TECHNICAL TOLPYRALATE
                                   HERBICIDE

ACTIVE INGREDIENT:	By Wt.
Tolpyralate*:	 97.0%
OTHER INGREDIENTS:	3.0%
Total......................................................... 100.0%
* 1-[[1-Ethyl-4-[3-(2-methoxyethoxy)-2-methyl-4-(methylsulfonyl)benzoyl]-1H-pyrazol-5-yl]oxy]ethyl methyl carbonate

                         KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN

CAUTION

Si usted no entiende la etiqueta, busque a alguien para que se la explique a usted en detalle. (If you do not understand this label, find someone to explain it to you in detail.)

SEE SIDE PANEL FOR FIRST AID AND ADDITIONAL PRECAUTIONARY STATEMENTS.

READ ENTIRE LABEL CAREFULLY AND USE ONLY AS DIRECTED.
EPA REGISTRATION NO. 71512-
EPA Establishment No.

Net Contents: xx Pounds

ISK Biosciences Corporation
7470 Auburn Road, Suite A
Concord, Ohio 44077

PRECAUTIONARY STATEMENTS

HAZARDS TO HUMANS & DOMESTIC ANIMALS
CAUTION

Harmful, if swallowed or absorbed through the skin.  Avoid contact with skin, eyes or clothing.  Wash thoroughly with soap and water after handling and before eating, drinking, chewing gum, using tobacco or using the toilet.  Remove and wash contaminated clothing before reuse. Wear long-sleeved shirt and long pants, socks, shoes and chemical resistant gloves.

                                   FIRST AID
If swallowed
 Call a poison control center or doctor for treatment immediately for treatment advice.
 Have person sip a glass of water if able to swallow.
 Do not induce vomiting unless told to do so by the poison control center or doctor.
 Do not give anything to an unconscious person.
If on skin or
clothing
 Take off contaminated clothing.
 Rinse skin immediately with plenty of water for 15-20 minutes.
 Call a poison control center or doctor for treatment advice.
Have the product container or label with you when calling a poison control center or doctor, or going for treatment.
HOT LINE NUMBER
         For 24-Hour Medical Emergency Assistance call 1-888-484-7546.
For Chemical Emergency, Spill, Leak, Fire or Accident, call CHEMTREC 1-800-424-9300.

ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS

DO NOT discharge effluent containing this product into lakes, streams, ponds, estuaries, oceans, or other waters unless in accordance with the requirements of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and the permitting authority has been notified in writing prior to discharge.  Do not discharge effluent containing this product to sewer systems without previously notifying the local sewage treatment plant authority.  For guidance contact your State Water Board or Regional Office of the EPA.

DIRECTIONS FOR USE

It is a violation of Federal law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling.
THIS PRODUCT IS FOR MANUFACTURING USE ONLY.
It is only to be used for formulation into end-use products registered for postemergence weed control in all types of field corn, seed corn, sweet corn and popcorn. This product may be used to formulate products for any additional uses not listed on this label if the formulator, user group, or grower has complied with U.S. EPA data submission requirements regarding support of such uses.

STORAGE AND DISPOSAL

DO NOT contaminate water, food or feed by storage or disposal.  Open dumping is prohibited.
PESTICIDE STORAGE:  Store in original container, in a secured, dry and cool place separate from fertilizer, food, and feed.
PESTICIDE DISPOSAL:  Pesticide wastes are toxic.  Improper disposal of excess pesticide, spray mixture or rinsate is a violation of Federal law.  If these wastes cannot be disposed of by use according to label instructions, contact your State Pesticide or Environmental Control Agency or the Hazardous Waste representative at the nearest EPA Regional Office for guidance.
CONTAINER HANDLING:  Nonrefillable container. DO NOT reuse or refill this container.  Completely empty liner by shaking and tapping sides and bottom to loosen clinging particles. Empty residue into formulation equipment. Then offer for recycling if available or dispose of liner in a sanitary landfill or by incineration or, if allowed by state and local authorities, by burning.  If burned, stay out of smoke.  If drum is contaminated and cannot be reused, dispose of it in the manner required for its liner.

LIMITATION OF WARRANTY AND LIMITATION OF DAMAGES

Seller warrants to those persons lawfully acquiring title to this product that at the time of first sale of this product by Seller that this product conformed to its chemical description and was reasonably fit for the express purposes stated on the label when used in accordance with Seller's directions under normal conditions of use as described on the label. To the extent consistent with applicable law, Buyers and users of this product assume the risk of any use contrary to such directions.  TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED ELSEWHERE IN WRITING CONTAINING AN EXPRESS REFERENCE TO THIS LIMITATION OF WARRANTY AND LIMITATION OF DAMAGES, SELLER MAKES NO OTHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY OR GUARANTY, AND SELLER EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL OTHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES THAT MAY EXIST UNDER APPLICABLE LAW, COURSE OF DEALING OR USAGE OF TRADE.  NO AGENT OF SELLER IS AUTHORIZED TO GRANT ANY WARRANTY IN EXCESS OF THAT GRANTED IN THIS LIMITATION OF WARRANTY AND LIMITATION OF DAMAGES.  TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, IN NO EVENT SHALL SELLER BE LIABLE FOR ANY INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR SPECIAL DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE HANDLING OR USE OF THIS PRODUCT.  TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, SELLER'S LIABILITY FOR ANY AND ALL CLAIMS, LOSSES, INJURIES OR DAMAGES (INCLUDING CLAIMS BASED ON BREACH OF WARRANTY, CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE, TORT, STRICT LIABILITY OR OTHERWISE) RESULTING FROM THE HANDLING OR USE OF THIS PRODUCT SHALL NOT EXCEED THE PURCHASE PRICE OF THE PRODUCT AS TO WHICH A CLAIM IS MADE. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Buyers and users of this product are responsible for all loss or damage from use or handling of this product that results from conditions beyond the control of Seller, including, but not limited to, incompatibility with other products (unless otherwise expressly provided for in the Directions for Use of this product), weather conditions, cultural practices, moisture conditions or other environmental conditions outside of the ranges that are generally recognized as being conducive to good agricultural and/or horticultural practices.

TOLPYRALATE TECH - 04202017


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 13 (Friday, January 18, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 4070]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00972]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0007]

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway
and Biscayne Bay, Miami, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviations from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued temporary deviations from the
regulations governing the operation of the following two bridges in
Miami, Florida: The Venetian Causeway Bridge (West), mile 1088.6,
across the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway; and the Venetian Causeway
Bridge (East), across Biscayne Bay. The deviations are necessary due to
the high volume of vessel and vehicle traffic anticipated during the
Miami International Boat Show, which will be held in Miami Beach,
Florida from February 11, 2013, through February 19, 2013. These
deviations will result in the bridges opening to navigation on the hour
and half-hour before, during, and after the Miami International Boat
Show.

DATES: These deviations are effective from 7 a.m. on February 11, 2013,
through 9 p.m. on February 19, 2013.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this temporary deviation, USCG-2013-0007, is
available online by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting
USCG-2013-0007 in the ``Search'' box and then clicking ``Search''. The
docket is also available for inspection or copying at the Docket
Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Jessica Hopkins, Seventh District
Bridge Branch, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the
docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Miami International Boat Show Operations
Manager has requested temporary modifications to the operating
schedules of the Venetian Causeway Bridge (West) and the Venetian
Causeway Bridge (East) in Miami, Florida. These deviations will result
in the bridges being allowed to open on the hour and half-hour from 7
a.m. to 9 p.m. daily, from February 11, 2013, through February 19,
2013. The Miami International Boat Show generates a high volume of
vessel and vehicle traffic. In previous years, opening these bridges on
demand has resulted in significant vehicle congestion and bridge
mechanical failure. By opening the bridges on the hour and half-hour
(rather than on demand) traffic congestion will be reduced. The
temporary deviations will be effective from 7 a.m. on February 11, 2013
through 9 p.m. on February 19, 2013.
    The vertical clearance, regular operating schedule, and deviation
period for each bridge are set forth below.
    1. Venetian Causeway Bridge (West), mile 1088.6. The vertical
clearance of the Venetian Causeway Bridge (West), across the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway is 12 feet. The normal operating schedule is set
forth in 33 CFR 117.261(nn), which requires the bridge to open on
signal; except that from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays, the bridge need only open on the hour and
half-hour.
    As a result of this temporary deviation, the Venetian Causeway
Bridge (West) will only open to navigation on the hour and half-hour
from 7 a.m. until 9 p.m. daily, from February 11, 2013, through
February 19, 2013. At all other times the bridges will open on demand.
The bridge will also continue to open as necessary, in accordance with
33 CFR 117.31.
    2. Venetian Causeway Bridge (East). The vertical clearance of the
Venetian Causeway Bridge (East), across Biscayne Bay is 6 feet. The
normal operating schedule is set forth in 33 CFR 117.269, which
requires the bridge to open on signal; except that from 7 a.m. to 7
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, the bridge need
only open on the hour and half-hour.
    As a result of this temporary deviation, the Venetian Causeway
Bridge (East) will only open to navigation on the hour and half-hour
from 7 a.m. until 9 p.m. daily, from February 11, 2013, through
February 19, 2013. At all other times the bridges will open on demand.
The bridge will also continue to open as necessary, in accordance with
33 CFR 117.31.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), these drawbridges must return
to their regular operating schedules immediately at the end of the
effective period of this temporary deviation. These deviations from the
operating regulations are authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: January 8, 2013.
B. L. Dragon,
Bridge Program Director, Seventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2013-00972 Filed 1-17-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 174 (Friday, September 7, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45437-45438]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19390]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP16-116-000]

Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Texas LNG
Brownsville LLC Texas LNG Project

    On March 31, 2016, Texas LNG Brownsville LLC (Texas LNG) filed an
application in Docket No. CP16-116-000 requesting authorization
pursuant to Section 3(a) of the Natural Gas Act to site, construct,
modify, and operate liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facilities
located on the Brownsville Ship Channel in Cameron County, Texas. The
proposed project is known as the Texas LNG Project (Project) and would
include a new LNG export terminal capable of producing up to 4 million
tonnes per annum of LNG for export. The terminal would receive natural
gas to the export facilities from a third-party intrastate pipeline. On
September 24, 2015, in Order No. 3716, the U.S. Department of Energy,
Office of Fossil Energy, granted to Texas LNG a long-term, multi-
contract authorization to export LNG to Free Trade Agreement nations.
    On April 14, 2016, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC
or Commission) issued its Notice of Application for the Project. Among
other things, that notice alerted other agencies issuing federal
authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and
to reach a final decision on the request for a federal authorization
within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's final
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Texas LNG Project. This
instant notice identifies the FERC staff's planned schedule for
completion of the final EIS for the Project, which is based on an
issuance of the draft EIS in October 2018. The forecasted schedule for
both the draft and final EIS is based upon Texas LNG providing complete
and timely responses to any future data requests. In addition, the
schedule assumes that the cooperating agencies will provide input on
their areas of responsibility on a timely basis.

Schedule for Environmental Review

Issuance of Notice of Availability of the final EIS--March 15, 2019

90-Day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline--June 13, 2019

    If a schedule change becomes necessary for the final EIS, an
additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are
kept informed of the Project's progress.

Project Description

    Texas LNG's proposed facilities include two liquefaction trains,
each capable of producing 2 million tonnes per annum, one new LNG
storage tank, and a single marine berth capable of accommodating LNG
carriers with capacities up to 180,000 cubic meters. The Project would
be constructed on about 285 acres of a 625-acre parcel of land, on the
north side of the Brownsville Ship Channel near mile marker 4. An
additional 26.5 acres would be located outside of the 625-acre parcel
to provide deepwater access to the Brownsville Ship Channel.

Background

    On April 14, 2015, the Commission staff granted Texas LNG's request
to use the FERC's Pre-filing environmental review process and assigned
the Texas LNG Project Docket No. PF15-14-000. On July 23, 2015, the
Commission issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement for the Planned Texas LNG Project, Request for Comments on
Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public Scoping Meeting (NOI).
    The NOI was issued during the pre-filing review of the project in
Docket No. PF15-14-000 and was sent to federal, state, and local
government agencies; elected officials; affected landowners;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes and
regional organizations; commenters and other interested parties; and
local libraries and newspapers. Major issues raised during scoping
include threatened and endangered species, LNG safety, land use, water
quality, air quality, and cumulative impacts.
    The U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of
Transportation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park
Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and Federal Aviation
Administration are cooperating agencies in the preparation of the EIS.

Additional Information

    In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EIS and to
keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets,
the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This can
reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by
automatically providing you with notification of these filings,
document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the
FERC website (www.ferc.gov). Using the eLibrary link, select General
Search from the eLibrary menu, enter the selected date range and Docket
Number excluding the last three digits (i.e., CP16-116), and follow the
instructions. For assistance with access to eLibrary, the helpline can
be reached at<PHONE_NUMBER>, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at
[email protected]. The eLibrary link on the FERC website also
provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule makings.

    Dated: August 31, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-19390 Filed 9-6-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 197 (Friday, October 13, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 47636]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22120]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0387; FRL-9969-41-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval: South Carolina; Miscellaneous Revisions to
Multiple Rules

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Due to the receipt of an adverse comment, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is withdrawing portions of the August 21, 2017,
direct final rule that approves changes to South Carolina's state
implementation plan (SIP) related to definitions and open burning. EPA
will address the comment in a separate final action based upon the
proposed rulemaking action, also published on August 21, 2017. EPA will
not institute a second comment period on this action.

DATES: The amendments to 40 CFR 52.2120(c) at Regulation 62.1 and
Regulation No. 62.2 (amendatory instructions 2.A and B.) published at
82 FR 39537, on August 21, 2017, are withdrawn, effective October 13,
2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: D. Brad Akers, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Mr. Akers can be reached via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 21, 2017 (82 FR 39537), EPA
published a direct final rule approving portions of several SIP
revisions submitted by the State of South Carolina, through the South
Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, on July 18,
2011, June 17, 2013, April 10, 2014, August 8, 2014, January 20, 2016,
and July 27, 2016. EPA took a direct final action to approve portions
of the July 18, 2011, June 17, 2013, April 10, 2014, August 8, 2014,
January 20, 2016, and July 27, 2016, submissions that made changes to
Regulation 61-62.1, Section I--``Definitions,'' and Regulation 61-
62.2--``Prohibition of Open Burning,'' among other changes.
    In the direct final rule, EPA explained that the Agency was
publishing the rule without prior proposal because the Agency viewed
the submittal as a non-controversial SIP amendment and anticipated no
adverse comments. Further, EPA explained that the Agency was publishing
a separate document in the proposed rules section of the Federal
Register to serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should an
adverse comment be filed. EPA also noted that the rule would be
effective generally 30 days after the close of the public comment
period, without further notice unless the Agency received adverse
comment by the close of the public comment period. EPA explained that
if the Agency received such comments, then EPA would publish a document
withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule would
not take effect. EPA specified, however, that if a comment were
received on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if
that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may
adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of
an adverse comment. It was also explained that all public comments
received would then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on
the proposed rule, and that EPA would not institute a second comment
period on this action.
    EPA received one adverse comment from a single Commenter on the
portions of the direct final rule that made changes to Regulation 61-
62.1, Section I and Regulation 61-62.2 only. As a result of the comment
received, EPA is withdrawing only the portions of the direct final rule
approving changes to the South Carolina SIP at Regulation 61-62.1,
Section I, as submitted in the July 18, 2011, June 17, 2013, April 10,
2014, and July 27, 2016, SIP revision, and Regulation 61-62.2, as
submitted in the April 10, 2014, SIP revision. EPA will address the
comment in a separate final action based on the proposed action also
published on August 21, 2017 (82 FR 39551). EPA will not open a second
comment period for this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 29, 2017.
Onis ``Trey'' Glenn, III,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.

0
Accordingly, the amendments to 40 CFR 52.2120(c) at Regulation 62.1 and
Regulation No. 62.2 (amendatory instructions 2.A and B.) published on
August 21, 2017 (82 FR 39541), which were to become effective October
20, 2017, are withdrawn.

[FR Doc. 2017-22120 Filed 10-12-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON D.C., 20460

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Alternatives Assessment of Acid Copper Chromate (ACC) for
Residential Wood Treatment

FROM:	Andrew Lee, Economist

Economic Analysis Branch

		Leonard Yourman, Biologist

		Richard Michell, Biologist

Biological Analysis Branch

Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503C)

THRU:		Richard Keigwin, Division Director

Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503C)

		Arnet Jones, Chief

Biological Analysis Branch

Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503C)

TO:		Mark Hartman, Chief

Reregistration Branch

Antimicrobial Division

Timothy Leighton, Senior Scientist

		Antimicrobial Division

PRODUCT REVIEW PANEL: December 6, 2006

Summary:

BEAD conducted an alternatives analysis for acid copper chromate (ACC)
in support of the OPP regulatory decision on the registration of the ACC
products as the general use wood preservatives.  The analysis was
limited to the alternatives assessment for residential playground
equipment and deck uses.  The analysis focused on comparing the costs of
playground equipment and decks constructed of ACC-treated wood and wood
treated with currently registered chemicals, as well as non-chemical
alternatives such as plastic lumber and naturally durable untreated
wood.  The BEAD analysis determined that there are registered chemical
products available for residential uses that are feasible alternatives
to ACC although these alternatives result in playground equipment and
decks that are slightly more expensive than ACC-treated counterparts.

Background:

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Wood preservatives are applied to protect wood
from damage by bacteria, fungi, insects,

or marine borers.  The wood preservative industry provides treated wood
for industrial (railroad and electric utilities, pilings and bridge
construction timbers), commercial, and residential uses.  There are
three major wood preservatives for the industry users:   SEQ CHAPTER \h
\r 1 chromated copper arsenate (CCA), pentachlorophenol, and creosote.
These three wood preservatives account for about 97% of all wood
preservatives for industrial purposes.  At the request of the
registrants, EPA revised CCA’s label to limit its use primarily to
industrial applications effective December 31, 2003 (69 FR 17366).  CCA
had most of the residential market until its cancellation in 2003.
Currently, several chemical wood preservatives are available for the
residential market: ACQ, copper azole, copper naphthenate, copper
citrates, copper dimethyldithiocarbamate, copper-HDO, and polymeric
betaine.

ACC was registered as a general use wood preservative in 1994 by Osmose,
but until recently, it was sold, for a brief period of time, as a
treatment of wood in cooling towers.  Since then, the Forest Products
Research Laboratory (FPRL) requested a general use label for an ACC wood
preservative product.  On May 30, 2006, based on the Agency risk
assessment, the EPA approved a registration for the ACC wood
preservative only for commercial and industrial uses.  The industrial
applications now registered to FPRL are not expected to result in
significant exposures to the general public.

Based on the EPA risk assessment, there are several risks of concern.
Workers in wood treatment facilities are expected to be potentially
exposed to Cr+6 as a result of the pressure treatment process and
handling treated wood.  Workers in manufacturing facilities that make
finished wood products can also be potentially exposed to Cr+6 by
contacting wood surfaces and by inhalation resulting from sawing
operations.  Similarly, contractors or consumers that build decks and
playsets could potentially be exposed via the dermal and inhalation
routes.

Chemical Alternatives to ACC in Lumber and Timber Market:

The American Wood Preservatives Institute (AWPI, 1997) estimated that 75
billion board feet of pressure-treated wood were in use nationwide,
primarily in the residential settings such as playground equipment,
decks and fences.  Currently, chemical wood preservatives for use in the
lumber and timber market are: ACQ-C and D, copper azole -A and B, copper
naphthenate, copper citrates, copper dimethyldithiocarbamate, copper-HDO
also called Copper Xyligen (CX-A), and polymeric betaine.

Of these chemicals, ACQ is a dominant wood preservative.  Copper azole,
Copper-HDO, and polymeric betaine are also approved for use in the
lumber and timber market.  However, they are relatively new and only a
few facilities are using these preservatives (EPA proprietary report)
suggesting that they would not capture a large share of the residential
market in lumber and timber.

Copper naphthenate is also approved for use in lumber and timber market
and has been in use in this market.  However, specific information was
not available on the extent of its use in this market.  It is likely
that copper naphthenate would capture a part of this market, but further
information is needed to determine the specific uses for which it is
more suitable.

Other alternatives such as copper citrates and copper
dimethyldithiocarbamate are approved by AWPA for certain lumber and
timber uses but they have limited commercial use (EPA proprietary
report).  These chemicals are unlikely to capture any of the lumber and
timber market for residential uses in the short run. Major preservative
manufacturers have also indicated that improvements in current products
and pipeline alternatives are expected to impact the marketplace.

Table 1 shows costs of chemical wood preservatives.  As shown in the
table, ACC is much cheaper than ACQ.  However, this low chemical cost
does not translate into low prices for the final products (playground
equipment or decks) because chemical costs are a small part of the cost
of treated wood.

Table 1. Costs of Chemical Alternatives per Gallon.

CCA1	 $1.10 to $1.35

	ACC2	 $       1.40

ACQ	 $       4.00

Source: Personal communication with Bill Price at Madison Wood.

	1 CCA use in the residential lumber and timber was cancelled in 2003.

2ACC is made by dissolving a 32% copper source with a 68% chromium
source.

Table 2 shows cost estimates for residential playground equipment
constructed of alternative materials.  For these cost estimates, a
playground consisting of a platform with vinyl cover, sliding board, two
swings and one additional piece of equipment (climbing rope, carriage
ride, trapeze rings, etc.) was used as a model.  In general, equipment
constructed of plastic lumber (recycled plastic) and naturally durable
untreated wood (redwood and cedar) are more expensive than those made of
chemical treated wood.  Since chemical costs of ACC and CCA are
comparable (see Table 1), we assumed that costs of playground equipment
constructed of ACC treated wood would also be comparable to those of CCA
treated wood.  Thus, in Table 2, the cost of playground equipment made
of ACC treated wood is the average of those of CCA treated pine.  As
noted above, comparison of ACQ- and ACC-treated equipment shows that the
former are not as expensive as the chemical costs of ACC and ACQ in
Table 1 would imply.  Playground equipment with ACQ treated wood costs
10% to 70% more than ACC treated playground equipment whereas ACQ
chemical costs 3 times more than ACC chemical as shown in

Table 1.  The price variability in the cost of the different playground
equipment listed in Table 2 may be due to other costs such as
design/engineering costs, cost of the treated wood and other materials
used in the manufacturing processes.  The playground equipments listed
below in Table 2 are not made by the same manufacturers and they are not
identical.

Table 2.  Cost Estimates for Residential Playground Equipment.

Playground Manufacturer and System	Cost	 	Material

Play Mart Playgrounds Gator	 $             2,400

Recycled Plastic

Play USA Outpost	 $             2,200

Recycled Plastic

Rainbow Play Systems Carnival Clubhouse	 $             2,100

Redwood

Play USA Outpost	 $             2,000

Cedar

Rainbow Play Systems Backyard Circus	 $             1,700

Redwood

PlayNation Play Systems Palace	 $             1,500

ACQ Treated Pine

Play Kids Fun Swing Climber Model #3	 $             1,000 	 	ACQ
Treated Pine

Swing-N-Slide Shuttle Tower	 $                900

CCA Treated Pine

Detailed Play Systems Jungle Fort	 $                850

CCA Treated Pine

Playset	 $                9001

ACC Treated wood

Source: Lowe’s, Home Depot, K-Mart, Wal-Mart, Toys-R-US, playground
specialty outlets in the suburbs between Washington, DC and Baltimore,
MD, October 2001.

1The average of playground equipment made of CCA treated pine.

Tables 3 shows cost estimates for decks constructed of alternative
materials.  These costs represent the material costs for a 15' x 20'
deck with a railing on three sides (50 feet) located six feet off of the
ground (10 steps) (http://decks.com/).  As shown in the table, decks
constructed of plastic lumber and naturally durable untreated wood are
considerably more expensive than those made of chemical treated wood.
Again, despite a large difference in the chemical costs of ACC and ACQ,
ACC- and ACQ-treated decks do not differ much in cost.  ACQ treated
decks cost only 3% more than ACC treated decks.  As mentioned above, the
cost of a CCA-treated deck was used as a proxy for the cost of
ACC-treated decks.  Cost differences between ACC and ACQ treated decks
(3%) are smaller than that between ACC and ACQ playground equipment (10%
to 70%).  This may be due to the additional non-wood material required
in the manufacturing of the playground equipments and cost of design and
engineering.

Table 3.  Costs of Decks1 Constructed of Alternative Materials.

Deck material	Cost of deck1 	% difference compared to ACC treated pine

ACC treated pine 	 $        1,9452

	ACQ treated pine 	 $        2,000	3%

Cedar	 $        2,330 	20%

Redwood	 $        2,695 	39%

Composite plastic	 $        3,090 	59%

Recycled plastic	 $        3,500 	80%

1Cost of material for a 15' x 20' deck with a railing and 10 steps
(http://decks.com/ and the Home Depot).

2 Since chemical costs of ACC and CCA are comparable (Table 1) the cost
of a

  CCA treated deck is used as a proxy for that of an ACC treated deck.

3An estimate from the Home Depot.

Efficacy of Wood Preservatives for Residential Uses:

The American Wood Preservers’ Association (AWPA) is a non-profit,
technical association founded in 1904 to provide a common forum for
exchange of technical information between industry, research and users
of treated wood.  AWPA is the principal standards-writing body for wood
preservation in the United States.  Individuals with various areas of
interest including consumers, users, government, academia, specifiers
and producers meet on regular basis to develop and maintain these
standards for preservatives, treatment, testing methods, quality
control, and inspection of treated wood products.

Table 4 lists efficacy of wood preservatives for residential uses.  As
shown in the table, ACC is as efficacious as the currently registered
wood preservatives according to the AWPA standards.  Polymeric Betaine
is still being investigated at the task group level.  The data regarding
this preservative system has not yet been formally proposed to AWPA
technical committees at this time.  Therefore, there is no listing of
this system.

Table 4.  Uses of Chemical Alternatives to ACC Products.

AWPA Std.1

Uses

Alternatives 2,3

C2 4

Lumber and timber for above ground, soil and fresh water use

ACC, ACQ, ACZA, CBA,CC, CDDC, Creosote & creosote solution,
Pentachlorophenol, Copper Naphthenate, and C8Q

C5

Fence posts

ACC, ACQ, ACZA, CC, CBA, Creosote & creosote solution,
Pentachlorophenol, and Copper Naphthenate

C15

Wood for commercial-residential construction: To include studs, roof
decking, decking exposed to weather, flooring, sawn post and columns
supporting decks, posts, square fence, fencing slats, pickets, landscape
ties.

ACC, ACQ, ACZA, CBA, CC, CDDC, Creosote & creosote solution,
Pentachlorophenol, and C8Q

C16 5

Wood used on farms, including fence posts, lumber, millwork and grape
stakes.

ACC, ACQ, ACZA,CBA, CDDC, CC, Creosote and creosote solutions,
Pentachlorophenol, Copper naphthenate, and C8Q

C17

Playground equipment

ACQ, ACZA, CBA, CDDC, and C8Q

C22

Lumber and plywood for permanent wood foundations (residential and light
commercial)

ACQ and ACZA

UC1,UC2,UC3-46

For use in sawn products (boards, lumber and timbers, above ground
only.7

CX-A

	Source: American Wood-Preserver’s Association Standards 2001.

American Wood-Preservers’ Association Standards 2001.

The alternatives include:

	ACC =	Acid Copper Chromate: Combination of Copper Oxide and Chromic
Acid

	ACQ =	Ammoniacal Copper Quaternary: Combination of Copper Oxide
(042401) and either ADBAC (069105) or DDAC (069149)

	ACZA = Ammoniacal Copper Zinc Arsenate

	CBA =	 Copper Boron Azole/ aka., Copper Azole: Combination of metallic
Copper (022501), Boric Acid (011001), and an Azole compound such as
Tebuconazole (128997) or Propiconazole (122101)

	CC =	Ammoniacal Copper Citrate: Combination of Copper Hydroxide (PC
Code 023401) and Citric Acid (PC Code 021801)

	CDDC = Copper bis Dimethyl Dithiocarbamate: Produced from SDDC (034804)
and Copper Hydroxide (023401) at time of treatment

	C8Q =	Copper-8-Quinolinolate (Oxine Copper)

The alternatives may not be specified for use on all kinds of  wood.
See the AWPA standards for more details.

Lumber and timber for salt water use only in this standard may still be
treated with CCA - See guidance doc.  CCA may not be used to treat
lumber and timber for above ground, soil and fresh water use, effective
January 1, 2004.

Some wood used on farms may still be treated with CCA, specifically
poles, piles and posts used as structural members and plywood.  CCA may
not be used to treat other wood used on farms such as fence posts,
lumber, millwork and grape stakes, effective January 1, 2004.

Provides a general description of the purpose and use of the Use
Category System set by AWPA.

Commodity specification used by AWPA.  It covers general requirements,
minimum preservative penetration and retention requirements and
specification information.

Non-Chemical Alternatives to ACC-Treated Wood:

In the lumber and timber market, alternatives to treated wood exist.
These include vinyl or fiberglass, plastic wood composites, and recycled
plastic.  The main advantages of these alternative materials are that
they do not contain chemicals associated with pressure-treated lumber
and they can be recycled.  However, most of these alternatives are
expensive, costing 2 to 3 times more than treated wood (EPA proprietary
report).

Alternative Materials

In 2000, the alternative materials market was estimated to be valued at
$250-$300 million (EPA proprietary report).  Its growth is expected to
be between 10-15% annually.  According to the Plastic Lumber Trade
Association (PLTA), the largest use for plastic lumber is for commercial
and residential decking (30-40%), followed by parks and recreation
(20-30%) and industrial/original equipment manufacturer
(OEM)/agriculture (20-25%).  Other uses include marine waterfronts,
railroad ties, material handling, and fencing.  The fastest growing
applications of alternative lumber are rails and decks. Composite lumber
has different structural characteristics and may not be a good
alternative for load-bearing uses of lumber or heavy timbers, such as
bridge timbers, crossarms, etc.

There are three types of alternative materials that are available for
use (EPA proprietary report):

1) Vinyl or fiberglass plastic lumber (no wood fibers) are engineered
plastic materials that can have a similar strength and weight to treated
wood.  The estimated sales of plastic lumber are $80-$100 million.

2) Plastic wood composites are a 50/50 mixture of polyolefins and wood
fiber.  Plastic wood composites are easier to cut and drill than pure
plastic lumber, have lower thermal expansion, better paintability, and
better traction.  Plastic wood composites have the largest sales among
alternative lumber types.

3) Recycled polyethylene plastic lumber (no wood fibers) is typically
reinforced with fiberglass and steel for added strength.

The disadvantages of alternative lumber include its weight, which can be
up to four times heavier than wood, and its lack of strength.  Higher
density of plastic lumber can also require pre-drilling prior to nailing
and screwing that can add to labor costs.  In addition, due to the low
stiffness-to-weight ratio, plastic lumber can cause creep (a measure of
deformation), which requires additional reinforcements and increases its
cost for many uses.  There is no consensus on the life expectancy of
alternative lumber.  Producers claim that it should last several times
longer than treated wood, while other industry sources state that life
expectancy is still undetermined due to its relatively recent market
entry.

Since 1997, ASTM (American Society of Testing and Materials) has
established several quality standards and minimum performance
requirements for plastic lumber in residential decking.  The new ASTM
standards for plastic lumber should benefit plastic lumber manufacturers
since it would allow architects, specifiers, designers, engineers, and
others in the construction industry to understand better the benefits of
plastic lumber and its applications.

Naturally Durable Wood

An alternative to ACC-treated wood is naturally durable untreated wood,
such as western red cedar, yellow cypress, eastern white cedar, or
redwood.  Switching to these alternatives, however, could have a
significant impact on forests and the forestry industry.  Availability
and long term durability of these woods could also be an issue as would
be their cost (EPA proprietary report).  These species are resistant to
decay in their natural state, due to high levels of organic chemicals
called extractives.  Extractives are chemicals that are deposited in the
heartwood of certain tree species as they convert sapwood to heartwood.
Only the heartwood has these protective deposits. The sapwood of all
North American softwoods is susceptible to decay and must be chemically
preserved when decay resistance is required.  Sapwood is the newer part
of the tree, closer to the bark.  It needs no decay protection in the
live tree because wound responses keep out any invading organisms.  The
heartwood is the inner, older part of the tree and is no longer alive
(Canadian Wood Council, 2005).

Limitations of the Analyisis:

Expert opinion was the only source of information for some of the data
used in the analysis.

Conclusion:

For residential playground equipment and deck uses, BEAD determined that
there are several chemical wood preservatives that are economically and
technically feasible.  Although ACC is much cheaper than the available
chemicals, this lower chemical cost does not translate into
substantially lower prices for playground equipment or decks because
chemical costs represent only a small part of the cost of treated wood.
For example, ACQ-treated decks are only 3% more expensive than
ACC-treated decks.  However, to the extent that ACC is cheaper than the
currently available chemicals there could be some benefits to society.

There are also several non-chemical alternatives to treated wood
including plastic lumber and naturally durable untreated wood.
Playground equipment and decks constructed of plastic lumber may be
expensive and lack strength.  For the naturally durable wood,
availability, long term durability, and cost could be issues.  The main
advantage of these alternatives is that they do not contain chemicals
associated with pressure-treated lumber.  Also, alternative lumber can
be recycled.

References:

Abt Associates, Inc.  “Draft Impact Assessment for Chromated Copper
Arsenate (CCA).”  2004.

American Wood Preservatives Institute (AWPI). 1997.

AWPA  Wood Preservatives Association, Standards 2006.

AWPA.  “Wood Preserving Plants in the United States.”  Prepared for
the American Wood-Preservers’ Association by James T. Micklewright,
Consulting Forest Products. 1997.

Canadian Wood Council, 2005.

Lebow, S. Alternatives to chromated copper arsenate (CCA) for
residential construction.  Proceedings of the Environmental Impacts of
Preservative Treated Wood Conference. February, 2004.

Table 1 Source: Personal communication with Bill Price at Madison Wood.

Table 2 Source: K-mart, Wal-mart, Toys-R-US, playground specialty
outlets in the suburbs of Washington, DC and Baltimore, MD, October
2001.

Table 3 Source:   HYPERLINK "http://decks.com/"  http://decks.com/ .

Table 4 Source: American Wood-Preservatives Association Standards 2001.

 PAGE

 PAGE   7


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 15, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 31706]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12513]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD21-14-000]

Resource Adequacy Developments in the Western Interconnection;
Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference

    As announced in the Notice of Technical Conference issued in the
above-referenced proceeding on April 23, 2021, the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (Commission) will convene a Commissioner-led
technical conference on Wednesday, June 23, 2021 and Thursday, June 24,
2021, from approximately 12:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) each
day. The conference will be held remotely over WebEx and broadcast on
the Commission's website. Attached to this Supplemental Notice is an
agenda for the technical conference, which includes the conference
program and expected speakers.
    The purpose of this conference is to discuss resource adequacy
developments in the Western Interconnection. The Commission seeks to
engage varied regional perspectives to discuss challenges, trends,
possible ways to continue to ensure resource adequacy, and broader
regional coordination in the Western Interconnection.
    Discussions at the conference may involve issues raised in
proceedings that are currently pending before the Commission. These
proceedings include, but are not limited to:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Docket No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California Independent System Operator         ER21-1551-000
 Corporation.
California Independent System Operator         ER21-1790-000
 Corporation.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC....................  ER21-1579-000
Nevada Power Company v. California             EL21-74-000
 Independent System Operator Corporation.
New York Independent System Operator, Inc....  ER21-1018-000
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C...................  ER21-2043-000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The conference will be open for the public to attend remotely, and
there is no fee for attendance. Information on this conference,
including a link to the webcast, will be posted prior to the event on
this conference's event page on the Commission's website, https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/events/technical-conference-discuss-resource-adequacy-developments-western. The conference will be transcribed.
Transcripts will be available for a fee from Ace Reporting, (202) 347-
3700.
    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please
send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>call toll-free<PHONE_NUMBER>
(voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a fax to<PHONE_NUMBER> with
the required accommodations.
    For more information about this technical conference, please
contact Navin Shekar at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>. For
information related to logistics, please contact Colin Beckman at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Sarah McKinley at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 9, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-12513 Filed 6-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 223 (Tuesday, November 19, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63907-63910]
[FR Doc No: 2019-24968]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87512; File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2019-069]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
Relating To Amend the Fat Finger Check in Rule 21.17 as it Applies To
Stop Limit Orders

November 13, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the

``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 4, 2019, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
````EDGX'''') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``EDGX Options'')
proposes to amend the fat finger check in Rule 21.17 as it applies to
Stop Limit Orders. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in
Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/options/regulation/rule_filings/edgx/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its fat finger check under Rule
21.17(a)(2) as it applies to Stop Limit Orders. Currently, Rule
21.17(a)(2) provides that if a User submits a buy (sell) limit order to
the System with a price that is more than an Exchange-determined buffer
amount above (below) the NBO (NBB), the System will reject or cancel
back to the User the limit order (i.e. the ``fat finger'' check). This
check applies to orders and quotes with a limit price with the
exception of bulk messages.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange notes that a separate provision governs a fat
finger check specific to bulk messages. See Rule 21.17(a)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to add Stop Limit Orders to Rule 21.17(a)(2)
as an additional order type to which the fat finger check does not
apply. A Stop Limit Order is an order that becomes a limit order when
the stop price (selected by the User) is elected. A Stop Limit Order to
buy is elected and becomes a buy limit order when the consolidated last
sale in the option occurs at or above, or the NBB is equal to or higher
than, the specified stop price. A Stop Limit Order to sell is elected
and becomes a sell limit order when the consolidated last sale in the
option occurs at or below, or the NBO is equal to or lower than, the
specified stop price.\6\ Stop Limit Orders allow Users increased
control and flexibility over their transactions and the prices at which
they are willing to execute an order. The purpose of a Stop Limit Order
is to not execute upon entry, and instead rest in the System until the
market reaches a certain price level, at which time the order could be
executed. As such, when a buy (sell) Stop Limit Order is activated, its
limit price may likely be outside of the buffer amount above (below)
the NBO (NBB) in anticipation of capturing rapidly increasing
(decreasing) market prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Rule 21.1(d)(12) (definition of Stop Limit Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The primary purpose of the fat finger check is to prevent limit
orders from executing at potentially erroneous prices upon entry,
because the limit prices are ``too far away'' from the then-current
NBBO. As noted above, a Stop Limit Order is not intended to execute
upon entry. Currently, because a Stop Limit Order does not ``become'' a
limit order until activated, the limit order fat finger check applies
to a Stop Limit Order at the time the order is activated. As noted
above, at that time, the limit price may cross the NBO, and thus may be
cancelled due to the fat finger check if the limit price crosses the
NBO by more than the buffer. Therefore, the manner in which the fat
finger check cancels/rejects a Stop Limit Order may conflict with the
intended purpose of a Stop Limit Order and a User's control over the
time when and the price at which it executes. For example, assume that
when the NBBO is 8.00 x 8.05, a User submits a Stop Limit Order to buy
at 9.25 and a stop price of 8.15 and the Exchange has set the fat
finger buffer to $1.00. Assume the NBBO then updates to 8.15 x 8.20.
The updated NBB equals the stop price of the order will activate the
stop price of the Stop Limit Order, converting it into a limit order to
buy at 9.25, which would be more than the fat finger buffer of $1.00
above the current NBO, thus canceled/rejected by the System in
accordance with the fat finger check. The Exchange also notes that the
System is currently able to apply only one buffer amount across
multiple order types. Therefore, the Exchange would not be able to
expand the buffer amount to accommodate Stop Limit Orders without
potentially over-expanding the buffer amount for other limit orders
that execute upon entry.
    The Exchange notes that a User's Stop Limit Orders would still be
subject to other price protections already in place on the Exchange. In
particular, drill-through price protections are in place pursuant to
Rule 21.17(a)(4), such that, if a buy (sell) order would execute (i.e.,
when the stop price for a Stop Limit Order is activated), the System
executes the order up to a buffer amount (established by the Exchange)
above (below) the NBO (NBB) that existed at the time of order entry
(``the drill-through price'').
    The Exchange believes that allowing a Stop Limit Order, once
activated, with a limit price outside of the NBBO (notwithstanding any
fat finger buffer) to execute at that limit price (up to the drill-
through buffer amount) is consistent with the intended purpose of a
Stop Limit Order. As stated, when a buy (sell) Stop Limit Order is
activated, its limit price is intended to be at a consequential amount
above (below) the NBO (NBB) in order to capture rapidly increasing
(decreasing) trade prices, to which the NBBO would as rapidly track and
reflect. To cancel or reject such orders based on the NBBO at the time
of its activation would inhibit Stop Limit Orders from capturing
favorable trade prices as a result of a rapidly shifting market. The
Exchange further notes that its affiliated exchange, Cboe Exchange,
Inc. (``Cboe Options''), recently submitted a rule filing that also
proposed to exclude Stop Limit Orders from its fat finger check, which
function in substantively the same manner as on the Exchange.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See SR-CBOE-2019-102 (October 29, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations

thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\8\ Specifically, the Exchange
believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section
6(b)(5) \9\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. Additionally, the Exchange
believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section
6(b)(5) \10\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be designed
to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the proposed rule change benefits market
participants by ensuring that they are able to use Stop Limit Orders to
achieve their intended purpose. As stated, Stop Limit Orders are
intended to increase User price control and flexibility, particularly
in the face of price swings and market volatility, by resting in the
System until the market reaches a certain price level. Thus, they are
not intended to execute upon entry. Conversely, the primary purpose of
the fat finger check is to prevent limit orders from executing at
potentially erroneous prices upon entry, because the limit prices are
``too far away'' from the then-current NBBO. By excluding Stop Limit
Orders from the fat finger check, which would currently cancel/reject a
Stop Limit Order if its buy (sell) limit price was above (below) the
NBO (NBB) upon activation of its stop limit price, the proposed rule
change removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and
open market and national market system by allowing Users the control
and flexibility to set the limit prices on Stop Limit Orders so as to
capture significant market fluctuations, which, as stated, result in
corresponding significant adjustments in the NBBO. Therefore, the
proposed rule change is designed to protect investors by allowing their
Stop Limit Orders to execute as intended without being canceled or
rejected in connection with the NBBO that existed at the time of their
activation, and instead to consider rapid price movements and
corresponding NBBO adjustments. The Exchange notes that the proposed
rule change will not affect the protection of investors or the
maintenance of a fair and orderly market because the drill-through
price controls would apply to Stop Limit Orders when their stop prices
are activated and they become limit orders.

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. The proposed rule change
will not impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act
because all Users' Stop Limit Orders will be excluded from the fat
finger check in the same manner. Also, all Users' Stop Limit Orders
will continue to be subject to other specific price controls in place
once their stop prices are activated and they become limit orders. The
proposed rule change will not impose any burden on intermarket
competition that that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act because the proposed change is merely designed
to allow Users' Stop Limit Orders to execute in a manner that achieves
their intended purpose by updating a price protection mechanism already
in place on the Exchange and applicable only to trading on the
Exchange.

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \13\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \14\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay. The
Exchange believes that waiver of the operative delay is appropriate
because, as the Exchange discussed above, by excluding Stop Limit
Orders from the fat finger check, which would currently cancel/reject a
Stop Limit Order if its buy (sell) limit price was above (below) the
NBO (NBB) upon activation of its stop limit price, will benefit market
participants by ensuring that they are able to use Stop Limit Orders to
achieve their intended purpose. Thus, the Exchange believes that the
proposed rule change is designed to protect investors by allowing their
Stop Limit Orders to execute as intended without being canceled or
rejected due to the application of the fat finger check provision.
Further, the Exchange believes waiver of the operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because the proposed rule change is substantively similar to a rule
filing recently submitted by its affiliated exchange, Cboe Options, and
thus presents no new or novel issues.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \15\ See supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay
is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because the proposal will permit Stop Limit Orders to execute as
intended and not be inadvertently cancelled in certain situation, as
discussed above, by the fat finger check provision. Therefore, the
Commission hereby waives the operative delay and designates the
proposal as operative upon filing.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission also has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of

the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please
include File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2019-069 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2019-069. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change.
    Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or
edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2019-
069 and should be submitted on or before December 10, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-24968 Filed 11-18-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P