,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 18, 2016, the Maryland Department
of the Environment (MDE) submitted a revision to its SIP that addresses
the requirements of RACT under the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

I. Background

A. General

    Ozone is formed in the atmosphere by photochemical reactions
between VOCs and NOX in the presence of sunlight. In order
to reduce these ozone concentrations, the CAA requires control of VOC
and NOX emission sources to achieve emission reductions in
moderate or more serious ozone nonattainment areas. Among effective
control measures, RACT controls significantly reduce VOC and
NOX emissions from major stationary sources.
    RACT is defined as the lowest emission limitation that a particular
source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology
that is reasonably available considering technological and economic
feasibility.\1\ Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA provides that SIPs for
nonattainment areas must include reasonably available control measures
(RACM) for attainment of the NAAQS, including emissions reductions from
existing sources through adoption of RACT. A major source in a
nonattainment area is defined as any stationary source that emits or
has the potential to emit NOX or VOC emissions above a
certain applicability threshold that is based on the ozone
nonattainment classification of the area: Marginal, Moderate, Serious,
or Severe. See ``major stationary source'' in CAA sections 182(b),
184(b) and 302. Sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f)(1) of the CAA require
states with moderate (or worse) ozone nonattainment areas to implement
RACT controls on all stationary sources and source categories covered
by a CTG document issued by EPA and on all major sources of VOC and
NOX emissions located in the area. EPA's CTGs establish
presumptive RACT control requirements for various VOC source
categories. The CTGs typically identify a particular control level that
EPA recommends as being RACT. In some cases, EPA has issued Alternative
Control Techniques guidelines (ACTs) primarily for NOX
source categories, which in contrast to the CTGs, only present a range
for possible control options but do not identify any particular option
as the presumptive norm for what is RACT. Section 183(c) of the CAA
requires EPA to revise and update CTGs and ACTs as the Administrator
determines necessary. EPA issued eleven new CTGs from 2006 through 2008
for a total of 44 CTGs issued since November 1990. States are required
to implement RACT for the source categories covered by CTGs through the
SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See December 9, 1976 memorandum from Roger Strelow,
Assistant Administrator for Air and Waste Management, to Regional
Administrators, ``Guidance for Determining Acceptability of SIP
Regulations in Non-Attainment Areas.'' see also 44 FR 53761, 53762
(September 17, 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 184(a) of the CAA established a single ozone transport
region (OTR), comprising all or part of 12 eastern states and the
District of Columbia.\2\ The entire State of Maryland is part of the
OTR and, therefore, must comply with the RACT requirements in section
184(b)(1)(B) and (2) of the CAA. Specifically, section 184(b)(1)(B)
requires the implementation of RACT in OTR states with respect to all
sources of VOC covered by a CTG. Additionally, section 184(b)(2) states
that any stationary source with the potential to emit 50 tons per year
(tpy) of VOCs shall be considered a major source and requires the
implementation of major stationary source requirements in the OTR
states as if the area were a moderate nonattainment area. A major
source in a nonattainment area is defined as any stationary source that
emits or has the potential to emit NOX or VOC emissions
above a certain applicability threshold that is based on the ozone
nonattainment classification of the area: Marginal, Moderate, Serious,
or Severe. See ``major stationary source'' in CAA sections 182(b) and
184(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Only a portion of the Commonwealth of Virginia is included
in the OTR.

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

B. Maryland's History

    Maryland has been subject to the CAA RACT requirements because of
previous ozone nonattainment designations. The Baltimore (which
includes Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Carroll, Harford, and Howard
Counties, MD, and Baltimore City, MD), Washington DC (which includes
Calvert, Charles, Frederick, Montgomery, and Prince George's Counties,
MD), and Philadelphia (which includes Cecil County, MD) nonattainment
areas were designated as severe 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas. Kent
and Queen Anne's Counties, MD were designated as a marginal 1-hour
ozone nonattainment area. The remaining Maryland counties were
statutorily identified as moderate nonattainment because they are in
the OTR. Since the early 1990s, Maryland has implemented numerous RACT
controls throughout the State to meet the CAA's RACT requirements under
the 1-hour and the 1997 8-hour ozone standards. Maryland also
implemented controls necessary to meet the requirements of the
NOX SIP Call (40 CFR 51.121). Under the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, the Baltimore, Washington DC, and Philadelphia areas were
designated as serious nonattainment areas. Kent and Queen Anne's
Counties, MD were designated as a marginal ozone nonattainment area.
The remaining Maryland counties were statutorily identified as moderate
nonattainment because they are in the OTR. As a result, Maryland
continued to be subject to the CAA RACT requirements. See 69 FR 23858,
23931 (April 30, 2004). Maryland revised and promulgated its RACT
regulations and demonstrated that it complied with the 1997 CAA RACT
requirements in a SIP revision approved by EPA on July 13, 2012 (77 FR
41278).
    Under CAA section 109(d), EPA is required to periodically review
and promulgate, as necessary, revisions to the NAAQS to continue to
protect human health and the environment. On March 27, 2008, EPA
revised the 1997 8-hour ozone standard by lowering the 8-hour standard
to 0.075 ppm level (73 FR 16436). On May 21, 2012, EPA finalized
attainment/nonattainment designations for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS
(77 FR 30087). Under the 2008 8-hour ozone standard, EPA designated as
nonattainment three areas that contain portions of Maryland. These
nonattainment areas are: The Baltimore moderate nonattainment area; the
Washington DC marginal nonattainment area; and the Philadelphia
marginal nonattainment area. All other remaining Maryland counties are
part of the OTR. As a result, the entire State of Maryland is required
to address the CAA RACT requirements by submitting to EPA a SIP
revision that demonstrates how Maryland meets RACT requirements under
the revised 2008 ozone standard. Maryland is required to implement RACT
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS on all VOC sources covered by a CTG issued by
EPA, as well as all other major stationary sources located within the
state boundaries. The RACT requirements under CAA sections 182 and 184
apply to CTG sources, including eleven new CTGs that EPA issued between
2006 and 2008, and any other major stationary sources of VOC or
NOX. Maryland has retained its major source thresholds at 25
tpy for VOC and NOX sources in the Baltimore, Washington,
DC, and Philadelphia severe 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas. Maryland
has retained its major source thresholds at 50 tpy for VOC and 100 tpy
for NOX in all remaining Maryland counties, consistent with
the CAA requirements for States in the OTR.

C. EPA Guidance and Requirements

    EPA has provided more substantive RACT requirements through final
implementation rules for each ozone NAAQS, as well as guidance. On
March 6, 2015, EPA issued its final rule for implementing the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS (the 2008 Ozone Implementation Rule). See 80 FR 12264.
This rule addressed, among other things, control and planning
obligations as they apply to nonattainment areas under the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, including RACT and RACM. In this rule, EPA specifically
required that states meet the RACT requirements either (1) through a
certification that previously adopted RACT controls in their SIP
revisions approved by EPA under a prior ozone NAAQS continue to
represent adequate RACT control levels for attainment of the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS, or (2) through the adoption of new or more stringent
regulations or controls that represent RACT control levels. A
certification must be accompanied by appropriate supporting information
such as consideration of information received during the public comment
period and consideration of new data. Adoption of new RACT regulations
will occur when states have new stationary sources not covered by
existing RACT regulations, or when new data or technical information
indicates that a previously adopted RACT measure does not represent a
newly available RACT control level. Additionally, states are required
to submit a negative declaration if there are no CTG major sources of
VOC and NOX emissions within the nonattainment area in lieu
of, or in addition to, a certification.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    On August 18, 2016 Maryland submitted a SIP revision to address all
of the CAA RACT requirements of RACT set forth by the CAA under for the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (the 2016 RACT Submission). Specifically,
Maryland's 2016 RACT Submission includes: (1) A certification that for
certain categories of sources, previously-adopted VOC RACT controls in
Maryland's SIP that were approved by EPA under the 1979 1-hour and 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS continue to be based on the currently available
technically and economically feasible controls, and continue to
represent RACT for implementation of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS; (2)
the adoption of new or more stringent regulations or controls that
represent RACT control levels for certain categories of sources; and
(3) a negative declaration that certain CTG or non-CTG major sources of
VOC sources do not exist in Maryland.
    Most of Maryland's Regulations and Statutes, under Code of Maryland
Regulations (COMAR) 26.11.06, 26.11.10, 26.11.11, 26.11.13, 26.11.14,
26.11.19 and 26.11.24, contain the VOC RACT controls that were
implemented and approved into Maryland's SIP under the 1-hour and 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS. Maryland also relies on COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>--
``General Emissions Standards, Prohibitions, and Restrictions--Volatile
Organic Compounds,'' to achieve significant reductions from unique VOC
sources. Maryland is certifying that these regulations, all previously
approved by EPA into the SIP, continue to meet the RACT requirements
for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for major stationary sources of VOCs
and CTG-covered sources of VOCs. Maryland also submitted a negative
declaration for the CTGs that have not been adopted due to no affected
facilities in Maryland, and included Alternative Control Technology
(ACTs) in their review of applicable 2008 8-hour ozone RACT
requirements. Maryland considered controls on other sources of VOCs not
covered by a CTG and adopted rules whenever deemed to be reasonably
available controls. Additionally, Maryland conducted a RACT analysis
for each major Non-CTG stationary source of VOC. As previously
discussed, Maryland retained its major source levels at 25 tpy for VOC
sources in the Baltimore, Washington, DC and

Philadelphia 1-hour severe nonattainment areas. All remaining counties
which are part of the OTR major source levels remain at 50 tpy for VOC.
More detailed information on these provisions as well as a detailed
summary of EPA's review can be found in the Technical Support Document
(TSD) for this action which is available on line at
www.regulations.gov, Docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0508.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA has reviewed Maryland's 2016 RACT Submission and is proposing
to approve Maryland's SIP revision on the basis that Maryland has met
the RACT requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS as set forth by
sections 182(b) and 184(b)(2) of the CAA. Maryland's SIP revision
satisfies the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS RACT requirements through (1)
certification that previously adopted RACT controls in Maryland's SIP
that were approved by EPA under the 1-hour ozone and 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS continue to be are based on the currently available technically
and economically feasible controls, and that they continue to represent
RACT; (2) a negative declaration demonstrating that no facilities exist
in the state for certain the applicable CTG categories; and (3)
adoption of new or more stringent RACT determinations when technically
and economically feasible. EPA finds that Maryland's 2016 RACT
Submission demonstrates that the State has adopted air pollution
control strategies that represent RACT for the purposes of compliance
with the 2008 8-hour ozone standard for all major stationary sources of
VOC. EPA finds that Maryland's SIP implements RACT with respect to all
sources of VOCs covered by a CTG issued prior to July 20, 2014, as well
as represents RACT for all CTG VOC major stationary sources. EPA is
soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document
relevant to RACT requirements for Maryland for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
These comments will be considered before taking final action.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA
rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to
incorporate by reference source-specific RACT determinations under the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for certain major sources of VOC emissions. EPA
has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally
available through http://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region III
Office (please contact the person identified in the For Further
Information Contact section of this preamble for more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    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 proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (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 proposed rule, Maryland's 2008 8-hour ozone RACT SIP
revision 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: July 24, 2018.
Cecil Rodrigues,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2018-16603 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 31, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34869-34870]
[FR Doc No: 2023-11515]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4676-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2023-0001]

Illinois; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Illinois (FEMA-4676-DR), dated October 14, 2022, and
related determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on March 29, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Waddy Gonzalez,
of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for
this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Darryl L. Dragoo as
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

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

and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance
to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster
Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters);
97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2023-11515 Filed 5-30-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 27, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52933-52934]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20823]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0972]

Strengthening the Operating Framework and Furthering the
Objectives of Coalition for Accelerating Standards and Therapies
Initiative (U24)

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of grant funds for the support of the Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research (CDER) Data Standards Program. The goal of the
CDER Data Standards Program is to strengthen and support the Coalition
for Accelerating Standards and Therapies (CFAST) Initiative in its
efforts to establish and maintain clinical data standards that will
enable FDA reviewers to more efficiently perform efficacy analysis of
potential new drugs in therapeutic areas that are important to public
health.

DATES: Important dates are as follows:
    1. The application due date is August 26, 2013.
    2. The anticipated start date is September 15, 2013.
    3. The expiration date is August 27, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit the paper application to: Kimberly Pendleton-Chew,
Grants Management (HFA-500), 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 2031, Rockville, MD
20857, and a copy to Fatima Frye, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 1195, Silver Spring,
MD 20993. For more information, see section III of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fatima Frye, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 1195, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-
4863; or Kimberly Pendleton-Chew, Office of Acquisition Support and
Grants, Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 2031,
Rockville, MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For more information on this funding opportunity announcement (FOA)
and to obtain detailed requirements, please refer to the full FOA
located at http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/

FormsSubmissionRequirements/ElectronicSubmissions/ucm364432.htm.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Funding Opportunity Description

RFA-FD-13-039
93.103

A. Background

    CDER receives an enormous and growing amount of data in a variety
of regulatory submissions from a multitude of sources and in a variety
of formats. This wealth of data holds great potential to advance CDER's
regulatory and scientific work, but the present lack of standardized
data creates significant challenges to realizing that potential. The
volume and complexity of drug-related information submitted to CDER for
regulatory review is creating significant challenges to the Center's
ability to efficiently and effectively perform its critical public
health mission.
    The lack of standardized data affects CDER's review processes by
curtailing a reviewer's ability to perform integral tasks such as rapid
acquisition, analysis, storage, and reporting of regulatory data.
Improved data quality, accessibility, and predictability will give
reviewers more time to carry out complex analyses, ask in-depth
questions, and address late-emerging issues. Standardized data will
allow reviewers to increase review consistency and perform evaluations
across the drug lifecycle. This will enhance the Center's performance
across key drug regulatory functions and ongoing business operations,
including premarket review, post-market safety, oversight of drug
quality, and oversight of drug promotion.
    Standardized data elements that are common to all clinical trials,
such as age and gender, have been established through Clinical Data
Interchange Standards Consortium standards. However, data elements that
are unique for a particular disease or therapeutic area still need to
be developed so that the data are consistent and consistently
understood for efficacy analysis, and that data from multiple trials
can be more easily grouped for reporting and meta-analysis.
    In short, establishing common standards for data reporting will
provide new opportunities to transform the massive amount of data from
drug studies on specific diseases into useful information to
potentially speed the delivery of new therapies to patients.

B. Research Objectives

    The CFAST Initiative aims to accelerate clinical research and
medical product development by establishing and maintaining data
standards, tools, and methods for conducting research in therapeutic
areas that are important to public health. It is established as a
public-private partnership (PPP) involving multiple stakeholders. The
Grantee funded through this announcement would be expected to
accomplish activities such as, but not limited to:
     Maintenance of the scientific and administrative
infrastructure of the PPP to support a series of projects under the
CFAST Initiative.
     Coordination and management of therapeutic area standards
development projects with key experts in the specific therapeutic
areas, including stakeholders from industry, professional
organizations, academia, and Government agencies.
     Identification and engagement with key experts in the
therapeutic areas, including stakeholders from industry, professional
organizations, academia, and Government agencies.
     Development of therapeutic area data standards, initially
proposed for diabetes, QT studies, lipid lowering/altering drugs, and
hepatitis C. Additional or different areas can be considered as well.
     Identification and implementation of continuous quality
improvements with respect to the data standards development process and
product(s) to facilitate timely and sustainable standards.

C. Eligibility Information

    The following organization is eligible to apply: The Critical Path
Institute (C-Path).
    Over the past 7 years, C-Path has become an international leader in
forming and leading/managing collaborations globally. They currently
lead 7 very active scientific consortia across multiple disease areas.
C-Path consortia include more than 1,000 scientists from Government,
academia, patient advocacy organizations, and 41 major pharmaceutical
companies. C-Path has a proven process, capability, and institutional
knowledge critical to successfully leading scientific consortia and
rapid therapeutic area standards development projects through an open,
transparent process as identified by the Prescription Drug User Fee Act
V.

II. Award Information/Funds Available

A. Award Amount

    Total amount of funding available is $2,000,000. Anticipate one
award.

B. Length of Support

    Scope of the proposed project should determine the project period.
The maximum period is 3 years.

III. Paper Application, Registration, and Submission Information

    To submit a paper application in response to this FOA, applicants
should first review the full announcement located at http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/FormsSubmissionRequirements/ElectronicSubmissions/ucm364432.htm. (FDA
has verified the Web site addresses throughout this document, but FDA
is not responsible for any subsequent changes to the Web sites after
this document publishes in the Federal Register.) Persons interested in
applying for a grant may obtain an application at http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/FormsSubmissionRequirements/ElectronicSubmissions/ucm364432.htm. For all the paper application
submissions, the following steps are required:
     Step 1: Obtain a Dun and Bradstreet (DUNS) Number
     Step 2: Register With System for Award Management (SAM)
     Step 3: Register With Electronic Research Administration
(eRA) Commons
    Steps 1 and 2, in detail, can be found at http://www07.grants.gov/applicants/organization_registration.jsp. Step 3, in detail, can be
found at https://commons.era.nih.gov/commons/registration/registrationInstructions.jsp. After you have followed these steps,
submit paper applications to: Kimberly Pendleton-Chew, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 2031, Rockville, MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: August 21, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-20823 Filed 8-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 13 (Thursday, January 21, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3490-3496]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01062]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76912; File No. SR-NYSE-2016-03]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Amending the Fees for NYSE BBO and NYSE Trades

January 14, 2016.
    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 January 4, 2016, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''
or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the fees for NYSE BBO and NYSE
Trades to: (1) Establish a multiple data feed fee; (2) discontinue fees
relating to managed non-display; (3) modify the application of the
access fee; and (4) reduce the Enterprise Fee. The proposed rule change
is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the fees for NYSE BBO and NYSE
Trades market data products,\4\ as set forth on the NYSE Proprietary
Market Data Fee Schedule (``Fee Schedule''). The Exchange proposes to
make the following fee changes effective January 4, 2016:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 61914 (Apr. 14,
2010), 74 FR 21077 (Apr. 22, 2010) (SR-NYSE-2010-30) (notice--NYSE
BBO); 62181 (May 26, 2010), 75 FR 31488 (June 3, 2010) (SR-NYSE-
2010-30) (approval order--NYSE BBO); 59309 (Jan. 28, 2009), 74 FR
6073 (Feb. 4, 2009) (SR-NYSE-2009-04) (notice--NYSE Trades); and
59309 (Mar. 19, 2009), 74 FR 13293 (Mar. 26, 2009) (approval order--
NYSE Trades) (SR-NYSE-2009-04) and 62038 (May 5, 2010), 75 FR 26825
(May 12, 2010) (SR-NYSE-2010-22).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Establish a multiple data feed fee;
     Discontinue fees relating to managed non-display;
     Modify the application of the access fee; and
     Reduce the Enterprise Fee.
Multiple Data Feed Fee \5\
    The Exchange proposes to establish a new monthly fee, the
``Multiple Data Feed Fee,'' that would apply to data recipients that
take a data feed for a market data product in more than two locations.
Data recipients taking NYSE BBO or NYSE Trades in more than two
locations would be charged $200 per additional location per product per
month. No new reporting would be required.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The text of footnote 6 in Exhibit 5 of this proposed rule
change was previously filed under a separate filing. See SR-NYSE-
2016-02 (Proposed Rule Change to Amend the Fees for NYSE OpenBook).
    \6\ Data vendors currently report a unique Vendor Account Number
for each location at which they provide a data feed to a data
recipient. The Exchange considers each Vendor Account Number a
location. For example, if a data recipient has five Vendor Account
Numbers, representing five locations, for the receipt of the NYSE
BBO product, that data recipient will pay the Multiple Data Feed fee
with respect to three of the five locations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Managed Non-Display Fees
    Non-Display Use of NYSE market data means accessing, processing, or
consuming NYSE market data delivered via direct and/or Redistributor
\7\ data feeds for a purpose other than in support of a data
recipient's display usage or further internal or external

redistribution.\8\ Managed Non-Display Services fees apply when a data
recipient's non-display applications are hosted by a Redistributor that
has been approved for Managed Non-Display Services.\9\ A Redistributor
approved for Managed Non-Display Services manages and controls the
access to NYSE BBO and NYSE Trades and does not allow for further
internal distribution or external redistribution of NYSE BBO and NYSE
Trades by the data recipients. A Redistributor approved for Managed
Non-Display Services is required to report to NYSE on a monthly basis
the data recipients that are receiving NYSE market data through the
Redistributor's managed non-display service and the real-time NYSE
market data products that such data recipients are receiving through
such service. Recipients of data through Managed Non-Display Service
have no additional reporting requirements. Data recipients that receive
NYSE BBO from an approved Redistributor of Managed Non-Display Services
are charged a Managed Non-Display Services Fee of $300 per month, and
data recipients that receive NYSE Trades from an approved Redistributor
of Managed Non-Display Services are charged a Managed Non-Display
Services Fee of $1,000 per month. Data recipients that receive NYSE BBO
and NYSE Trades from an approved Redistributor of Managed Non-Display
Services are also charged an Access Fee of $750 per month.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ ``Redistributor'' means a vendor or any other person that
provides an NYSE data product to a data recipient or to any system
that a data recipient uses, irrespective of the means of
transmission or access.
    \8\ See e.g. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72923 (Aug. 26,
2014), 79 FR 52079 (Sept. 2, 2014) (SR-NYSE-2014-43) (``2014 Non-
Display Filing'').
    \9\ To be approved for Managed Non-Display Services, a
Redistributor must manage and control the access to NYSE BBO and
NYSE Trades for data recipients' non-display applications and not
allow for further internal distribution or external redistribution
of the information by data recipients. In addition, the
Redistributor is required to (a) host the data recipients' non-
display applications in equipment located in the Redistributor's
data center and/or hosted space/cage and (b) offer NYSE BBO and NYSE
Trades in the Redistributor's own messaging formats (rather than
using raw NYSE message formats) by reformatting and/or altering NYSE
BBO and NYSE Trades prior to retransmission without affecting the
integrity of NYSE BBO and NYSE Trades and without rendering NYSE BBO
and NYSE Trades inaccurate, unfair, uninformative, fictitious,
misleading or discriminatory.
    \10\ A single Managed Non-Display Access Fee applies for clients
receiving both NYSE BBO and NYSE Trades. The Exchange is also
proposing in this filing to modify this application of the access
fees. See ``Modification of the application of the access fee,''
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to discontinue the fees related to Managed
Non-Display Services because of the limited number of Redistributors
that have qualified for Managed Non-Display Services and the
administrative burdens associated with the program in light of the
limited number of Redistributors that have qualified for Managed Non-
Display Services. As proposed, all data recipients currently using NYSE
BBO and NYSE Trades on a managed non-display basis would be subject to
the same access fee of $1,500 per month, and the same non-display
services fees,\11\ as other non-display data recipients.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Fee Schedule.
    \12\ In order to harmonize its approach to fees for its market
data products, the Exchange is simultaneously proposing to remove
fees related to Managed Non-Display Services for NYSE OpenBook and
NYSE Order Imbalances. See SR-NYSE-2016-02 and SR-NYSE-2016-04. The
fees applicable to the NYSE Integrated market data product effective
as of January 4, 2016 do not include Managed Non-Display Services
fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Modification of the Application of the Access Fee
    The Exchange proposes to modify the application of the access fees
for NYSE BBO and NYSE Trades.
    Each NYSE BBO data feed recipient currently pays a monthly $1,500
access fee for NYSE BBO, and each NYSE Trades data feed recipient
currently pays a monthly $1,500 access fee for NYSE Trades. A single
access fee applies for data recipients receiving both NYSE BBO and NYSE
Trades.\13\ The Exchange proposes to amend the access fees so that
recipients of NYSE BBO and NYSE Trades would be required to pay a
separate access fees for NYSE BBO ($1,500 per month) and NYSE Trades
($1,500 per month). This change would have no impact on customers who
receive only NYSE BBO or only NYSE Trades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61914 (April 15,
2010), 75 FR 21077 (April 22, 2010) (SR-NYSE-2010-30) at 21078.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange notes that recipients of NYSE OpenBook
that also receive NYSE BBO and NYSE Order Imbalances do not currently
pay an access fee for NYSE BBO and NYSE Order Imbalances.\14\ The
Exchange has proposed by separate rule filing to amend the NYSE
OpenBook access fee so that recipients of NYSE OpenBook who also
receive NYSE BBO or NYSE Order Imbalances would be required to pay
separate access fees for NYSE BBO ($1,500 per month) and/or NYSE Order
Imbalances ($500 per month) in addition to the access fee for NYSE
OpenBook.\15\ This change would have no impact on customers who do not
receive NYSE OpenBook but who do receive NYSE BBO or NYSE Order
Imbalances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59544 (Mar. 9,
2009), 74 FR 11162 (March 16, 2009) (SR-NYSE-2008-131), at 11163.
    \15\ See SR-NYSE-2016-02.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reduction to Enterprise Fee
    The Exchange currently charges an enterprise fee of $190,000 per
month for an unlimited number of professional and non-professional
users for each of NYSE BBO and NYSE Trades. A single Enterprise Fee
applies for clients receiving both NYSE BBO and NYSE Trades.\16\ The
Exchange proposes to lower the enterprise fee to $185,000 per month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70211 (Aug. 15,
2013), 78 FR 51781 (Aug. 21, 2013) (SR-NYSE-2013-58).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an example, under the current fee structure for per user fees,
if a firm had 40,000 professional users who each received NYSE Trades
at $4 per month and NYSE BBO at $4 per month, then the firm would pay
$320,000 per month in professional user fees. Under the current pricing
structure, the charge would be capped at $190,000 and effective January
it would be capped at $185,000.
    Under the proposed enterprise fee, the firm would pay a flat fee of
$185,000 for an unlimited number of professional and non-professional
users for both products. As is the case currently, a data recipient
that pays the enterprise fee would not have to report the number of
such users on a monthly basis.\17\ However, every six months, a data
recipient must provide the Exchange with a count of the total number of
natural person users of each product, including both professional and
non-professional users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Professional users currently are subject to a per display
device count. See Securities Act Release No. 73985 (Jan. 5. 2015),
80 FR 1456 (Jan. 9, 2015) (SR-NYSE-2014-75).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\18\ in general, and
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\19\ in particular, in that it
provides an equitable allocation of reasonable fees among users and
recipients of the data and is not designed to permit unfair
discrimination among customers, issuers, and brokers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The fees are also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
they will apply to all data recipients that choose to subscribe to NYSE
BBO and NYSE Trades.
Multiple Data Feed Fee
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to require data
recipients to pay a modest additional fee taking a data feed for a
market data product in

more than two locations, because such data recipients can derive
substantial value from being able to consume the product in as many
locations as they want. In addition, there are administrative burdens
associated with tracking each location at which a data recipient
receives the product. The Multiple Data Feed Fee is designed to
encourage data recipients to better manage their requests for
additional data feeds and to monitor their usage of data feeds. The
proposed fee is designed to apply to data feeds received in more than
two locations so that each data recipient can have one primary and one
backup data location before having to pay a multiple data feed fee. The
Exchange notes that this pricing is consistent with similar pricing
adopted in 2013 by the Consolidated Tape Association (``CTA'').\20\ The
Exchange also notes that the OPRA Plan imposes a similar charge of $100
per connection for circuit connections in addition to the primary and
backup connections.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70010 (July 19,
2013), 78 FR 44984 (July 25, 2013) (SR-CTA/CQ-2013-04).
    \21\ See ``Direct Access Fee,'' Options Price Reporting
Authority Fee Schedule Fee Schedule[sic] PRA [sic] Plan at http://www.opradata.com/pdf/fee_schedule.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Managed Non-Display Fees
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to discontinue Managed
Non-Display Fees. In 2013, the Exchange determined that its fee
structure, which was then based primarily on counting both display and
non-display devices, was no longer appropriate in light of market and
technology developments.\22\ Since then, the Exchange also modified its
approach to display and non-display fees with changes to the fees as
reflected in the 2014 Non-Display Filing.\23\ Discontinuing the fees
applicable to Managed Non-Display as proposed reflects the Exchange's
continuing review and consideration of the application of non-display
fees, and would harmonize and simplify the application of Non-Display
Use fees by applying them consistently to all users. In particular,
after further experience with the application of non-display use fees,
the Exchange believes that it is more equitable and less discriminatory
to discontinue the distinction for Managed Non-Display services because
all data recipients using data on a non-display basis are using it in a
comparable way and should be subject to similar fees regardless of
whether or not they receive the data directly from the Exchange. The
Exchange believes that applying the same non-display fees to all data
recipients on the same basis better reflects the significant value of
non-display data to data recipients and eliminates what is effectively
a discount for certain data recipients, and as such is not unfairly
discriminatory. The Exchange believes that the non-display fees
directly and appropriately reflect the significant value of using non-
display data in a wide range of computer-automated functions relating
to both trading and non-trading activities and that the number and
range of these functions continue to grow through innovation and
technology developments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69278 (April 2,
2013), 78 FR 20973 (April 8, 2013) (SR-NYSE-2013-25).
    \23\ See note 8, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Modifications to Access Fee
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to make the changes
proposed to the application of access fees for NYSE BBO and NYSE
Trades. The Exchange believes the proposed changes will make the
application of the access fees to each of products so that an access
fee entitles a customer to receive, for the applicable product, a data
feed or feeds. Specifically, data recipients that take the NYSE BBO
and/or NYSE Trades products receive value from each product they choose
to take. A data recipient that chooses to take multiple products (no
recipient is required to take any of these products, or any specific
combination of them) uses each product in a different way and therefore
obtains different value from each. The Exchange believes that each
product has a separate and distinct value that is appropriate to
reflect in a separate access fee. Finally, the requirement to pay
separate access fees for each market data product is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because it would apply to all data recipients
and appropriately reflects the value of each product to those who
choose to use them.
Reduction to Enterprise Fee
    The proposed enterprise fees for NYSE BBO and NYSE Trades are
reasonable because they could result in a fee reduction for data
recipients with a large number of professional and nonprofessional
users, as described in the example above. If a data recipient has a
smaller number of professional users of NYSE BBO and/or NYSE Trades,
then it may continue to use the per user fee structure. By reducing
prices for data recipient [sic] with a large number of professional and
non-professional users, the Exchange believes that more data recipient
[sic] may choose to offer NYSE BBO and NYSE Trades, thereby expanding
the distribution of this market data for the benefit of investors. The
Exchange also believes that offering an enterprise fee expands the
range of options for offering NYSE BBO and NYSE Trades and allows data
recipients greater choice in selecting the most appropriate level of
data and fees for the professional and non-professional users they are
servicing.
    The Exchange notes that NYSE BBO and NYSE Trades are entirely
optional. The Exchange is not required to make NYSE BBO and NYSE Trades
available or to offer any specific pricing alternatives to any
customers, nor is any firm required to purchase NYSE BBO and NYSE
Trades. Firms that do purchase NYSE BBO and NYSE Trades do so for the
primary goals of using them to increase revenues, reduce expenses, and
in some instances compete directly with the Exchange (including for
order flow); those firms are able to determine for themselves whether
NYSE BBO and NYSE Trades or any other similar products are attractively
priced or not.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See, e.g., Proposing Release on Regulation of NMS Stock
Alternative Trading Systems, Securities Exchange Act Release No.
76474 (Nov. 18, 2015) (File No. S7-23-15). See also, ``Brokers
Warned Not to Steer Clients' Stock Trades Into Slow Lane,''
Bloomberg Business, December 14, 2015 (Sigma X dark pool to use
direct exchange feeds as the primary source of price data).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Firms that do not wish to purchase NYSE BBO and NYSE Trades at the
new prices have a variety of alternative market data products from
which to choose,\25\ or if NYSE BBO and NYSE Trades do not provide
sufficient value to firms as offered based on the uses those firms have
or planned to make of it, such firms may simply choose to conduct their
business operations in ways that do not use NYSE BBO and NYSE Trades or
use them at different levels or in different configurations. The
Exchange notes that broker-dealers are not required to purchase
proprietary market data to comply with their best execution
obligations.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See NASDAQ Rule 7047 (Nasdaq Basic) and BATS Rule 11.22
(BATS TOP and Last Sale).
    \26\ See FINRA Regulatory Notice 15-46, ``Best Execution,''
November 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit in NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir.
2010), upheld reliance by the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') upon the existence of competitive market mechanisms to
set reasonable and equitably allocated fees for proprietary market
data:

    In fact, the legislative history indicates that the Congress
intended that the market system

`evolve through the interplay of competitive forces as unnecessary
regulatory restrictions are removed' and that the SEC wield its
regulatory power `in those situations where competition may not be
sufficient,' such as in the creation of a `consolidated
transactional reporting system.'

    Id. at 535 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 94-229 at 92 (1975), as reprinted
in 1975 U.S.C.C.A.N. 323). The court agreed with the Commission's
conclusion that ``Congress intended that `competitive forces should
dictate the services and practices that constitute the U.S. national
market system for trading equity securities.' '' \27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ NetCoalition, 615 F.3d at 535.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained below in the Exchange's Statement on Burden on
Competition, the Exchange believes that there is substantial evidence
of competition in the marketplace for proprietary market data and that
the Commission can rely upon such evidence in concluding that the fees
established in this filing are the product of competition and therefore
satisfy the relevant statutory standards. In addition, the existence of
alternatives to these data products, such as consolidated data and
proprietary data from other sources, as described below, further
ensures that the Exchange cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees that
are unreasonably discriminatory, when vendors and subscribers can
select such alternatives.
    As the NetCoalition decision noted, the Commission is not required
to undertake a cost-of-service or ratemaking approach. The Exchange
believes that, even if it were possible as a matter of economic theory,
cost-based pricing for proprietary market data would be so complicated
that it could not be done practically or offer any significant
benefits.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ The Exchange believes that cost-based pricing would be
impractical because it would create enormous administrative burdens
for all parties and the Commission to cost-regulate a large number
of participants and standardize and analyze extraordinary amounts of
information, accounts, and reports. In addition, and as described
below, it is impossible to regulate market data prices in isolation
from prices charged by markets for other services that are joint
products. Cost-based rate regulation would also lead to litigation
and may distort incentives, including those to minimize costs and to
innovate, leading to further waste. Under cost-based pricing, the
Commission would be burdened with determining a fair rate of return,
and the industry could experience frequent rate increases based on
escalating expense levels. Even in industries historically subject
to utility regulation, cost-based ratemaking has been discredited.
As such, the Exchange believes that cost-based ratemaking would be
inappropriate for proprietary market data and inconsistent with
Congress's direction that the Commission use its authority to foster
the development of the national market system, and that market
forces will continue to provide appropriate pricing discipline. See
Appendix C to NYSE's comments to the Commission's 2000 Concept
Release on the Regulation of Market Information Fees and Revenues,
which can be found on the Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov/rules/concept/s72899/buck1.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees are
reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. An exchange's ability to
price its proprietary market data feed products is constrained by
actual competition for the sale of proprietary market data products,
the joint product nature of exchange platforms, and the existence of
alternatives to the Exchange's proprietary data.
The Existence of Actual Competition
    The market for proprietary data products is currently competitive
and inherently contestable because there is fierce competition for the
inputs necessary for the creation of proprietary data and strict
pricing discipline for the proprietary products themselves. Numerous
exchanges compete with one another for listings and order flow and
sales of market data itself, providing ample opportunities for
entrepreneurs who wish to compete in any or all of those areas,
including producing and distributing their own market data. Proprietary
data products are produced and distributed by each individual exchange,
as well as other entities, in a vigorously competitive market. Indeed,
the U.S. Department of Justice (``DOJ'') (the primary antitrust
regulator) has expressly acknowledged the aggressive actual competition
among exchanges, including for the sale of proprietary market data. In
2011, the DOJ stated that exchanges ``compete head to head to offer
real-time equity data products. These data products include the best
bid and offer of every exchange and information on each equity trade,
including the last sale.'' \29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Press Release, U.S. Department of Justice, Assistant
Attorney General Christine Varney Holds Conference Call Regarding
NASDAQ OMX Group Inc. and IntercontinentalExchange Inc. Abandoning
Their Bid for NYSE Euronext (May 16, 2011), available at http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/atr/speeches/2011/at-speech-110516.html; see
also Complaint in U.S. v. Deutsche Borse AG and NYSE Euronext, Case
No. 11-cv-2280 (D.C. Dist.) ] 24 (``NYSE and Direct Edge compete
head-to-head . . . in the provision of real-time proprietary equity
data products.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, competitive markets for listings, order flow, executions,
and transaction reports provide pricing discipline for the inputs of
proprietary data products and therefore constrain markets from
overpricing proprietary market data. Broker-dealers send their order
flow and transaction reports to multiple venues, rather than providing
them all to a single venue, which in turn reinforces this competitive
constraint. As a 2010 Commission Concept Release noted, the ``current
market structure can be described as dispersed and complex'' with
``trading volume . . . dispersed among many highly automated trading
centers that compete for order flow in the same stocks'' and ``trading
centers offer[ing] a wide range of services that are designed to
attract different types of market participants with varying trading
needs.'' \30\ More recently, SEC Chair Mary Jo White has noted that
competition for order flow in exchange-listed equities is ``intense''
and divided among many trading venues, including exchanges, more than
40 alternative trading systems, and more than 250 broker-dealers.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Concept Release on Equity Market Structure, Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 61358 (Jan. 14, 2010), 75 FR 3594 (Jan. 21,
2010) (File No. S7-02-10). This Concept Release included data from
the third quarter of 2009 showing that no market center traded more
than 20% of the volume of listed stocks, further evidencing the
dispersal of and competition for trading activity. Id. at 3598. Data
available on ArcaVision show that from June 30, 2013 to June 30,
2014, no exchange traded more than 12% of the volume of listed
stocks by either trade or dollar volume, further evidencing the
continued dispersal of and fierce competition for trading activity.
See https://www.arcavision.com/Arcavision/arcalogin.jsp.
    \31\ Mary Jo White, Enhancing Our Equity Market Structure,
Sandler O'Neill & Partners, L.P. Global Exchange and Brokerage
Conference (June 5, 2014) (available on the Commission Web site),
citing Tuttle, Laura, 2014, ``OTC Trading: Description of Non-ATS
OTC Trading in National Market System Stocks,'' at 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If an exchange succeeds in competing for quotations, order flow,
and trade executions, then it earns trading revenues and increases the
value of its proprietary market data products because they will contain
greater quote and trade information. Conversely, if an exchange is less
successful in attracting quotes, order flow, and trade executions, then
its market data products may be less desirable to customers in light of
the diminished content and data products offered by competing venues
may become more attractive. Thus, competition for quotations, order
flow, and trade executions puts significant pressure on an exchange to
maintain both execution and data fees at reasonable levels.
    In addition, in the case of products that are also redistributed
through market data vendors, such as Bloomberg and Thompson Reuters,
the vendors

themselves provide additional price discipline for proprietary data
products because they control the primary means of access to certain
end users. These vendors impose price discipline based upon their
business models. For example, vendors that assess a surcharge on data
they sell are able to refuse to offer proprietary products that their
end users do not or will not purchase in sufficient numbers. Vendors
will not elect to make available NYSE BBO or NYSE Trades unless their
customers request it, and customers will not elect to pay the proposed
fees unless NYSE BBO and NYSE Trades can provide value by sufficiently
increasing revenues or reducing costs in the customer's business in a
manner that will offset the fees. All of these factors operate as
constraints on pricing proprietary data products.
Joint Product Nature of Exchange Platform
    Transaction execution and proprietary data products are
complementary in that market data is both an input and a byproduct of
the execution service. In fact, proprietary market data and trade
executions are a paradigmatic example of joint products with joint
costs. The decision of whether and on which platform to post an order
will depend on the attributes of the platforms where the order can be
posted, including the execution fees, data availability and quality,
and price and distribution of data products. Without a platform to post
quotations, receive orders, and execute trades, exchange data products
would not exist.
    The costs of producing market data include not only the costs of
the data distribution infrastructure, but also the costs of designing,
maintaining, and operating the exchange's platform for posting quotes,
accepting orders, and executing transactions and the cost of regulating
the exchange to ensure its fair operation and maintain investor
confidence. The total return that a trading platform earns reflects the
revenues it receives from both products and the joint costs it incurs.
    Moreover, an exchange's broker-dealer customers generally view the
costs of transaction executions and market data as a unified cost of
doing business with the exchange. A broker-dealer will only choose to
direct orders to an exchange if the revenue from the transaction
exceeds its cost, including the cost of any market data that the
broker-dealer chooses to buy in support of its order routing and
trading decisions. If the costs of the transaction are not offset by
its value, then the broker-dealer may choose instead not to purchase
the product and trade away from that exchange. There is substantial
evidence of the strong correlation between order flow and market data
purchases. For example, in September 2015, more than 80% of the
transaction volume on each of NYSE and NYSE's affiliates NYSE Arca,
Inc. (``NYSE Arca'') and NYSE MKT LLC (``MKT'') was executed by market
participants that purchased one or more proprietary market data
products (the 20 firms were not the same for each market). A supra-
competitive increase in the fees for either executions or market data
would create a risk of reducing an exchange's revenues from both
products.
    Other market participants have noted that proprietary market data
and trade executions are joint products of a joint platform and have
common costs.\32\ The Exchange agrees with and adopts those discussions
and the arguments therein. The Exchange also notes that the economics
literature confirms that there is no way to allocate common costs
between joint products that would shed any light on competitive or
efficient pricing.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72153 (May 12,
2014), 79 FR 28575, 28578 n.15 (May 16, 2014) (SR-NASDAQ-2014-045)
(``[A]ll of the exchange's costs are incurred for the unified
purposes of attracting order flow, executing and/or routing orders,
and generating and selling data about market activity. The total
return that an exchange earns reflects the revenues it receives from
the joint products and the total costs of the joint products.'').
See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62907 (Sept. 14, 2010),
75 FR 57314, 57317 (Sept. 20, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-110), and
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62908 (Sept. 14, 2010), 75 FR
57321, 57324 (Sept. 20, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-111).
    \33\ See generally Mark Hirschey, Fundamentals of Managerial
Economics, at 600 (2009) (``It is important to note, however, that
although it is possible to determine the separate marginal costs of
goods produced in variable proportions, it is impossible to
determine their individual average costs. This is because common
costs are expenses necessary for manufacture of a joint product.
Common costs of production--raw material and equipment costs,
management expenses, and other overhead--cannot be allocated to each
individual by-product on any economically sound basis . . . . Any
allocation of common costs is wrong and arbitrary.''). This is not
new economic theory. See, e.g., F.W. Taussig, ``A Contribution to
the Theory of Railway Rates,'' Quarterly Journal of Economics V(4)
438, 465 (July 1891) (``Yet, surely, the division is purely
arbitrary. These items of cost, in fact, are jointly incurred for
both sorts of traffic; and I cannot share the hope entertained by
the statistician of the Commission, Professor Henry C. Adams, that
we shall ever reach a mode of apportionment that will lead to
trustworthy results.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Analyzing the cost of market data product production and
distribution in isolation from the cost of all of the inputs supporting
the creation of market data and market data products will inevitably
underestimate the cost of the data and data products because it is
impossible to obtain the data inputs to create market data products
without a fast, technologically robust, and well-regulated execution
system, and system and regulatory costs affect the price of both
obtaining the market data itself and creating and distributing market
data products. It would be equally misleading, however, to attribute
all of an exchange's costs to the market data portion of an exchange's
joint products. Rather, all of an exchange's costs are incurred for the
unified purposes of attracting order flow, executing and/or routing
orders, and generating and selling data about market activity. The
total return that an exchange earns reflects the revenues it receives
from the joint products and the total costs of the joint products.
    As noted above, the level of competition and contestability in the
market is evident in the numerous alternative venues that compete for
order flow, including 11 equities self-regulatory organization
(``SRO'') markets, as well as various forms of alternative trading
systems (``ATSs''), including dark pools and electronic communication
networks (``ECNs''), and internalizing broker-dealers. SRO markets
compete to attract order flow and produce transaction reports via trade
executions, and two FINRA-regulated Trade Reporting Facilities compete
to attract transaction reports from the non-SRO venues.
    Competition among trading platforms can be expected to constrain
the aggregate return that each platform earns from the sale of its
joint products, but different trading platforms may choose from a range
of possible, and equally reasonable, pricing strategies as the means of
recovering total costs. For example, some platforms may choose to pay
rebates to attract orders, charge relatively low prices for market data
products (or provide market data products free of charge), and charge
relatively high prices for accessing posted liquidity. Other platforms
may choose a strategy of paying lower rebates (or no rebates) to
attract orders, setting relatively high prices for market data
products, and setting relatively low prices for accessing posted
liquidity. For example, BATS Global Markets (``BATS'') and Direct Edge,
which previously operated as ATSs and obtained exchange status in 2008
and 2010, respectively, provided certain market data at no charge on
their Web sites in order to attract more order flow, and used revenue
rebates from resulting additional executions to maintain low execution
charges for their users.\34\ In

this environment, there is no economic basis for regulating maximum
prices for one of the joint products in an industry in which suppliers
face competitive constraints with regard to the joint offering.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ This is simply a securities market-specific example of the
well-established principle that in certain circumstances more sales
at lower margins can be more profitable than fewer sales at higher
margins; this example is additional evidence that market data is an
inherent part of a market's joint platform.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Existence of Alternatives
    The large number of SROs, ATSs, and internalizing broker-dealers
that currently produce proprietary data or are currently capable of
producing it provides further pricing discipline for proprietary data
products. Each SRO, ATS, and broker-dealer is currently permitted to
produce and sell proprietary data products, and many currently do,
including but not limited to the Exchange, NYSE MKT, NYSE Arca, NASDAQ
OMX, BATS, and Direct Edge.
    The fact that proprietary data from ATSs, internalizing broker-
dealers, and vendors can bypass SROs is significant in two respects.
First, non-SROs can compete directly with SROs for the production and
sale of proprietary data products. By way of example, BATS and NYSE
Arca both published proprietary data on the Internet before registering
as exchanges. Second, because a single order or transaction report can
appear in an SRO proprietary product, a non-SRO proprietary product, or
both, the amount of data available via proprietary products is greater
in size than the actual number of orders and transaction reports that
exist in the marketplace. With respect to NYSE BBO and NYSE Trades,
competitors offer close substitute products.\35\ Because market data
users can find suitable substitutes for most proprietary market data
products, a market that overprices its market data products stands a
high risk that users may substitute another source of market data
information for its own.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See supra note 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Those competitive pressures imposed by available alternatives are
evident in the Exchange's proposed pricing.
    In addition to the competition and price discipline described
above, the market for proprietary data products is also highly
contestable because market entry is rapid and inexpensive. The history
of electronic trading is replete with examples of entrants that swiftly
grew into some of the largest electronic trading platforms and
proprietary data producers: Archipelago, Bloomberg Tradebook, Island,
RediBook, Attain, TrackECN, BATS Trading and Direct Edge. As noted
above, BATS launched as an ATS in 2006 and became an exchange in 2008,
while Direct Edge began operations in 2007 and obtained exchange status
in 2010.
    In determining the proposed changes to the fees for the NYSE BBO
and NYSE Trades, the Exchange considered the competitiveness of the
market for proprietary data and all of the implications of that
competition. The Exchange believes that it has considered all relevant
factors and has not considered irrelevant factors in order to establish
fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably discriminatory fees and an
equitable allocation of fees among all users. The existence of numerous
alternatives to the Exchange's products, including proprietary data
from other sources, ensures that the Exchange cannot set unreasonable
fees, or fees that are unreasonably discriminatory, when vendors and
subscribers can elect these alternatives or choose not to purchase a
specific proprietary data product if the attendant fees are not
justified by the returns that any particular vendor or data recipient
would achieve through the purchase.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \36\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \37\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \37\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \38\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2016-03 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2016-03. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street
NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours
of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be available
for inspection and copying at the NYSE's principal office and on its
Internet Web site at www.nyse.com. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NYSE-2016-03 and should be submitted on or before
February 11, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-01062 Filed 1-20-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 20, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7175-7176]
[FR Doc No: 2018-03378]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC18-55-000.
    Applicants: EAM Nelson Holding, LLC, Entergy Nuclear Generation
Company, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, Entergy Nuclear Indian
Point 3, LLC, Entergy Nuclear Palisades, LLC, Entergy Nuclear Power
Marketing, LLC, Entergy Power, LLC, EWO Marketing, LLC, RS Cogen, LLC.
    Description: Joint application of EAM Nelson Holding, LLC, et al.,
for FPA Section 203 authorization.
    Filed Date: 2/8/18.
    Accession Number: 20180208-5155.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/1/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER18-193-001.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.,
Dairyland Power Cooperative.
    Description: Compliance filing: 2018-02-09_Compliance filing of
Dairyland Power Coop to update Attachment O-DPC to be effective 1/1/
2018.
    Filed Date: 2/9/18.
    Accession Number: 20180209-5034.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/2/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-504-001.
    Applicants: San Diego Gas & Electric Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: SDGE 138KV SUBSTATION FACILITIES
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT--Clone to be effective 12/22/2017.
    Filed Date: 2/9/18.
    Accession Number: 20180209-5154.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/2/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-591-001.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2415R9 Kansas Municipal Energy
Agency NITSA and NOA to be effective 12/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 2/9/18.
    Accession Number: 20180209-5087.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/2/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-829-000.
    Applicants: Wisconsin Electric Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to Reactive Power
Revenue Requirement to be effective 5/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 2/8/18.
    Accession Number: 20180208-5114.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/1/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-830-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of WMPA SA
No. 4187; Queue No. Z2-099/AA2-086 to be effective 3/26/2018.
    Filed Date: 2/8/18.
    Accession Number: 20180208-5131.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/1/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-831-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to Clarify
Limitation of Liability for Attorney's Fees and Costs to be effective
4/10/2018.
    Filed Date: 2/9/18.
    Accession Number: 20180209-5026.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/2/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-832-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Mexico.
    Description: Initial rate filing: Executed Transmission Agreement
between PNM and Avangrid Renewables, LLC to be effective 1/29/2018.
    Filed Date: 2/9/18.
    Accession Number: 20180209-5027.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/2/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-833-000.
    Applicants: Evergreen Community Power, LLC.
    Description: Petition of Evergreen Community Power, LLC For Waiver
And Request For Expedited Action.
    Filed Date: 2/9/18.
    Accession Number: 20180209-5121.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/2/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-834-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Request for extension of Tariff Waiver of Midcontinent
Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Filed Date: 2/9/18.
    Accession Number: 20180209-5122.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/2/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-835-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2018-02-09 Revisions to
Attachment X NRIS Election Deadline to be effective 3/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 2/9/18.
    Accession Number: 20180209-5145.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/2/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-836-000.
    Applicants: Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. 2, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. 2,
LLC Application for Market-Based Rates to be effective 4/10/2018.
    Filed Date: 2/9/18.
    Accession Number: 20180209-5153.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/2/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-838-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: Compliance filing: 2018-02-09 Petition Limited Tariff
Waiver--Availability Assessment Hours to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 2/9/18.
    Accession Number: 20180209-5155.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/2/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-839-000.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Rate Schedule No. 290--Sun
Valley Morgan Interconnection Agreement to be effective 4/11/2018.
    Filed Date: 2/9/18.
    Accession Number: 20180209-5157.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/2/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 9, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-03378 Filed 2-16-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 106 (Friday, June 1, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32631-32632]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13266]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OR12-13-000]

Lion Oil Trading & Transportation, Inc., Magnolia Pipeline
Company, and El Dorado Pipeline Company; Notice for Temporary Waiver of
Filing and Reporting Requirements

    Take notice that on May 8, 2012, pursuant to Rule 202 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.202 (2011),
Lion Oil Trading & Transportation, Inc., Magnolia Pipeline Company, and
El Dorado Pipeline Company, collectively, Lion Companies, requested
that the Commission grant a temporary waiver of the Interstate Commerce
Act (ICA) Section 6 and Section 20 tariff filing and reporting
requirements applicable to interstate common carrier pipelines. Lion
Companies requested review on an expedited basis. Lion Companies state
that they have a supply and off-take agreement with J. Aron & Company
(J. Aron), which is used as an alternative to conventional financing.
Under this agreement J. Aron takes title to crude and refined products
on the Lion Companies' system and then resells the crude and refined
products to Lion subject to certain conditions at specified price
spreads. In support of the request for waiver, Lion Companies assert
that the agreement with J. Aron is not a traditional transportation
agreement with an unaffiliated shipper, and that even though J. Aron
holds title to the throughput, the complex arrangement serves as an
alternative to traditional financing, and that it would be difficult
for the Lion Companies and J. Aron to revise their arrangement to
comply with the statutory provisions and related regulations for which
they seek temporary waiver. Lion Companies state that their
circumstances fit the criteria the Commission has used in granting such
waivers, and that there is no public interest basis to deny the
request.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in the above
proceeding must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern Time on the specified comment
date. 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. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or
protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In
reference to filings initiating a new

proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the
comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the
Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also 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 email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 6, 2012.

    Dated: May 24, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-13266 Filed 5-31-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P