[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 223 (Friday, November 18, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81834-81835]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27746]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79308; File No. SR-BOX-2016-52]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend the Fee Schedule on the BOX Market LLC (``BOX'') Options Facility

November 14, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on November 8, 2016, BOX Options Exchange LLC (the ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\3\
and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal
effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change to amend the Fee Schedule on
the BOX Market LLC (``BOX'') options facility. The text of the proposed
rule change is available from the principal office of the Exchange, at
the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's
Internet Web site at http://boxexchange.com.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule for trading on BOX.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to revise certain qualification
thresholds in Sections I.B.1 of the BOX Fee Schedule, Primary
Improvement Order and I.B.2 of the BOX Fee Schedule, the BOX Volume
Rebate (``BVR'').
Primary Improvement Order
    Under the tiered fee schedule for Primary Improvement Orders, the
Exchange assesses a per contract execution fee to all Primary
Improvement Order executions where the corresponding PIP or COPIP Order
is from the account of a Public Customer. Percentage thresholds are
calculated on a monthly basis by totaling the Initiating Participant's
Primary Improvement Order volume submitted to BOX, relative to the
total national Customer volume in multiply-listed options classes. The
Exchange proposes to adjust the percentage thresholds in Tiers 4 and 5.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to change Tier 4 from ``0.500% to
0.999%'' to ``0.500% to 0.949%'' and Tier 5 from ``1.000% and Above''
to ``0.950% and Above.'' The Exchange notes that it is not proposing
any changes to the fees within the Primary Improvement Order fee
structure and the quantity submitted will continue to be calculated on
a monthly basis by totaling the Initiating Participant's Primary
Improvement Order volume submitted to BOX, relative to the total
national Customer volume in multiply-listed options classes.
BVR
    Next, the Exchange proposes to adjust certain percentage thresholds
within the BVR. Under the BVR, the Exchange offers a tiered per
contract rebate for all Public Customer PIP Orders and COPIP Orders of
100 and under contracts that do not trade solely with their contra
order. Percentage thresholds are calculated on a monthly basis by
totaling the Participant's PIP and COPIP volume submitted to BOX,
relative to the total national Customer volume in multiply-listed
options classes. The Exchange proposes to adjust the percentage
thresholds in Tiers 3 and 4. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to
change Tier 3 from ``0.340% to 0.999%'' to ``0.340% to 0.949%'' and
Tier 4 from ``1.000% and Above'' to ``0.950% and Above.'' The Exchange
notes that is it not proposing any changes to the fees within the BVR.
The quantity submitted will continue to be calculated on a monthly
basis by totaling the Participant's PIP and COPIP volume submitted to
BOX, relative to the total national Customer volume in multiply-listed
options classes.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and Section
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5)of the Act,\5\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among BOX Participants and other persons using its facilities
and does not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers
or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    BOX believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to adjust the monthly Percentage Thresholds of National
Customer Volume in Multiply-Listed Options Classes. The volume
thresholds with their tiered fees and rebates are meant to incentivize
Participants to direct order flow to the Exchange to obtain the benefit
of the lower fee or higher rebate, which in turn benefits all market
participants by increasing liquidity on the Exchange.
    The Exchange believes the proposed amendments to the Primary
Improvement Order percentage thresholds are reasonable, equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory. The proposed changes to the thresholds are
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as they are available to all
BOX Participants that initiate Auction Transactions, and Participants
may choose whether or not to take advantage of the percentage
thresholds and their applicable discounted fees. Further, the Exchange
believes that the proposed changes are reasonable and competitive as
they will further incentivize Participants to direct order flow to the
Exchange, benefiting all market participants.
    The Exchange also believes the proposed amendments to the BVR in
Section I.B.2 of the BOX Fee Schedule are reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory. The BVR was adopted to attract Public Customer
order flow to the Exchange by offering these Participants incentives to
submit their PIP and COPIP Orders to the Exchange and the Exchange
believes it is appropriate to now amend the BVR. The Exchange believes
it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to amend the BVR, as
all Participants have the ability

to qualify for a rebate, and rebates are provided equally to qualifying
Participants. Other exchanges employ similar incentive programs; \6\
and the Exchange believes that the proposed changes to the volume
thresholds are reasonable and competitive when compared to incentive
structures at other exchanges. Finally, the Exchange believes it is
reasonable and appropriate to continue to provide incentives for Public
Customers, which will result in greater liquidity and ultimately
benefit all Participants trading on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Section B of the PHLX Pricing Schedule entitled
``Customer Rebate Program;'' ISE Gemini's Qualifying Tier Thresholds
(page 6 of the ISE Gemini Fee Schedule); and CBOE's Volume Incentive
Program (VIP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange is simply
proposing to amend certain percentage thresholds for Auction
Transaction fees and rebates in the BOX Fee Schedule. The Exchange
believes that the volume based rebates and fees increase intermarket
and intramarket competition by incenting Participants to direct their
order flow to the exchange, which benefits all participants by
providing more trading opportunities and improves competition on the
Exchange.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act \7\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\8\ because it establishes or changes a due, or fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \8\ 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 the rule
change if it appears to the Commission that the action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
would otherwise further 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-BOX-2016-52 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2016-52. 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 such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2016-52, and should be
submitted on or before December 9, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-27746 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 22, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 162)]
[Notices]
[Page 47012-47016]
[DOCID:fr22au07-100]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0307; FRL-8143-6]

Pesticide Emergency Exemptions; Agency Decisions and State and
Federal Agency Crisis Declarations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has granted or denied emergency exemptions under the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) for use of
pesticides as listed in this notice. The exemptions or denials were
granted during the period January 1, 2007 to March 31, 2007 to control
unforeseen pest outbreaks.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: See each emergency exemption or denial
for the name of a contact person. The following information applies to
all contact persons: Team Leader, Emergency Response Team, Registration
Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  EPA has granted or denied emergency
exemptions to the following State and Federal agencies. The emergency
exemptions may take the following form: Crisis, public health,
quarantine, or specific. EPA has also listed denied emergency exemption
requests in this notice.

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

     You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine
whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should
carefully examine the applicability provisions discussed above. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

     1. Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under
docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0307. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically at
http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard copy, at the

OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of
this Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number
is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register
document electronically through the EPA Internet under the Federal
Register listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr.

II. Background

     Under FIFRA section 18, EPA can authorize the use of a pesticide
when emergency conditions exist. Authorizations (commonly called
emergency exemptions) are granted to State and Federal agencies and are
of four types:
     1. A ``specific exemption'' authorizes use of a pesticide against
specific pests on a limited acreage in a particular State. Most
emergency exemptions are specific exemptions.
     2. ``Quarantine'' and ``public health'' exemptions are a
particular form of specific exemption issued for quarantine or public
health purposes. These are rarely requested.
     3. A ``crisis exemption'' is initiated by a State or Federal
agency (and is

confirmed by EPA) when there is insufficient time to request and obtain
EPA permission for use of a pesticide in an emergency.
     EPA may deny an emergency exemption: If the State or Federal
agency cannot demonstrate that an emergency exists, if the use poses
unacceptable risks to the environment, or if EPA cannot reach a
conclusion that the proposed pesticide use is likely to result in ``a
reasonable certainty of no harm'' to human health, including exposure
of residues of the pesticide to infants and children.
     If the emergency use of the pesticide on a food or feed commodity
would result in pesticide chemical residues, EPA establishes a time-
limited tolerance meeting the ``reasonable certainty of no harm
standard'' of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
     In this document: EPA identifies the State or Federal agency
granted the exemption or denial, the type of exemption, the pesticide
authorized and the pests, the crop or use for which authorized, number
of acres (if applicable), and the duration of the exemption. EPA also
gives the Federal Register citation for the time-limited tolerance, if
any.

III. Emergency Exemptions and Denials

A. U. S. States and Territories

Alabama

Department of Agriculture and Industries
Specific Exemptions: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to
control varroa mite and the small hive beetle); January 30, 2007 to
February 1, 2008. Contact: Stacey Groce.
EPA authorized the use of sulfosulfuron on bermudagrass pastures and
hayfields to control Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense); February 16,
2007 to September 15, 2007. Contact: Libby Pemberton.

Arkansas

State Plant Board
Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to
control varroa mite and the small hive beetle); January 30, 2007 to
February 1, 2008. Contact: Stacey Groce.
Quarantine Exemption: EPA authorized the use of flutriafol on soybeans
to control soybean rust; February 12, 2007 to February 12, 2010.
Contact: Princess Campbell.

California

Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Pesticide Regulation
Specific Exemptions: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to
control varroa mite and the small hive beetle); January 30, 2007 to
February 1, 2008. Contact: Stacey Groce.
EPA authorized the use of maneb on walnuts to control bacterial blight;
March 1, 2007 to June 15, 2007. Contact: Libby Pemberton.
EPA authorized the use of tebuconazole on garlic to control garlic rust
(Puccinia Porr -P. alli); March 2, 2007 to July 3, 2007. Contact: Libby
Pemberton.
EPA authorized the use of thiamethoxam on artichokes to control proba
bugs; March 1, 2007 to February 28, 2008. Contact: Stacey Groce.
EPA authorized the uses of propiconazole on peach and nectarine, post-
harvest, to control sour rot (Geotricum candidum); May 15, 2007 to
September 30, 2007. Contact: Andrea Conrath.

Colorado

Department of Agriculture
Specific Exemptions: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to
control varroa mite and the small hive beetle); January 30, 2007 to
February 1, 2008. Contact: Stacey Groce.
EPA authorized the use of thiophanate-methyl in mushroom cultivation,
to control green mold (Trichoderma aggresivum); March 1, 2007 to March
1, 2008. Contact: Andrea Conrath.
 EPA authorized the use of lambda-cyhalothrin on barley to control
Russian wheat aphids, cereal leaf beetles, and cutworms; April 7, 2007
to July 15, 2007. Contact: Andrew Ertman.
Quarantine Exemption: EPA authorized the use of chlorophene in
laboratories to control prions; February 2, 2007 to February 2, 2010.
Contact: Princess Campbell.

Connecticut

Department of Environmental Protection
Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to
control varroa mite and the small hive beetle); February 23, 2007 to
February 1, 2008. Contact: Stacey Groce.

Delaware
Department of Agriculture
Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of thiophanate-methyl in
mushroom cultivation, to control green mold (Trichoderma aggresivum);
January 8, 2007 to January 8, 2008. Contact: Andrea Conrath.

Florida

Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
Specific Exemptions: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to
control varroa mite and the small hive beetle); February 12, 2007 to
February 1, 2008. Contact: Stacey Groce.
EPA authorized the use of thiophanate-methyl on citrus, to control
post-bloom fruit drop (Colletotrichum acutatum) and stem end rot
(Lasiodiplodia theobromae); March 2, 2007 to March 2, 2008. Contact:
Andrea Conrath.
EPA authorized the use of thiophanate-methyl on fruiting vegetables, to
control white mold (Sclerotinia sclerotiorum); April 12, 2007 to April
12, 2008. Contact: Andrea Conrath.

Georgia

Department of Agriculture
Specific Exemptions: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to
control varroa mite and the small hive beetle); February 5, 2007 to
February 1, 2008. Contact: Stacey Groce.
EPA authorized the use of sulfosulfuron on bermudagrass and bahiagrass
pastures and hayfields to control Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense);
February 16, 2007 to September 15, 2007. Contact: Libby Pemberton.

Idaho

Department of Agriculture
Specific Exemptions: EPA authorized the use of thiabendazole on
lentils, to control Ascochyta blight; February 21, 2007 to June 1,
2007. Contact: Andrea Conrath.
EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mite
and the small hive beetle); February 23, 2007 to February 1, 2008.
Contact: Stacey Groce.
EPA authorized the use of fenpyroximate in beehives to control varroa
mites); March 22, 2007 to February 28, 2008. Contact: Stacey Groce.
EPA authorized the use of oxytetracycline on apples to control fire
blight; April 1, 2007 to August 1, 2007. Contact: Andrew Ertman.

Illinois

Department of Agriculture
Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to
control varroa mite and the small hive beetle); January 31, 2007 to
February 1, 2008. Contact: Stacey Groce.

Indiana

Office of Indiana State Chemist
Quarantine Exemption: EPA authorized the use of flutriafol on soybeans
to control soybean rust; February 12, 2007 to February 12, 2010.
Contact: Princess Campbell.

Iowa

Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship
Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to
control varroa mite and the small hive beetle);

March 12, 2007 to February 1, 2008. Contact: Stacey Groce.
Quarantine Exemption: EPA authorized the use of flutriafol on soybeans
to control soybean rust; February 12, 2007 to February 12, 2010.
Contact: Princess Campbell.

Kansas

Department of Agriculture
Quarantine Exemption: EPA authorized the use of flutriafol on soybeans
to control soybean rust; February 12, 2007 to February 12, 2010.
Contact: Princess Campbell.

Kentucky

Department of Agriculture
Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to
control varroa mite and the small hive beetle); January 31, 2007 to
February 1, 2008. Contact: Stacey Groce.
EPA authorized the use of tebuconazole on wheat to control Fusarium
head blight (FHB); March 26, 2007 to May 30, 2007. Contact: Libby
Pemberton.
Quarantine Exemption: EPA authorized the use of flutriafol on soybeans
to control soybean rust; February 12, 2007 to February 12, 2010.
Contact: Princess Campbell.

Louisiana

Department of Agriculture and Forestry
Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of etofenprox on rice to
control rice water weevil (Lissorhoptrus oryzophilus); January 24, 2007
to January 24, 2008. Contact: Libby Pemberton.
EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mite
and the small hive beetle); February 28, 2007 to February 1, 2008.
Contact: Stacey Groce.

Maryland

Department of Agriculture
Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of thiophanate-methyl in
mushroom cultivation, to control green mold (Trichoderma aggresivum);
January 8, 2007 to January 8, 2008. Contact: Andrea Conrath.
EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mite
and the small hive beetle); January 30, 2007 to February 1, 2008.
Contact: Stacey Groce.

Maine

Department of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Resources
Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to
control varroa mite and the small hive beetle); February 28, 2007 to
February 1, 2008. Contact: Stacey Groce.

Michigan

Michigan Department of Agriculture
Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of zoxamide on ginseng to
control Phytophthora blight; February 1, 2007 to October 31, 2007.
Contact: Stacey Groce.
EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mite
and the small hive beetle); February 5, 2007 to February 1, 2008.
Contact: Stacey Groce.
EPA authorized the use of chlorothalonil on ginseng to control Botrytis
blight and Alternaria stem and leaf blight); February 9, 2007 to
October 31, 2007. Contact: Stacey Groce.
EPA authorized the use of thiophanate-methyl in mushroom cultivation,
to control green mold (Trichoderma aggresivum); March 1, 2007 to March
1, 2008. Contact: Andrea Conrath.
EPA authorized the use of oxytetracycline on apples to control fire
blight; April 1, 2007 to June 30, 2007. Contact: Andrew Ertman.
EPA authorized the use of tebuconazole on asparagus to control rust
(Puccinia spp.); May 1, 2007 to November 1, 2007. Contact: Libby
Pemberton.
EPA authorized the use of sulfentrazone on strawberries to control
broadleaf weeds; June 25, 2007 to December 15, 2007. Contact: Andrew
Ertman.
Quarantine Exemption: EPA authorized the use of flutriafol on soybeans
to control soybean rust; February 12, 2007 to February 12, 2010.
Contact: Princess Campbell.

Minnesota

Department of Agriculture
Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to
control varroa mite and the small hive beetle); January 30, 2007 to
February 1, 2008. Contact: Stacey Groce.
EPA authorized the use of fenpyroximate in beehives to control varroa
mites); March 22, 2007 to February 28, 2008. Contact: Stacey Groce.
EPA authorized the use of lambda-cyhalothrin on wild rice to control
rice worms; August 1, 2007 to September 10, 2007. Contact: Andrew
Ertman.
Quarantine Exemption: EPA authorized the use of flusilazole on soybeans
to control Australasian soybean rust; February 7, 2007 to February 7,
2010. Contact: Andrea Conrath.

Mississippi

Department of Agriculture and Commerce
Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to
control varroa mite and the small hive beetle); January 30, 2007 to
February 1, 2008. Contact: Stacey Groce.
EPA authorized the use of sulfosulfuron on bermudagrass and bahiagrass
pastures and hayfields to control Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense);
February 16, 2007 to September 15, 2008. Contact: Libby Pemberton.

Missouri

Department of Agriculture
Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to
control varroa mite and the small hive beetle); March 22, 2007 to
February 1, 2008. Contact: Stacey Groce.
Quarantine Exemption: EPA authorized the use of flutriafol on soybeans
to control soybean rust; February 12, 2007 to February 12, 2010.
Contact: Princess Campbell.

Montana

Department of Agriculture
Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to
control varroa mite and the small hive beetle); January 30, 2007 to
February 1, 2008. Contact: Stacey Groce.
EPA authorized the use of thiabendazole on lentils, to control
Ascochyta blight; February 21, 2007 to June 1, 2007. Contact: Andrea
Conrath.

Nebraska

Department of Agriculture
Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of fenpyroximate in beehives
to control varroa mites); February 28, 2007 to February 28, 2008.
Contact: Stacey Groce.
Quarantine Exemption: EPA authorized the use of flutriafol on soybeans
to control soybean rust; February 12, 2007 to February 12, 2010.
Contact: Princess Campbell.

New Jersey

Department of Environmental Protection
Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of thiophanate-methyl on
tomatoes to control white mold; April 1, 2007 to October 31, 2007.
Contact: Andrew Ertman..

New York

Department of Environmental Conservation
Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to
control varroa mite and the small hive beetle); January 30, 2007 to
February 1, 2008. Contact: Stacey Groce.
EPA authorized the use of fenpyroximate in beehives to control varroa
mites); March 22, 2007 to February 28, 2008. Contact: Stacey Groce.

Nevada

Department of Agriculture
Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of bifenazate on Timothy
grass, to control Banks Grass Mite; March 16,

2007 to September 1, 2007. Contact: Andrea Conrath.

North Carolina

Department of Agriculture
Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to
control varroa mite and the small hive beetle); February 12, 2007 to
February 1, 2008. Contact: Stacey Groce.

North Dakota

Department of Agriculture
Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of thiabendazole on lentils,
to control Ascochyta blight; February 21, 2007 to June 1, 2007.
Contact: Andrea Conrath.
EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mite
and the small hive beetle); March 12, 2007 to February 1, 2008.
Contact: Stacey Groce.
EPA authorized the use of fenpyroximate in beehives to control varroa
mites); March 22, 2007 to February 28, 2008. Contact: Stacey Groce.

Ohio

Department of Agriculture
Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to
control varroa mite and the small hive beetle); March 12, 2007 to
February 1, 2008. Contact: Stacey Groce.
EPA authorized the use of thiophanate-methyl on fruiting vegetables, to
control white mold (Sclerotinia sclerotiorum); March 30, 2007 to
September 30, 2007. Contact: Andrea Conrath.
EPA authorized the use of sulfentrazone on strawberries to control
broadleaf weeds; June 20, 2007 to December 15, 2007. Contact: Andrew
Ertman.

Oklahoma

Department of Agriculture
Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to
control varroa mite and the small hive beetle); March 12, 2007 to
February 1, 2008. Contact: Stacey Groce.
Quarantine Exemption: EPA authorized the use of flutriafol on soybeans
to control soybean rust; February 12, 2007 to February 12, 2010.
Contact: Princess Campbell.

Oregon

Department of Agriculture
Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of thiabendazole on lentils,
to control Ascochyta blight; February 21, 2007 to June 1, 2007.
Contact: Andrea Conrath.
EPA authorized the use of sulfentrazone on strawberries to control
broadleaf weeds; March 22, 2007 to February 28, 2008. Contact: Andrew
Ertman.
EPA authorized the use of fenpyroximate in beehives to control varroa
mites); March 22, 2007 to February 28, 2008. Contact: Stacey Groce.
EPA authorized the use of mesotrione on cranberry to control bog St.
John's Wort (Hypericum boreala), rushes (Juncus Canadensis, J. effuses,
J. Bufonlus,J. Tenuis), sedges spp. (Carex spp.), yellow loosestrife
(Lysimachia terrestris),and silverleaf (Potentilla pacifica); March 30,
2007 to October 15, 2007. Contact: Libby Pemberton.

EPA authorized the use of oxytetracycline on apples to control fire
blight; April 1, 2007 to August 1, 2007. Contact: Andrew Ertman.

Pennsylvania

Department of Agriculture
Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of thiophanate-methyl in
mushroom cultivation, to control green mold (Trichoderma aggresivum);
January 8, 2007 to January 8, 2008. Contact: Andrea Conrath.
EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mite
and the small hive beetle); January 30, 2007 to February 1, 2008.
Contact: Stacey Groce.

South Carolina

Clemson University
Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to
control varroa mite and the small hive beetle); April 3, 2007 to
February 1, 2008. Contact: Stacey Groce.

South Dakota

Department of Agriculture
Quarantine Exemption: EPA authorized the use of flusilazole on soybeans
to control Australasian soybean rust; February 7, 2007 to February 7,
2010. Contact: Andrea Conrath.

Tennessee

Department of Agriculture
Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to
control varroa mite and the small hive beetle); March 12, 2007 to
February 1, 2008. Contact: Stacey Groce.
Quarantine Exemption: EPA authorized the use of flutriafol on soybeans
to control soybean rust; February 12, 2007 to February 12, 2010.
Contact: Princess Campbell.

Texas

Department of Agriculture
Crisis Exemption: On March 20, 2007, for the use of fenpyroximate in
beehives to control varroa mites. This program is expected to end on
February 28, 2008. Contact: Stacey Groce.
 Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to
control varroa mite and the small hive beetle); February 12, 2007 to
February 1, 2008. Contact: Stacey Groce.

Virginia

Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to
control varroa mite and the small hive beetle); March 12, 2007 to
February 1, 2008. Contact: Stacey Groce.

Washington

Department of Agriculture
Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of thiabendazole on lentils,
to control Ascochyta blight; February 13, 2007 to June 1, 2007.
Contact: Andrea Conrath.
EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mite
and the small hive beetle); February 23, 2007 to February 1, 2008.
Contact: Stacey Groce.
EPA authorized the use of fenpyroximate in beehives to control varroa
mites); March 22, 2007 to February 28, 2008. Contact: Stacey Groce.
EPA authorized the use of sulfentrazone on strawberries to control
broadleaf weeds; March 22, 2007 to February 28, 2008. Contact: Andrew
Ertman.
EPA authorized the use of mesotrione on cranberry to control bog St.
John's wort (Hypericum boreala), rushes (Juncus Canadensis, J. effuses,
J. Bufonlus,J. Tenuis), sedges spp. (Carex spp.), yellow loosestrife
(Lysimachia terrestris),and silverleaf (Potentilla pacifica); March 30,
2007 to October 31, 2007. Contact: Libby Pemberton.
EPA authorized the use of oxytetracycline on apples to control fire
blight; April 1, 2007 to August 1, 2007. Contact: Andrew Ertman.

Wisconsin

Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection
Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of mancozeb on ginseng to
control Alternaria stem and leaf blight); January 31, 2007 to October
31, 2007. Contact: Stacey Groce.
EPA authorized the use of zoxamide on ginseng to control Phytophthora
blight ; February 1, 2007 to October 31, 2007. Contact: Stacey Groce.
EPA authorized the use of chlorothalonil on ginseng to control Botrytis
blight and Alternaria stem and leaf blight; March 2, 2007 to October
31, 2007. Contact: Stacey Groce.
EPA authorized the use of sulfentrazone on strawberries to control
broadleaf

weeds; June 20, 2007 to December 15, 2007. Contact: Andrew Ertman.

B. Federal Departments and Agencies

Department of Agriculture

Quarantine Exemption: EPA authorized the use of ethylene oxide on
animal isolators to inactivate all microbes; January 30, 2007 to
January 30, 2009. Contact: Princess Campbell.
Animal and Plant Health Inspector Service
Crisis Exemption: On March 2, 2007, for the use of methyl bromide on
avocados, bananas, plantains, blackberries, raspberries, certain
cucurbit vegetables and edible seeds, fresh herbs and spices, kiwi,
certain leafy vegetables, longan, lychee fruit, fresh and dried mint,
opuntia, rambutan, certain root and tuber vegetables, and snow peas to
control exotic pests. This program is expected to end on March 3, 2008.
Contact: Libby Pemberton.

List of Subjects

     Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: August 9, 2007.
Donald R. Stubbs,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E7-16452 Filed 8-21-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 187 (Thursday, September 26, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50835-50836]
[FR Doc No: 2019-20954]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0711; FRL-10000-16-OMS]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Data Requirements Rule for the 1-Hour Sulfur
Dioxide Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted a
renewal of an information collection request (ICR), Data Requirements
Rule for the 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide Primary National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (EPA ICR Number 2495.03, Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Control Number 2060-0696) to OMB for review and approval in accordance
with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This is a proposed extension of
the existing ICR for the Data Requirements Rule for the 1-Hour Sulfur
Dioxide Primary NAAQS (SO2 Data Requirements Rule), which is
currently approved through September 30, 2019. Public comments were
previously requested via the Federal Register on July 12, 2019, during
a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days
for public comments. A fuller description of the proposed ICR renewal
is given below, including the estimated burden and cost to respondents
to meet the requirements of the SO2 Data Requirements Rule.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information, unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before October 28, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2013-0711, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered to be the official
comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make.
The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents
located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Larry D. Wallace, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Policy Division, C504-05,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about the EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: This ICR addresses reporting and recordkeeping activity
defined by the final Data Requirements for the 2010 1-Hour Sulfur
dioxide (SO2) Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards
rule (SO2 Data Requirements Rule) (See 80 FR 51052, August
21, 2015).
    Through the SO2 Data Requirements Rule and the initial
ICR, EPA required states to characterize ambient air quality around
SO2 sources with emissions that were greater than 2,000 tons
per year (tpy) or that were otherwise included as a listed source. In
this ICR, EPA addresses ongoing requirements that apply to listed
sources for which air agencies chose the monitoring pathway as well as
sources for which air agencies chose the modeling pathway. The number
of listed sources for which air agencies chose the monitoring pathway,
and thus are required to submit ongoing monitoring information, are 73
sources in 24 states (77 monitors total). The number of listed sources
for which air agencies chose the modeling pathway that are required to
submit ongoing data reports, and, potentially, updated modeling, are
170 sources in 43 states.
    Air quality management agencies that elected to conduct ambient
monitoring for listed DRR sources are responsible for reporting ambient
air quality data information and retaining quality assurance/quality
control records and monitoring network documentation. Where possible
these activities are carried-out electronically using EPA's Air Quality
System (AQS).
    Air quality management agencies that elected to conduct air quality
modeling of the areas containing listed DRR sources to provide the
necessary air quality data to EPA are responsible for submitting
ongoing data reports. If EPA requires that the air agency conduct
updated air quality modeling for the area, the air agency has 12 months
to submit the updated modeling to EPA.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: State, local and tribal air
pollution management control agencies.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 51).
    Estimated number of respondents: 24 states or local agencies for
monitoring, and 43 states or local agencies for modeling.
    Frequency of response: Varies by requirement. Quarterly for
monitoring data and annually for ongoing data verification reporting.
    Total estimated burden: 26,948 hours (per year) for monitoring
(specific hours for modeling not estimated, but labor costs are
included in the estimated cost for modeling below). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $2,539,815 (per year) for monitoring,
includes $189,246 annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs
for monitoring, and $5,100,000 (per year) for modeling.
    Changes in Estimates: The revisions in the monitoring and modeling
burden result, in large part, from EPA having resolved uncertainty that
inflated calculations in the previous ICR. While that ICR calculated
burden for both the monitoring and the modeling scenarios assuming each
one would be used by all possible sources, EPA now has the

ability to know how many sources will be using one approach or the
other. Further adjustments to this ICR's burden estimates result for
EPA having more accurately expressed the split between labor and non-
labor costs used for the modeling scenario.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2019-20954 Filed 9-25-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 1, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 62)]
[Notices]
[Page 16540-16543]
[DOCID:fr01ap10-133]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61781; File No. SR-NSX-2010-02]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Adopt Rules on Self Trade Prevention Order Modifiers

March 25, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on March 23, 2010, National Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NSX'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the
self-regulatory organization. The Exchange filed the proposal as a
``non-controversial'' proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to adopt a new Rule 11.11(c)(1) ``Self Trade
Prevention'' Order Modifier that allows an ETP Holder to submit orders
that may avoid trading against other orders of the same ETP Holder.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.nsx.com, on the Commission's Web site at http://
www.sec.gov, at NSX, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to adopt a new Rule 11.11(c)(1) to make
available to ETP Holders an order modifier that allows an ETP Holder to
submit orders that may avoid trading against other orders of the same
ETP Holder. The proposed changes are more fully discussed below.

Background

    The proposed ``Self Trade Prevention'' (``STP'') modifiers are
instructions designed to prevent two orders with the same designated
Unique Identifier (as defined below) from executing against each other.
The ETP Holder elects at the time an STP modified order is submitted
whether the new order, an existing order (which must also have been
submitted with an STP modifier) or both orders will be cancelled (or
rejected, as applicable) instead of otherwise interacting.
    The Exchange proposes adding three STP modifiers that will be
implemented and can be set at one of three identification levels: the
market participant level (pursuant to the ``MPID''), the FIX session
level (pursuant to ``FIX Session ID'') or an ETP Holder's user level
(pursuant to the ``Party ID'') (any such identifier, a ``Unique
Identifier'').\5\ The STP instruction on the incoming order controls
the interaction between two orders marked with STP modifiers from the
same Unique Identifier. The three new STP modifiers are discussed more
thoroughly below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Each ETP Holder is issued a unique MPID identifier that
allows the Exchange to determine the ETP Holder for each order and/
or execution. The FIX Session ID is unique to each physical
connection between the Exchange and an ETP Holder. The Party ID
identifies a unique user of an ETP Holder.

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

STP Reject Newest (``STPN'')

    An incoming order marked with the STPN modifier will not execute
against opposite side resting interest marked with any STP modifier
originating from the same Unique Identifier. The incoming order marked
with the STPN modifier will be rejected. The resting order marked with
an STP modifier, which otherwise would have interacted with the
incoming order from the same Unique Identifier, will remain on the NSX
Book.
    STPN Example 1: An order to buy 500 shares @ $22.00 is marked with
any of the three STP modifiers and becomes a resting order on the NSX
Book. Subsequently, an order to sell 500 shares @ $22.00 is entered
with the same designated Unique Identifier and marked with the STPN
modifier.
    STPN Result 1: The incoming sell order for 500 shares @ $22.00
marked with the STPN modifier is rejected. The resting buy order for
500 shares at $22.00 marked with one of the three STP modifiers remains
on the NSX Book.
    STPN Example 2: An order to buy 500 shares @ $22.00 is marked with
any of the three STP modifiers and becomes a resting order on the NSX
Book. Subsequently, an order to sell 700 shares @ $22.00 is entered
with the same Unique Identifier and marked with the STPN modifier.
    STPN Result 2: The incoming sell order for 700 shares @ $22.00
marked with the STPN modifier is rejected. The resting buy order for
500 shares at $22.00 marked with one of the three STP modifiers remains
on the NSX Book.
    STPN Example 3: An order to buy 500 shares @ $22.00 is marked with
any of the three STP modifiers and becomes a resting order on the NSX
Book. Subsequently, an order to sell 400 shares @ $22.00 is entered
with the same Unique Identifier and marked with the STPN modifier.
    STPN Result 3: The incoming sell order for 400 shares @ $22.00
marked with the STPN modifier is rejected. The resting buy order for
500 shares at $22.00 marked with one of the three STP modifiers remains
on the NSX Book.

STP Cancel Oldest (``STPO'')

    An incoming order marked with the STPO modifier will not execute
against opposite side resting interest marked with any STP modifier
originating from the same Unique Identifier. The resting order marked
with the STP modifier, which otherwise would have interacted with the
incoming order by the same Unique Identifier, will be cancelled. The
incoming order marked with the STPO modifier will remain on the NSX
Book.
    STPO Example 1: An order to buy 500 shares @ $22.00 is marked with
any of the three STP modifiers and becomes a resting order in the NSX
Book. Subsequently, an order to sell 500 shares @ $22.00 is entered
with the same Unique Identifier and marked with the STPO modifier.
    STPO Result 1: The resting buy order for 500 shares at $22.00
marked with one of the three STP modifiers is cancelled. The incoming
sell order for 500 shares @ $22.00 marked with the STPO modifier is
entered in the NSX Book.
    STPO Example 2: An order to buy 500 shares @ $22.00 is marked with
any of the three STP modifiers and becomes a resting order in the NSX
Book. Subsequently, an order to sell 700 shares @ $22.00 is entered
with the same Unique Identifier and marked with the STPO modifier.
    STPO Result 2: The resting buy order for 500 shares at $22.00
marked with one of the three STP modifiers is cancelled. The incoming
sell order for 700 shares @ $22.00 marked with the STPO modifier is
entered on the NSX Book.
    STPO Example 3: An order to buy 500 shares @ $22.00 is marked with
any of the three STP modifiers and becomes a resting order in the NSX
Book. Subsequently, an order to sell 400 shares @ $22.00 is entered
with the same Unique Identifier and marked with the STPO modifier.
    STPO Result 3: The resting buy order for 500 shares at $22.00
marked with one of the three STP modifiers is cancelled. The incoming
sell order for 400 shares @ $22.00 marked with the STPO modifier is
entered on the NSX Book.

STP Cancel Both (``STPB'')

    An incoming order marked with the STPB modifier will not execute
against opposite side resting interest marked with any STP modifier
originating from the same Unique Identifier. The entire size of both
orders will be rejected or cancelled, as applicable.
    STPB Example 1: An order to buy 500 shares @ $22.00 is marked with
any of the three STP modifiers and becomes a resting order in the NSX
Book. Subsequently, an order to sell 500 shares @ $22.00 is entered
with the same Unique Identifier and marked with the STPB modifier.
    STPB Result 1: The resting buy order for 500 shares at $22.00
marked with one of the three STP modifiers is cancelled. The incoming
sell order for 500 shares @ $22.00 marked with the STPB modifier is
rejected.
    STPB Example 2: An order to buy 500 shares @ $22.00 is marked with
any of the three STP modifiers and becomes a resting order in the NSX
Book. Subsequently, an order to sell 700 shares @ $22.00 is entered
with the same Unique Identifier and marked with the STPB modifier.
    STPB Result 2: The resting buy order for 500 shares at $22.00
marked with one of the three STP modifiers is cancelled. The incoming
order to sell 700 shares @ $22.00 marked with the STPB modifier is
rejected.
    STPB Example 3: An order to buy 500 shares @ $22.00 is marked with
any of the three STP modifiers and becomes a resting order in the NSX
Book. Subsequently, an order to sell 400 shares @ $22.00 is entered
with the same Unique Identifier and marked with the STPB modifier.
    STPB Result 3: The resting buy order for 500 shares at $22.00
marked with one of the three STP modifiers is cancelled. The incoming
order to sell 400 shares @ $22.00 marked with the STPB modifier is
rejected.

Additional Discussion

    STP modifiers are intended to prevent interaction between the same
Unique Identifier. STP modifiers must be present on both the buy and
the sell order in order to prevent a trade from occurring and to effect
a cancel and/or reject instruction.
    An incoming STP order cannot interact through resting orders that
have price and/or time priority. When an order with an STP modifier is
entered it will first interact with all available interest in
accordance with the execution process described in Exchange Rules 11.14
and 11.15. If there is a remaining balance on the order after trading
with all orders with higher priority, it may then interact with an
opposite side STP order in accordance with the rules established above.
    STP modifiers are available for orders entered in either an agency
or principal capacity. An incoming STP modified Post Only order that is
immediately marketable against a resting STP modified order of the same
Unique Identifier will not be rejected upon entry; rather, the order
will be accepted and processed according to the STP instructions.\6\
STP orders that are not

populated correctly will not reject, but will process according to the
underlying order behavior. Zero Display Reserve Orders submitted with
an STP modifier will be rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Without STP modifiers of the same Unique Identifier, an
incoming marketable Post Only order would be rejected so as to
prevent a locked market pursuant to NSX Rule 11.11(c)(5)(A). The
incoming STP modified Post Only order is processed because, pursuant
to the STP instruction, one or both of the orders will be cancelled
and/or rejected, as applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that adding this functionality will allow ETP
Holders to better manage order flow and prevent undesirable executions
with themselves or the potential for (or the appearance of) ``wash
sales'' that may occur as a result of the velocity of trading in
today's high speed marketplace. Many ETP Holders have multiple
connections into the Exchange due to capacity and speed related
demands. Orders routed by the same ETP Holder via different connections
or in different capacities may, in certain circumstances, trade against
each other. The new STP modifiers provide ETP Holders the opportunity
to prevent these potentially undesirable trades occurring under the
same Unique Identifier on both the buy and sell side of the execution.
    The Exchange notes that the STP modifiers do not alleviate, or
otherwise exempt, broker-dealers from their best execution obligations.
Broker-dealers using the STP modifiers on agency orders will be
obligated to execute those agency orders at the same price, or a better
price than they would have received had the orders been executed on the
Exchange. Finally, the Exchange notes that offering the STP modifiers
will streamline certain regulatory functions by reducing inadvertent
self-trade executions that would otherwise be captured by Exchange
generated wash trading surveillance reports when orders are executed
under the same Unique Identifier. The Exchange has developed a
surveillance program to identify the use of the STP modifier on agency
orders and to surveil such orders for potential misuse. For these
reasons, the Exchange believes the STP modifiers offer ETP Holders
enhanced order processing functionality that may prevent potentially
undesirable executions without negatively impacting broker-dealer best
execution obligations.

Effective Date

    The Exchange requests that the effective date for the instant rule
change be thirty days after the date of filing of this rule change, or
such earlier date as the Commission determines.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6(b) of the Act,\7\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \8\ in particular in that it
is designed, among other things, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest. The proposed
rule change advances these objectives by making available to ETP
Holders a type of order modifier that is in use within the national
market system \9\ and by allowing firms to better manage order flow and
prevent undesirable executions against themselves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60266 (July 9,
2009), 74 FR 34380 (July 9, 2009) (SR-BATS-2009-022) (approving on
an expedited basis a ``Member Match Trade Prevention'' order type
pursuant to proposed BATS Rule 11.9(f)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing rule does not (i) significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest, provided that the self-regulatory organization
has given the Commission written notice of its intent to file the
proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the date of
filing of the proposed rule change or such shorter time as designated
by the Commission,\10\ the proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\12\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of such
proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ As required under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), NSX provided the
Commission with written notice of its intent to file the proposed
rule change at least five business days prior to the filing date.
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NSX-2010-02 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-NSX-2010-02. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for 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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal

identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NSX-2010-02 and should be submitted on
or before April 22, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-7364 Filed 3-31-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Electrical cost is about $125,000 per 8 hour shift per year.    Currently , we run about 1 shift per day.
Maintenance costs is about $75,000 per year.

Thank you
Greg Thompson
Railroad Friction Products
13601 Airport Road
Maxton, NC 28364
910-844-9739

From: Smith, Korbin<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 3:49 PM
To: Thompson, Greg
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Site Visit Report Update

Greg,

Does RRFP have annual cost estimates for the banbury mixer. The cost of using and upkeep etc..

Korbin Smith BS, MPH
Physical Scientist
U.S. EPA OAR/OAQPS
Sector Policies and Programs Division
109 TW Alexander Drive
Mail Code D243-04
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
(919) 541-2416

From: Thompson, Greg<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 3:33 PM
To: Smith, Korbin<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Site Visit Report Update

All of it is dedicated to Banbury.  Nothing for  Sigma.
Also I forgot a portion of the  dust collection system we added last year  -  it is below...

New Dust Collector System                                                              $44,771
New Duct/Hoods                                                                                $22,775
Electrical Parts                                                                                $8,580
Electrical Installation                                                                          $10,816
Mechanical Installation                                                                      $4,000
Remove Concrete Curbing                                                                $3,850
Shipping/Contingency                                                                        $4,708
Total Costs                                                                                $99,500

Thank you
Greg Thompson
Railroad Friction Products
13601 Airport Road
Maxton, NC 28364
910-844-9739

From: Smith, Korbin<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 3:26 PM
To: Thompson, Greg
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Site Visit Report Update

Greg,

Thank you for the quick response! Is all of this equipment only used for the banbury? (it is not also utilized for the sigma mixer)?

Korbin Smith BS, MPH
Physical Scientist
U.S. EPA OAR/OAQPS
Sector Policies and Programs Division
109 TW Alexander Drive
Mail Code D243-04
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
(919) 541-2416

From: Thompson, Greg<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 2:57 PM
To: Smith, Korbin<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Site Visit Report Update

Korbin,
The Banbury mixer is system comprising of the mixer then downstream material possessing equipment.  All costs are shown below.   The total is $1,973,930.   The mixer itself cost $637,300
It was installed in stages starting in 2012/2013.

Cost Details
Dust Collection Hoods and Duct                                                             $25,950
Air Conditioning Duct                                                                                $3,900
Spiral Cooling Elevator Duct/Hoods                                                                       $2,075
Roof Penetration (Verbal quote from roofing contractor)                  $2,000
Contingency                                                                                $1,075
Total Costs                                                                                $35,000

Banbury Mixer System                                                                                $637,300
Mixer and Material Cooling                                                                      $173,033
Material Shredder                                                                                $99,365
Electrical Installation                                                                               $99,000
Material Conveyors                                                                                $61,750
Mechanical Installation (RFPC)                                                           $175,000
Equipment Shipping                                                                                $13,500
Contingency                                                                                $27,052
Total Costs                                                                                $1,286,000

AC System                                                                                $30,409
Contingency                                                                                $591
Total Costs                                                                                $31,000

Vibrating Feeder                                                                                $18,922
Electrical Parts and Installation for Feeder                                             $10,406
Longer Screw Auger                                                                                $5,517
Backing Stock Grinder System Modification (RFPC)                              $4,500
Equipment Shipping                                                                                $1,000
Contingency                                                                                $1,655
Total Costs                                                                                $42,000

Shredder Size Reduction Machine                                                           $171,500
Material Lifting System                                                                              $86,707
Final Conveyor                                                                                $19,812
Final Grinder                                                                                $23,422
General Mechanical Installation (estimated at two weeks)                $14,000
Electrical Installation                                                                                $24,689
Equipment Shipping                                                                                $9,800
Total Costs                                                                                $349,930

Final Grinder                                                                                $180,358
Spare Knives and Rotor Bars                                                                     $15,782
General Mechanical Installation (estimated at two weeks)                $14,000
Electrical Installation                                                                                $11,135
Equipment Shipping                                                                                $8,725
Total Costs                                                                                $230,000

Thank you
Greg Thompson
Railroad Friction Products
13601 Airport Road
Maxton, NC 28364
910-844-9739

From: Smith, Korbin<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 2:05 PM
To: Thompson, Greg
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Site Visit Report Update

Greg,

Thank you for the email with the non-cbi site visit report. I am working on our technology memo in which we identify advancements made in the sector (friction products). In order to do this we estimate the cost of purchasing/installing a new control technology.

I am curious if RRFP has a cost estimate for the I purchase/installation of your banbury mixer. This would be very helpful for us as we finalize this memo. Also, what year was your banbury mixer installed?

Korbin Smith BS, MPH
Physical Scientist
U.S. EPA OAR/OAQPS
Sector Policies and Programs Division
109 TW Alexander Drive
Mail Code D243-04
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
(919) 541-2416