[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 20 (Thursday, January 30, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5416-5417]
[FR Doc No: 2020-01594]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 10855-322]

Upper Peninsula Power Company; Notice of Application Accepted for
Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Request for temporary variance of Article
402.
    b. Project No.: 10855-322.
    c. Date Filed: December 31, 2019, and supplemented January 10 and
21, 2020.
    d. Applicant: Upper Peninsula Power Company.
    e. Name of Project: Dead River Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: Dead River, in Marquette County, Michigan.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Virgil Schlorke, Upper Peninsula Power
Company, 800 Greenwood Street, Ishpeming, MI 49849,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Mr. Jeremy Jessup,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests, is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice by the
Commission. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing.
Please file comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the
Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000
characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at
http://www.ferc.gov/doc-sfiling/ecomment.asp. You must include your
name and contact information at the end of your comments. For
assistance,

please contact FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866)
208-3676 (toll free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY). In lieu of electronic
filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426. The
first page of any filing should include docket numbers P-10855-322.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person on the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Request: The applicant proposes to modify the
start of month target reservoir surface elevation requirements at the
Silver Lake Storage Basin (SLSB) and Dead River Storage Basin (DRSB)
for the year 2020. Specifically, the applicant proposes to increase the
SLSB start-of-month target elevations in February and March from
1,477.5 to 1,479.0 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD); April
from 1,477.5 to 1,485.0 feet NGVD; May from 1,479.0 to 1,485.0 feet
NGVD; June from 1,481.0 to 1,485.0 feet NGVD; July from 1,481.5 to
1,485.0 feet NGVD; August from 1,480.0 to 1,482.5 feet NGVD; September
and October from 1,479.5 to 1480.0 feet NGVD. The licensee would
continue to maintain the target elevations for the remaining months as
required by Article 402. The applicant proposes to increase the DRSB
start-of-month target elevation for May from 1,340.0 to 1,341.0 feet
NGVD. The applicant states that the temporary variance will allow the
applicant to continue to determine if there are operational
modifications that can be employed to improve water quality in the Dead
River.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE, Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits
in the docket number field to access the document. You may also
register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to
be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208- 3676 or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Motions to Intervene, or Protests: Anyone may submit
comments, a motion to intervene, or a protest in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, motions to
intervene, or protests must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1)
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``MOTION TO
INTERVENE'', or ``PROTEST'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading
the name of the applicant and the project number(s) of the application
to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and
telephone number of the person intervening or protesting; and (4)
otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through
385.2005. All comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set
forth their evidentiary basis. A copy of all other filings in reference
to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all
persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this
proceeding, in accordance with 385.2010.

    Dated: January 23, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-01594 Filed 1-29-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 223 (Friday, November 18, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81755-81756]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27804]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC16-13-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-547); Comment
Request

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Comment request.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D), the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission or FERC) is submitting its information
collection FERC-547 (Gas Pipeline Rates: Refund Report Requirements) to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review of the information
collection requirements. Any interested person may file comments
directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments to the
Commission as explained below. The Commission previously issued a
Notice in the Federal Register (81 FR 49970, 7/29/2016) requesting
public comments. The Commission received no comments on the FERC-547
and is making this notation in its submittal to OMB.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due by December
19, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Comments filed with OMB, identified by the OMB Control No.
1902-0084, should be sent via email to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission Desk Officer. The Desk Officer may also be
reached via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Commission, in
Docket No. IC16-13-000, by either of the following methods:
     eFiling at Commission's Web site: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance contact FERC Online Support
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll-free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> for TTY.
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and by fax at
(202) 273-0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Gas Pipeline Rates: Refund Report Requirements.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0084.
    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-547 information
collection requirements with no changes to the reporting requirements.
    Abstract: The Commission uses FERC-547 (Gas Pipeline Rates: Refund
Report Requirements) to implement the statutory refund provisions
governed by Sections 4, 5 and 16 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA).\1\
Sections 4 and 5 authorize the Commission to order a refund (with
interest) for any portion of a natural gas company's increased rate or
charge found to be unjust or unreasonable. Refunds may also be
instituted by a natural gas company as a stipulation to a Commission-
approved settlement agreement or a provision under the company's
tariff. Section 16 of the NGA

authorizes the Commission to prescribe rules and regulations necessary
to administer its refund mandates. The Commission's refund reporting
requirements are located in 18 CFR 154.501 and 154.502.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 717-717w.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission uses the data to monitor refunds owed by natural gas
companies to ensure that the flow-through of refunds owed by these
companies are made as expeditiously as possible and to assure that
refunds are made in compliance with the Commission's regulations.
    Type of Respondents: Natural gas companies.
    Estimate of Annual Burden \2\: The Commission estimates the annual
public reporting burden for the information collection as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Commission defines burden as the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain,
retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal
agency. For further explanation of what is included in the
information collection burden, reference 5 Code of Federal
Regulations 1320.3.
    \3\ The cost is based on FERC's 2016 average cost (salary plus
benefits) of $74.50/hour. The Commission staff believes that the
industry's level and skill set is comparable to FERC.

                                                FERC-547--Gas Pipeline Rates: Refund Report Requirements
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Annual number
                                 Number of       of responses   Total number of   Average burden  and cost    Total annual burden hours      Cost per
                                respondents     per respondent     Responses          per  response \3\         and total annual cost     respondent ($)
                                         (1)              (2)      (1)*(2)=(3)   (4).......................  (3)*(4)=(5)...............         (5)/(1)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Gas Pipelines.......              11                1               11   75 hrs.; $5,587.50........  825 hrs.; $61,462.50......       $5,587.50
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.

    Dated: November 14, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-27804 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


1,540,000
                                                                      1,495,000
                                                                      1,527,400
                                                                      1,622,800
                                                                      1,619,320
                                                                             7*
  113,352.40
Potatoes
                                                                      1,020,600
                                                                      1,068,100
                                                                      1,059,600
                                                                      1,141,900
                                                                      1,139,400
                                                                      1,085,920
                                                                           64**
  694,988.80
Maximum acreage available for plant back/rotation
  808,341.20
Source: http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_Subject/index.php?sector=CROPS
*Proprietary Data (2004-2008)
**NASS (2003)

Table 4.  PCTn for Rotated Crops

Data Items
Dry Beans and Potatoes Acres Treated
5 Year Avg.
PCTn Rotated Crops
Wheat
                                                                        808,000
                                                                     59,000,000
                                                                              1
Corn
                                                                        808,000
                                                                     86,000,000
                                                                              1
Sorghum
                                                                        808,000
                                                                      7,000,000
                                                                             12
Barley
                                                                        808,000
                                                                      4,000,000
                                                                             22
Oats
                                                                        808,000
                                                                      4,000,000
                                                                             23
Rye
                                                                        808,000
                                                                      1,000,000
                                                                             63
Millet
                                                                        808,000
                                                                        482,000
                                                                            100
Soybeans
                                                                        808,000
                                                                     74,000,000
                                                                              1
Canola
                                                                        808,000
                                                                      1,000,000
                                                                             73
Cotton
                                                                        808,000
                                                                     11,000,000
                                                                              7
Alfalfa
                                                                        808,000
                                                                     20,000,000
                                                                              4
Source: http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_Subject/index.php?sector=CROPS

V.	ADDITIONAL FACTORS

      There are three main factors BEAD considers in evaluating the likelihood that use of a newly registered chemical or a new use will exceed the PCT for new uses:  (1) the extent of pest pressure on the crops in question; (2) the pest spectrum of the new pesticide in comparison with the market leaders as well as whether the market leaders are well-established for this use; and (3) resistance concerns with the new pesticide and the market leaders.  High pest pressure with the lack of registered controls could indicate significant demand for a new chemical.  Emergency exemptions under section 18 of FIFRA are a good indicator in regard to these situations.  On the other hand, it would be relatively difficult for a new active ingredient to gain a large portion of the market if a) it competes with the market leader(s) or others that have been extensively used for pest control including the same target pest(s), b) its new use is limited, for example, registered only for a single pest, and/or c) it is labeled for pest(s) of minor economic concern.  Finally, if the target pests are developing resistance to the market leader(s), it could indicate an advantage for the new active ingredient in the market.

      Fluopyram belongs to a chemical group functioning as a succinate dehydrogenase inhibitor (SDHI) and is labeled for use on a variety of crops.  HED requested fluopyram PCTn for 10 crops at this time (BEAN #387227), which are almonds, dry beans, peanuts, potatoes, sugar beets, and five cucurbits.  A biological analysis of additional factors for the use of fluopyram on almonds has been provided in Alsadek and Chen (2011), which concludes that it is unlikely that the use of fluopyram will exceed the market leader levels on almonds.  For the remaining nine crops, the analysis of the three main factors follows (Table 5).

      Table 5:  A List of the Registered Disease Control/Suppression on Dry Beans, Peanuts, Potatoes, Sugar Beets, and Five Cucurbits by Fluopyram 500 SC Fungicide.

                                   Commodity
                        Diseases Labeled for Fluopyram
CUCURBIT VEGETABLES
(CANTALOUPE, CUCUMBER, PUMPKIN, SQUASH, WATERMELON)
Alternaria leaf spot (Alternaria spp.); Gray mold (Botrytis cinerea); Gummy stem blight (Didymella bryoniae); Powdery mildew (Sphaeotheca fuliginea, Podosphaera xanthii, Erysiphe cichoracearum)
DRIED BEANS
Alternaria blight (Alternaria spp.); Alternaria leaf spot (Alternaria alternate); Gray mold (Botrytis cinerea); Powdery mildew (Erysiphe pisi); White mold (Sclerotinia sclerotiorum)
PEANUT
Early leaf spot (Cercospora arachidicola); Late leaf spot (Cercosporidium personatum)
POTATO
Botrytis leaf spot (Botrytis cinerea); Early blight (Alternaria solani); White mold (Sclerotinia sclerotiorum); Silver scurf (Helminthosporium solani)
SUGAR BEET
Cercospora leaf spot (Cercospora beticola); Powdery mildew (Erysiphe polygoni)
  Note: The termmo tmo to address

      In addition, HED requested fluopyram PCTn for rotational crops that are alfalfa, canola, cotton, soybean, and cereal grains except rice.  After the harvest of dry beans and potatoes, 100% of the acreage treated with fluopyram is assumed to grow these rotational crops.  Thus, it is a conservative estimate and no analysis on additional factors is needed.

CUCURBITS - The market leaders are sulfur and triflumizole for cantaloupe, and chlorothalonil for cucumber, pumpkin, squash, and watermelon.
      oo       Pest pressure:  No FIFRA Section 18 Emergency Exemption has been currently issued for the use of any fungicides to control the labeled diseases on cantaloupe, cucumber, pumpkin, squash, and watermelon.
      oo       Pest spectrum:  The market leader fungicide, chlorothalonil, has been registered to control the same target diseases as fluopyram on cucumber, pumpkin, squash, and watermelon.  The market leader fungicides, sulfur and/or triflumizole, have been registered to control the same target diseases as fluopyram on cantaloupe.  Two of them, chlorothalonil and sulfur, are broad-spectrum fungicides with a multi-site mode of action, where fluopyram has a single-site mode of action.
      oo       Resistance:  The Fungicide Resistance Action Committee (FRAC) indicates that chlorothalonil and sulfur, the market leaders on cantaloupe, cucumber, pumpkin, squash, and watermelon are generally considered to be at low risk for resistance development.  Triflumizole, one of two market leaders on cantaloupe, is a high-risk-for-resistance-development fungicide.  FRAC ranks fluopyram as medium to high risk for resistance development and indicates that resistance management is required (FRAC, 2011).
   Conclusion:  Consideration of these factors indicates that it is unlikely that the use of fluopyram will exceed the market leader levels on cucurbits identified.  In particular, fluopyram will unlikely gain a large portion of the market when it competes with the market leaders that have been extensively used to control the same diseases.  It is also because fluopyram competes with other fungicide alternatives currently available on cucurbits, which would reduce its use and usage.  As a medium to high risk fungicide for resistance development, fluopyram also does not have a clear market advantage in resistance management because it needs to be fitted into a fungicide rotation scheme and alternate with others with a different mode of action, which would limit its use and usage.

DRY BEANS - The market leaders are thiophanate-methyl and pyraclostrobin.
      oo       Pest pressure:  No FIFRA Section 18 Emergency Exemption has been currently issued for the use of any fungicides to control the labeled diseases on dry beans.
      oo       Pest spectrum:  The market leader fungicides, thiophanate-methyl and/or pyraclostrobin, have been registered to control the same target diseases as fluopyram on dry beans.
      oo       Resistance:  FRAC indicates that pyraclostrobin and thiophanate-methyl are high-risk-for-resistance-development fungicides.  With different chemistries, both can be rotated or tank-mixed to reduce the risk of resistance development.  It is also found that EPA Proprietary Data indicate that both were actually used to control all the main diseases labeled for fluopyram, and the fact that both were still market leaders suggests that in this particular case resistance might not be a dominating factor compared to fluopyram.  FRAC ranks fluopyram as medium to high risk for resistance development and indicates that resistance management is required (FRAC, 2011).
   Conclusion:  Consideration of these factors indicates that it is unlikely that the use of fluopyram will exceed the market leader levels on dry beans.  In particular, fluopyram will unlikely gain a large portion of the market when it competes with the market leader fungicides that have been applied to control the same diseases.  It is also because fluopyram competes with other fungicide alternatives currently available on dry beans, which would reduce its use and usage.  In addition, as a medium to high risk fungicide for resistance development, fluopyram does not have a clear market advantage in resistance management because it needs to be fitted into a fungicide rotation scheme and alternate with others with a different mode of action, which would limit its use and usage.

PEANUT - The market leaders are chlorothalonil and mancozeb.
      oo       Pest pressure:  No FIFRA Section 18 Emergency Exemption has been currently issued for the use of any fungicides to control the labeled diseases on peanuts.
      oo       Pest spectrum:  The market leader fungicides, chlorothalonil and/or mancozeb, are broad-spectrum fungicides with a multi-site mode of action that have been registered to control the same target diseases as fluopyram on peanuts.
      oo       Resistance:  FRAC indicates that the market leader fungicides, chlorothalonil and mancozeb, are generally considered to be at low risk for resistance development.  FRAC ranks fluopyram as medium to high risk for resistance development and indicates that resistance management is required (FRAC, 2011).
   Conclusion:  Consideration of these factors indicates that it is unlikely that the use of fluopyram will exceed the market leader levels on peanuts.  In particular, fluopyram will unlikely gain a large portion of the market when it competes with the market leaders that have been extensively used to control the same diseases.  It is also because fluopyram competes with other fungicide alternatives currently available on peanuts, which would reduce its use and usage.  As a medium to high risk fungicide for resistance development, fluopyram also does not have a clear market advantage in resistance management because it needs to be fitted into a fungicide rotation scheme and alternate with others with a different mode of action, which would limit its use and usage.

POTATO - The market leaders are chlorothalonil and mancozeb.
      oo       Pest pressure:  No FIFRA Section 18 Emergency Exemption has been currently issued for the use of any fungicides to control the labeled diseases on potatoes.
      oo       Pest spectrum:  The market leader fungicides, chlorothalonil and/or mancozeb, have been registered to control the same target diseases as fluopyram on potatoes.  Both of them are broad-spectrum fungicides with a multi-site mode of action.
      oo       Resistance:  FRAC indicates that the market leader fungicides, chlorothalonil and mancozeb, are generally considered to be at low risk for resistance.  FRAC ranks fluopyram as medium to high risk for resistance development and indicates that resistance management is required (FRAC, 2011).
   Conclusion:  Consideration of these factors indicates that it is unlikely that the use of fluopyram will exceed the market leader levels on potatoes.  In particular, fluopyram will unlikely gain a large portion of the market when it competes with the market leaders that have been extensively used to control the same diseases.  It is also because fluopyram competes with other fungicide alternatives currently available on potatoes, which would reduce its use and usage.  As a medium to high risk fungicide for resistance development, fluopyram also does not have a clear market advantage in resistance management because it needs to be fitted into a fungicide rotation scheme and alternate with others with a different mode of action, which would limit its use and usage.

SUGAR BEETS - The market leaders are pyraclostrobin and tetraconazole.
      oo       Pest pressure:  No FIFRA Section 18 Emergency Exemption has been currently issued for the use of any fungicides to control the labeled diseases on sugar beets.
      oo       Pest spectrum:  The market leader fungicides, pyraclostrobin and/or tetraconazole, have been registered to control the same target diseases as fluopyram on sugar beets.
      oo       Resistance:  FRAC indicates that pyraclostrobin and tetraconazole are high-risk-for-resistance-development fungicides.  With different chemistries, both can be rotated or tank-mixed to reduce the risk of resistance development.  It is also found that EPA Proprietary Data indicate that both were actually used to control all the main diseases labeled for fluopyram, and the fact that both were still market leaders suggests that in this particular case resistance might not be a dominating factor compared to fluopyram.  FRAC ranks fluopyram as medium to high risk for resistance development and indicates that resistance management is required (FRAC, 2011).
   Conclusion:  Consideration of these factors indicates that it is unlikely that the use of fluopyram will exceed the market leader levels on sugar beets.  In particular, fluopyram will unlikely gain a large portion of the market when it competes with the market leader fungicide that has been extensively used to control the same diseases.  It is also because fluopyram competes with other fungicide alternatives currently available on sugar beets, which would reduce its use and usage.  In addition, as a medium to high risk fungicide for resistance development, fluopyram does not have a clear market advantage in resistance management because it needs to be fitted into a fungicide rotation scheme and alternate with others with a different mode of action, which would limit its use and usage

VI.	CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS

      BEAD recommends that the average PCTn values for almond, cantaloupe, cucumber, dry beans, peanut, potatoes, pumpkin, squash, sugar beet, and watermelon, provided in Table 1 be used in the chronic dietary risk assessment for fluopyram and the maximum PCTn values be used for acute risk assessment.  BEAD also recommends the PCTn values for the rotational crops, in Table 4, be used for chronic assessment for fluopyram for plant back after dry beans and potatoes.

      BEAD has considered all available relevant information and believes it is unlikely that the PCTn values provided in Table 1 and Table 4 will be exceeded during the next five years.

VII.	REFERENCES

Agricultural Chemical Usage 2002 Vegetables Summary

Agricultural Chemical Usage 2004 Vegetables Summary

Agricultural Chemical Usage 2006 Vegetables Summary

Alsadek J., Chen C. 2011. Refined Percent Crop Treated for New Uses of Fluopyram on Almonds, Apples, Wine Grapes, Oranges, Peaches, Pears, Strawberries, and Tomatoes
PC #080302, DP # 381225, DP # 378732. February 23, 2011.

Bayer, 2011. Revised portfolio for fluopyram use: January 19, 2011.

EPA, 2006. Memorandum: "BEAD Approach to Providing Projected Percent Crop Treated Estimates for Use in Dietary Risk Assessment in OPP", December 14, 2006.  Unpublished.

EPA Proprietary Data, 2006-2010.

FRAC, 2011. Fungicide Resistance Action Committee. http://www.frac.info/frac/index.htm

cc: Cynthia Giles-Parker; Barbara Madden; Paula Deschamp


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 228 (Friday, November 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74164-74165]
[FR Doc No: 2015-30093]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. IC-31907]

Notice of Applications for Deregistration Under Section 8(f) of
the Investment Company Act of 1940

November 20, 2015.
    The following is a notice of applications for deregistration under
section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 for the month of
November 2015. A copy of each application may be obtained via the
Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an
applicant using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. An order granting each
application will be issued unless the SEC orders a hearing. Interested
persons may request a hearing on any application by writing to the
SEC's Secretary at the address below and serving the relevant applicant
with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests
should be received by the SEC by 5:30 p.m. on December 15, 2015, and
should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of
an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to
Rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the
writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing
on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested.
Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification
by writing to the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: The Commission: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chief Counsel's Office at (202) 551-
6821; SEC, Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office,
100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-8010.

BlackRock MuniYield Michigan Quality Fund II, Inc. [File No. 811-06501]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. Applicant
transferred its assets to BlackRock MuniYield Michigan Quality Fund,
Inc., and effective September 14, 2015, made distributions to its
shareholders based on net asset value. Expenses of approximately
$331,358 incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by
Applicant and Applicant's investment adviser.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on November 16, 2015.
    Applicant's Address: 100 Bellevue Parkway, Wilmington, Delaware
19809.

Asian Small Companies Portfolio [File No. 811-07529]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On January 27, 2015 and January 28, 2015,
applicant made liquidating distributions to its shareholders, based on
net asset value. Applicant incurred no expenses in connection with the
liquidation.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on November 6, 2015, and
amended on November 18, 2015.
    Applicant's Address: Two International Place, Boston, MA 02110.

Parametric Market Neutral Portfolio [File No. 811-22597]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On September 19, 2014, applicant made a
liquidating distribution to its shareholders, based on net asset value.
Applicant incurred no expenses in connection with the liquidation.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on November 6, 2015, and
amended on November 18, 2015.
    Applicant's Address: Two International Place, Boston, MA 02110.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
pursuant to delegated authority.
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-30093 Filed 11-25-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 228 (Tuesday, November 27, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70689-70693]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27974]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2009-0786; FRL-9752-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Tennessee;
Regional Haze State Implementation Plan; Best Available Retrofit
Technology Requirements for Eastman Chemical Company

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing approval of the Best Available Retrofit
Technology (BART) requirements for the Eastman Chemical Company
(Eastman) that were provided in a revision to the Tennessee State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of Tennessee, through
the Tennessee Department Environment and Conservation (TDEC), on April
4, 2008, as later modified and supplemented on May 14, 2012, and May
25, 2012. EPA previously proposed action on the BART requirements for
Eastman in association with action on Tennessee's April 4, 2008,
regional haze SIP revision. On April 24, 2012, EPA took final action on
all aspects of the April 4, 2008, SIP revision to address regional haze
in the State's and other states' Class I areas except for the BART
requirements for Eastman. The May 14, 2012, SIP revision (as clarified
in a May 25, 2012, SIP revision) changed the compliance date for the
Eastman BART determination included in Tennessee's April 4, 2008, SIP
revision and provided a BART alternative determination option for
Eastman. EPA is finalizing approval of the BART requirements for
Eastman, as provided in Tennessee's April 4, 2008, May 14, 2012, and
May 25, 2012, SIP revisions because these SIP revisions are consistent
with the regional haze provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's
regulations.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will be effective December 27, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2009-0786. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential
Business Information or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for
further information. The Regional Office's official hours of business
are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 a.m., excluding Federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michele Notarianni, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Michele Notarianni can
be reached at telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> and by electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What is the background for this final action?
II. What is the update to the response to comments received on EPA's
June 9, 2011, proposal related to Eastman?
III. What is the response to comments received on EPA's August 27,
2012, proposal related to Eastman?
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background for this final action?

    Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a
multitude of sources and activities which are located across a broad
geographic area and emit fine particles (e.g., sulfates, nitrates,
organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust), and their precursors
(e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides, and in some
cases, ammonia and volatile organic compounds). Fine particle
precursors react in the atmosphere to form fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) which impairs visibility by scattering and absorbing
light. Visibility impairment reduces the clarity, color, and visible
distance that one can see. PM2.5 can also cause serious
health effects and mortality in humans and contributes to environmental
effects such as acid deposition and eutrophication.
    In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national
goal the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing,
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas which impairment
results from manmade air pollution.'' On December 2, 1980, EPA
promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I
areas that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small
group of sources, i.e., ``reasonably attributable visibility
impairment.'' See 45 FR 80084. These regulations represented the first
phase in addressing visibility impairment. EPA deferred action on
regional haze that emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring,
modeling, and scientific knowledge about the relationships between
pollutants and visibility impairment were improved.
    Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional
haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1,
1999 (64 FR 35713), the Regional Haze Rule (RHR). The RHR revised the
existing visibility regulations to integrate into the regulation
provisions addressing regional haze impairment and established a
comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I areas. The
requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are
included in EPA's visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-
309. The requirement to submit a regional haze SIP applies to all 50
states, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands. 40 CFR
51.308(b) requires states to submit the first implementation plan
addressing regional haze visibility impairment no later than December
17, 2007.
    On April 4, 2008, TDEC submitted a revision to Tennessee's SIP to
address regional haze in the State's and other states' Class I areas.
On June 9, 2011, EPA published an action proposing a limited approval
and a limited disapproval of Tennessee's April 4, 2008, SIP revision
(including the BART determination for Eastman--hereafter referred to as
the ``original Eastman BART determination'') to address the first
implementation period for regional haze. See 76 FR 33662. After
publication of EPA's June 2011 proposed action on Tennessee's regional
haze SIP revision, the State and Eastman entered into discussions
regarding a BART alternative determination that would give Eastman the
option to comply with the regional haze BART requirements by converting
its B-253 Powerhouse to natural gas in lieu of continuing to use coal
and retrofitting its facility pursuant to the BART determination for
SO2 emissions (hereafter referred to as the ``Eastman BART
alternative determination'').
    On April 24, 2012, EPA took final action on Tennessee's April 4,
2008, regional haze SIP revision, with the exception of the original
Eastman BART determination. See 77 FR 24392. As noted in that action,
EPA took no action on the original Eastman BART determination provided
in the April 4, 2008, SIP revision at that time since EPA expected
Tennessee to submit a supplemental SIP addressing an Eastman BART
alternative determination. EPA's proposed action for the original
Eastman BART determination remained in place after EPA's April 24,
2012, action on the remainder of Tennessee's regional haze SIP
revision. On May 14, 2012, TDEC submitted a modification and supplement
to its April 2008 Tennessee regional haze plan to address BART
requirements for Eastman. On May 25, 2012, Tennessee modified the
permit to clarify that Eastman would fully implement BART or notify
TDEC and EP of the selection of the Eastman BART alternative
determination no later than April 30, 2017.
    In summary, Tennessee's May 14, 2012, SIP revision: (1) Modifies
the final compliance date to April 30, 2017, for the original Eastman
BART determination; and (2) establishes a BART alternative
determination option for Eastman to convert its B-253 Powerhouse
(Boilers 25-29) to burn natural gas. The May 14, 2012, SIP revision and
Eastman's CAA title V operating permit stipulate that if Eastman elects
to implement the Eastman BART alternative determination instead of the
original Eastman BART determination, Eastman must begin construction on
the Eastman BART alternative prior to April 30, 2017, and complete
construction no later than the earlier of: December 31, 2018; the end
of the period of the first long-term strategy for regional haze as
determined by EPA; or the compliance deadline for the one-hour
SO2 national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS).
Tennessee's May 14, 2012, SIP revision (as clarified in a May 25, 2012,
SIP revision) also stipulates that if Eastman elects to implement the
original Eastman BART determination instead of the Eastman BART
alternative determination, it must comply with the BART requirements by
April 30, 2017.
    The Tennessee Air Pollution Control Board approved this SIP
revision and associated operating permit as Board Order 12-008 on May
9, 2012. TDEC submitted the modifications to the compliance date for
the original Eastman BART determination; the additional Eastman BART
alternative determination; and the Board Order as a SIP revision on May
14, 2012, and submitted a clarifying SIP revision on May 25, 2012.
    On August 27, 2012 (77 FR 51739), EPA proposed to approve the
modifications to the compliance date for the original Eastman BART
determination and the Eastman BART alternative determination option, as
provided in Tennessee's May 14, 2012, SIP revision. In that action, EPA
preliminarily determined that implementation of the BART alternative
option would achieve greater reasonable progress than would be achieved
through the installation and operation of BART at Eastman and that the
BART alternative option met the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). As
mentioned earlier, EPA previously proposed approval of Tennessee's
original Eastman BART determination as provided in the State's April 4,
2008, SIP revision. EPA proposed approval of Tennessee's SIP revision
implementing BART requirements for Eastman (as submitted by the State
in an April 4, 2008, SIP revision, and later modified and supplemented
in a May 14, 2012, SIP revision) because EPA preliminarily determined
that these requirements are consistent with the CAA and EPA's
regulations on regional haze BART determinations and BART alternative
determinations. The May 25, 2012, SIP revision simply clarified an
established requirement and does not substantively modify the proposed
action.

II. What is the update to the response to comments received on EPA's
June 9, 2011, proposal related to Eastman?

    EPA received six sets of comments on the June 9, 2011, rulemaking
proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of Tennessee's
April 4, 2008, regional haze SIP revision. Specifically, the comments
were received from the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity,
Eastman, TDEC, the National Park Service, the Tennessee Valley
Authority, and the Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG).\1\ Full sets of
the comments provided by all of the aforementioned entities
(hereinafter referred to as ``the Commenter'') are provided in EPA's
docket for the April 24, 2012, final rulemaking, which is the same
docket for today's final action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA notes that in the April 24, 2012, final rulemaking (77
FR 24392), EPA did not specifically mention UARG as one of the
Commenters for which EPA was providing response to comments. UARG's
comments were one of the six sets of comments considered and
responded to in the April 24, 2012, final rulemaking. These comments
were included in the docket for the April 24, 2012, final
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA addressed these comments in the April 24, 2012, final
rulemaking, and is only providing an update to the comments related to
the original Eastman BART determination since EPA is now taking final
action on this component of Tennessee's April 4, 2008, regional haze
SIP revision. Please refer to EPA's April 24, 2012, final rulemaking on
Tennessee's regional haze SIP revision for EPA's further response to
comments on Tennessee's regional haze SIP. See 77 FR 24392. A summary
of the comments related to action on the original Eastman BART
determination and EPA's responses are provided below.
    Comment 1: The Commenter requests that EPA delay final action on
the June 9, 2011, proposed rulemaking related to Tennessee's regional
haze SIP revision so that the BART requirements are harmonized with
other pending federal air quality regulatory actions that affect
Eastman's Tennessee facility (e.g., 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, the
maximum achievable control technology (MACT) rule for industrial
boilers (Industrial Boiler MACT), and the Transport Rule). The
Commenter asserts that this will provide Eastman with an opportunity to
meet all of the requirements of these numerous programs at one time and
will allow Eastman to comply with all pending requirements in an
efficient and cost-effective manner.
    Response 1: Under section 110(k)(2) of the CAA, EPA is required to
act within specified timeframes to approve or disapprove SIP revisions.
As mentioned above, Tennessee submitted its regional haze SIP revision
for EPA review on April 4, 2008, and EPA is already past-due on its
action per the statutory deadlines. There is no authority in the CAA
for EPA to further delay action for the reasons provided by the
Commenter, and EPA committed to take final action by November 15, 2012,
on the BART requirements for Eastman.
    Comment 2: The Commenter indicates that it is fundamentally
inequitable to set the BART compliance deadline earlier for non-
electric generating units (EGUs), in reference to the Eastman facility,
than for EGUs and to require non-EGUs to make necessary investments
earlier than EGUs. Further, the Commenter asserts that this step is not
required to ensure reasonable progress in visibility improvement in
Class I areas.
    Response 2: EPA previously responded to this comment in the April
24, 2012, final rulemaking on the remainder to the Tennessee regional
haze SIP. See 77 FR 24392. Today, EPA is responding to this comment as
it relates specifically to the BART determination for Eastman. EPA
reiterates that it is not clear what compliance dates the Commenter is
referring to. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e), Tennessee submitted a
regional haze SIP containing BART determinations for each BART-eligible
source that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any
impairment of visibility in any Class I area and schedules for
compliance with BART for each of these sources. Tennessee's April 4,
2008, regional haze SIP also contains a requirement, based on the
provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv), that each source subject to BART
be required to install and operate BART as expeditiously as
practicable, but in no event later than five years after approval of
the SIP revision. EPA finalized action on the State's April 4, 2008,
SIP submission (excluding the BART determination for Eastman) on April
24, 2012, and the State's May 14, 2012, SIP revision, as clarified
through a May 25, 2012, SIP revision, requires Eastman to comply with
BART by April 30, 2017, should it elect not to implement the BART
alternative option. Therefore, the latest BART compliance date under
the Tennessee regional haze SIP for the State's subject-to-BART sources
(including Eastman) is in 2017. These timelines are consistent with CAA
requirements for implementing the regional haze program.
    In comparison, the Utility Boiler MACT and the Industrial Boiler
MACT require compliance with their respective standards by 2015 as does
the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR),\2\ a rule that applies only to
EGUs. It is therefore possible that an EGU relying on CAIR to satisfy
BART will be required to implement controls that would satisfy BART
requirements (via CAIR) before a non-EGU in Tennessee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Although remanded to EPA, CAIR continues to apply in the
interim until EPA adopts a replacement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What is the response to comments received on EPA's August 27,
2012, proposal related to Eastman?

    EPA received one set of comments on the August 27, 2012, proposed
rulemaking to approve Tennessee's May 14, 2012, SIP revision to: (1)
Modify the compliance date for the original Eastman BART determination;
and (2) establish a BART alternative determination option for Eastman
to convert its B-253 Powerhouse (Boilers 25-29) to burn natural gas.
Specifically, the comments were received from Eastman (hereinafter
referred to as ``the Commenter'') and are provided in the docket for
today's final action.
    In section II of this action, EPA updated its response to comments
from the April 24, 2012, final rulemaking as it relates to the original
Eastman BART determination. In addition, EPA is addressing comments
received in response to the Agency's August 27, 2012, proposed
rulemaking to approve Tennessee's May 14, 2012, SIP revision to: (1)
Modify the compliance date for the original Eastman BART determination;
and (2) provide the option for an Eastman BART alternative
determination. Additional detail for EPA's rationale for the proposed
approval of Tennessee's May 14, 2012, SIP revision can be found in
EPA's August 27, 2012, proposed rulemaking. See 77 FR 51739. A summary
of the comments related to EPA's August 27, 2012, proposal, and EPA's
responses to those comments are provided below.
    Comment 3: The Commenter asks EPA to clarify that December 31,
2018, is the end of the first long-term strategy period to avoid any
confusion regarding the completion date for the Eastman BART
alternative. Tennessee's May 14, 2012, SIP revision and Eastman's CAA
title V operating permit stipulate that if Eastman elects to implement
the Eastman BART alternative determination instead of the original
Eastman BART determination, Eastman must begin construction on the
Eastman BART alternative prior to April 30, 2017, and complete
construction no later than the earlier of: December 31, 2018; the end
of the period of the first

long-term strategy for regional haze as determined by EPA; or the
compliance deadline for the one-hour SO2 NAAQS.
    Response 3: As stated in EPA's August 27, 2012, proposed rulemaking
notice, ``[a] December 31, 2018, date for the end of the period of the
first long term strategy is consistent with the requirement to evaluate
visibility over calendar year periods and the requirement for each
state to submit an initial regional haze SIP that covers the period
from submittal through 2018.'' See 77 FR 51741. Therefore, Eastman must
complete construction of the BART alternative by December 31, 2018, or
the compliance deadline for the one-hour SO2 NAAQS,
whichever is earlier, should it elect to implement the BART
alternative.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is finalizing approval of the BART requirements for Eastman
that were submitted by the State of Tennessee as a part of a revision
to the Tennessee SIP on April 4, 2008, and as later modified and
supplemented in a SIP revision provided on May 14, 2012, and May 25,
2012. Specifically, EPA is finalizing approval of the original Eastman
BART determination as provided in Tennessee's April 4, 2008, SIP
revision, with the modified compliance date provided in Tennessee's May
14, 2012, SIP revision, and as clarified in a May 25, 2012, SIP
revision. EPA is also finalizing approval of Tennessee's May 14, 2012,
and May 25, 2012, SIP revisions to provide an option for Tennessee to
implement a BART alternative determination for Eastman in lieu of the
original Eastman BART determination that was provided in Tennessee's
April 4, 2008, SIP revision (with the modified compliance date provided
in Tennessee's May 14, 2012, SIP revision). EPA has concluded that
implementation of the BART alternative option would achieve greater
reasonable progress than would be achieved through the installation and
operation of BART at Eastman and that the BART alternative option meets
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). These actions are consistent
with the CAA and EPA's regulations on regional haze, BART
determinations, and BART alternative determinations.

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 Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country, and EPA
notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by January 28, 2013. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: November 6, 2012.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, 40 CFR chapter I is amended
as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart RR--Tennessee

0
2. Amend Sec.  52.2220 by:
0
a. In paragraph (d) by adding two new entries for ``Eastman Chemical
Company'' and ``Eastman Chemical Company--Amendment 1'' at the
end of the table; and
0
b. In paragraph (e) by adding a new entry for ``Regional Haze Plan--
Eastman Chemical Company BART determination'' at the end of the table.
    The added text reads as follows.

Sec.  52.2220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *

                                                   EPA-Approved Tennessee Source-Specific Requirements
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Name of source                  Permit No.           State  effective date       EPA approval date                  Explanation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Eastman Chemical Company...........  BART Permit 066116H...  May 9, 2012................  November 27, 2012....  BART determination.
                                                                                [Insert citation of
                                                                                publication].
Eastman Chemical Company--Amendment  BART Permit 066116H,    May 22, 2012...............  November 27, 2012....  Clarifying amendment to BART
 1.                          Amendment 1.                               [Insert citation of     Determination.
                                                                                publication].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (e) * * *

                                                    EPA-Approved Tennessee Non-Regulatory Provisions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Name of non-regulatory SIP       Applicable geographic or
             provision                  nonattainment area         State  effective date      EPA approval date                 Explanation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Regional Haze Plan--Eastman         Statewide.................  May 9, 2012...............  November 27, 2012...  Applicable only to the Eastman
 Chemical Company BART                                                                      [Insert citation....   Chemical BART determination.
 determination.                                                                             of publication].....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec.  52.2234  [Amended]

0
3. Amend Sec.  52.2234 by removing and reserving paragraph (b).

[FR Doc. 2012-27974 Filed 11-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 28 (Tuesday, February 11, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8217-8221]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02874]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71483; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2014-12]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Amending the Fees
for NYSE ArcaBook

February 5, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on January 27, 2014, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
Arca'') 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\ 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 ArcaBook. The
Exchange proposes to implement the fee changes effective February 1,
2014. The text of 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 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 the fees for NYSE ArcaBook. The
Exchange proposes to implement the fee changes effective February 1,
2014.
    NYSE ArcaBook is a real-time market data product that is a
compilation of all limit orders resident in the NYSE Arca limit order
book.\3\ The Exchange charges the following monthly display fees for
NYSE ArcaBook:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See SR-NYSEArca-2014-07.

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Access fee.............................  $750
Redistribution Fee.....................  $1,500
Subscriber Fees........................  Tape A & B Securities
                                          (including ETFs)
                                         Professional: $15
                                         Non-professional: $5.
                                         Tape C Securities (excluding
                                          ETFs)
                                         Professional: $15
                                         Non-professional: $5.
                                         Non-professional Fee Cap:
                                          $20,000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to increase the monthly access fee from $750
to $2,000 and to offer Tape A and B Securities (including ETFs) and
Tape C Securities (excluding ETFs) for a single monthly fee of $40 for
professional subscribers and $10 for non-professional subscribers for
display use. The Exchange would no longer offer separate pricing for
the Tape C Securities (excluding ETFs) data. The Exchange has
determined not to separately offer the Tape C option in order to have
greater ease of management. The Exchange also notes that it has not
increased NYSE ArcaBook access fees or the subscriber fees for display
use since they were originally proposed in 2006.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (Dec. 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770 (Dec. 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-21).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to make a technical change to remove the
operative date for the NYSE ArcaBook redistribution fee, but does not
otherwise propose any changes to the NYSE ArcaBook redistribution fee,
non-professional fee cap, or non-display fees at this time. The
Exchange notes that the access fee applies to all users of NYSE
ArcaBook, regardless of whether they elect display, non-display, and/or
managed non-display use.
    The Exchange further believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the market-based approach of the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission''). The decision of the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in NetCoalition
v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (DC Cir. 2010), upheld reliance by the 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.' '' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 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
proposed in this filing are the product of competition and therefore
satisfy the relevant statutory standards.\6\ In addition, the existence
of alternatives to NYSE ArcaBook, including real-time consolidated
data, free delayed 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 elect such alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Section 916 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (the ``Dodd-Frank Act'') amended
paragraph (A) of Section 19(b)(3) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3),
to make clear that all exchange fees for market data may be filed by
exchanges on an immediately effective basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the NetCoalition decision noted, the Commission is not required
to undertake a cost-of-service or ratemaking approach.\7\ The Exchange
believes that, even if it were possible as a matter of economic theory,
cost-based pricing for non-core market data would be so complicated
that it could not be done practically.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ NetCoalition, 615 F.3d at 536.
    \8\ The Exchange believes that cost-based pricing would be
impractical because it would create enormous administrative burdens
for all parties, including 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.

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

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\9\ in general, and
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ in particular, in that it
provides an equitable allocation of reasonable fees among its members,
issuers, and other persons using its facilities and is not designed to
permit unfair discrimination among customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 11(A) of the Act \11\ in that it is consistent
with (i) fair competition among brokers and dealers, among exchange
markets, and between exchange markets and markets other than exchange
markets; and (ii) the availability to brokers, dealers, and investors
of information with respect to quotations for and transactions in
securities. Furthermore, the proposed rule change is consistent with
Rule 603 of Regulation NMS,\12\ which provides that any national
securities exchange that distributes information with respect to
quotations for or transactions in an NMS stock do so on terms that are
not unreasonably discriminatory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \12\ See 17 CFR 242.603.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed subscriber fees for display
use of NYSE ArcaBook are reasonable because they are less than
subscriber fees that are currently being charged for a comparable
product by at least one other exchange.\13\ The Exchange believes that
the proposed subscriber fees are equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the fee structure of differentiated professional
and non-professional fees has long been used by the Exchange for other
products, by other exchanges for their products, and by the CTA and CQ
Plans in order to make data more broadly available to retail
customers.\14\ The Exchange further believes that continuing to offer
NYSE ArcaBook to non-professional users with the same data available to
professional users results in greater equity among data recipients.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'') offers NASDAQ
Level 2 with NASDAQ OpenView for a monthly fee of $51 per
professional subscriber for NASDAQ, NYSE, and NYSE MKT issues ($45
for NASDAQ issues plus $6 for NYSE and NYSE MKT issues) and $10 per
non-professional subscriber for NASDAQ, NYSE, and NYSE MKT issues
($9 for NASDAQ issues plus $1 for NYSE and NYSE MKT issues). See
NASDAQ Rule 7023(b).
    \14\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 20002, File
No. S7-433 (July 22, 1983) (establishing non-professional fees for
CTA data); NASDAQ Rules 7023(b), 7047.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed access fee for NYSE ArcaBook also is reasonable
because it is less than or equal to access fees that are currently
charged by other exchanges for comparable products.\15\ The Exchange
believes that the proposed access fee for NYSE ArcaBook is equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because it will be charged uniformly to
vendors and subscribers that elect to offer NYSE ArcaBook, whether for
display, non-display, and/or managed non-display use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The Exchange's affiliate, NYSE, charges a monthly access
fee of $5,000 for its NYSE OpenBook product. See Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 69278 (Apr. 2, 2013), 78 FR 20973 (Apr. 8, 2013)
(SR-NYSE-2013-25). In addition, NASDAQ charges a monthly access fee
for NASDAQ Level 2 of $3,000 for NASDAQ, NYSE, and NYSE MKT issues
($2,000 direct access fee for NASDAQ issues plus $1,000 direct
access fee for NYSE and NYSE MKT issues). See NASDAQ Rule 7019(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has not raised the subscriber fees for display use of
NYSE ArcaBook or access fees for NYSE ArcaBook since the fees were
originally proposed more than seven years ago, in 2006.\16\ During this
time period, the Exchange has enhanced NYSE ArcaBook through delivery
upgrades, and the bandwidth to support NYSE ArcaBook has increased
fivefold. The Exchange believes that the new fees are fair and
reasonable in light of its ongoing effort to improve the delivery
technology for market data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54597 (Oct. 12,
2006), 71 FR 62029 (Oct. 20, 2006) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-21).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also notes that the use of NYSE ArcaBook is entirely
optional. Firms have a wide variety of alternative market data products
from which to choose.\17\ Moreover, the Exchange is not required to
make these proprietary data products available or to offer any specific
pricing alternatives to any customers. For these reasons, the Exchange
believes that the proposed fees are reasonable, equitable, and not
unfairly discriminatory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See supra notes 13 and15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\18\ 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
data feed products is constrained by (1) the inherent contestability of
the market for proprietary data and actual competition for the sale of
such data, (2) the joint product nature of exchange platforms, and (3)
the existence of alternatives to proprietary data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 to the
creation of proprietary data and strict pricing discipline for the
proprietary products themselves. Numerous exchanges compete with each
other for listings and order flow and sales of market data itself,
providing virtually limitless 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.
    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. The U.S. Department of Justice
also has acknowledged the aggressive competition among exchanges,
including for the sale of proprietary market data itself. In 2011,
Assistant Attorney General Christine Varney 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.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is common for broker-dealers to further exploit this recognized
competitive constraint by sending their order flow and transaction
reports to multiple markets, rather than providing them all to a single
market. 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.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 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.

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

    In addition, in the case of products that are distributed through
market data vendors, the market data 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. Internet portals, such as Google,
impose price discipline by providing only data that they believe will
enable them to attract ``eyeballs'' that contribute to their
advertising revenue. Similarly, vendors will not elect to make
available NYSE ArcaBook unless their subscribers request it, and
subscribers will not elect to purchase it unless it can be used for
profit-generating purposes. All of these 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, market
data and trade executions are a paradigmatic example of joint products
with joint costs. The decision 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 quality, and price
and distribution of their data products. The more trade executions a
platform does, the more valuable its market data products become.
    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 transaction execution
platform 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 view the costs of transaction executions and market
data as a unified cost of doing business with the exchange.
    Other market participants have noted that the liquidity provided by
the order book, trade execution, core market data, and non-core market
data are joint products of a joint platform and have common costs.\21\
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.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62887 (Sept. 10,
2010), 75 FR 57092, 57095 (Sept. 17, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-121);
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) (``all 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 Nos. 71217 (Dec. 31, 2013), 79 FR 875, 877 (Jan. 7,
2014) (SR-NASDAQ-2013-162) and 70945 (Nov. 26, 2013), 78 FR 72740,
72741 (Dec. 3, 2013) (SR-NASDAQ-2013-142) (``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,
market data and trade execution are a paradigmatic example of joint
products with joint costs.'').
    \22\ 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. Thus, because it
is impossible to obtain the data inputs to create market data products
without a fast, technologically robust, and well-regulated execution
system, system costs 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.
    The level of competition and contestability in the market is
evident in the numerous alternative venues that compete for order flow,
including 14 equities self-regulatory organization (``SRO'') markets,
as well as internalizing broker-dealers (``BDs'') and various forms of
alternative trading systems (``ATSs''), including dark pools and
electronic communication networks (``ECNs''). 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
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, or setting relatively
low prices for accessing posted liquidity. 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.
    Existence of Alternatives. The large number of SROs, BDs, and ATSs
that currently produce proprietary data or are currently capable of
producing it provides further pricing discipline for proprietary data
products. Each SRO, ATS, and BD is currently permitted to produce
proprietary data products, and many currently do or have announced
plans to do so, including but not limited to the Exchange, NYSE, NYSE
MKT, NASDAQ OMX, BATS, and Direct Edge.
    The fact that proprietary data from ATSs, BDs, 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. 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. Because market data users can thus find
suitable substitutes for most proprietary market data

products,\23\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See supra notes 13-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Those competitive pressures imposed by available alternatives are
evident in the Exchange's proposed pricing. As noted above, the
proposed subscriber and access fees for NYSE ArcaBook are generally
lower than or the same as the subscriber and access fees charged by
other exchanges such as NYSE and NASDAQ for comparable products.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, and Direct Edge. Today, BATS and
Direct Edge provide certain market data at no charge on their Web sites
in order to attract more order flow, and use revenue rebates from
resulting additional executions to maintain low execution charges for
their users.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, data products are valuable to certain end users only
insofar as they provide information that end users expect will assist
them or their customers. The Exchange believes that only vendors and
subscribers that expect to derive a reasonable benefit from the
ArcaBook will choose to pay the attendant monthly fees.
    In establishing the proposed fees, 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 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 its cost to purchase is not justified by the returns any
particular vendor or subscriber 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) \26\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \27\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \27\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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-NYSEArca-2014-12 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2014-12. 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 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; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2014-12 and should
be submitted on or before March 4, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\28\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-02874 Filed 2-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P