[Federal Register: October 6, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 194)]
[Notices]
[Page 58277-58279]
[DOCID:fr06oc08-123]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58685; File No. SR-ISE-2008-73]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities
Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change To Expand the Trading Hours of the ISE Stock Exchange

September 30, 2008.
    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 September 24, 2008, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(``Exchange'' or ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.
The Exchange has filed the proposal pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of
the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) 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).
    \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 submits this rule filing to extend its hours of
trading for equity securities. The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Web site http://www.ise.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 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 extend its hours of trading for equity
securities. Currently, the Exchange has two equity trading sessions.
The Pre-Market Session begins at 9 a.m. Eastern Time \5\ and ends when
the opening transaction occurs, as defined in ISE Rule 2106(b). The
Regular Market Session commences upon the opening transaction, as
defined in ISE Rule 2106(b), and concludes simultaneously with the
primary listing market in such security, which is either 4 p.m. or 4:15
p.m. Eastern Time, depending on the security.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities and Exchange Commission Release No. 34-57021
(December 20, 2007), 72 FR 74373 (December 31, 2007) (SR-ISE-2007-
116) (Notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of proposed rule
change to open the Exchange's equity trading platform at 9:00 a.m.).
    \6\ See ISE Rule 2106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to begin ISE Stock Exchange trading at 8
a.m. Eastern Time and close the market at 5 p.m. Eastern Time. Trading
in the Pre-Market Session and the transition to the Regular-Market
Session\7\ will remain unchanged, other than starting the Pre-Market
Session one hour earlier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange is proposing to adopt a Post-Market
Session, which will begin at the conclusion of the Regular-Market
Session and close at 5 p.m. Eastern Time. To participate in the Post-
Market session, Equity Electronic Access Members (``Equity EAMs'') must
mark orders as ``Post-Closing.'' Accordingly, the Exchange is proposing
to amend ISE Rule 2102 (Hours of Business) to provide for a Post-Market
Session and ISE Rule 2104 (Types of Orders) to adopt a ``Post-Closing''
order.
    Trading during expanded hours involves potential risks, including
the possibility of lower liquidity, higher volatility, changing prices,
unlinked markets with the possibility of trade-throughs, and wider
spreads. Moreover, trades executed during these sessions may receive
executions at inferior prices when compared to the high/low of the day.
The Supplementary Material to ISE Rule 2102 presently requires Equity
EAMs that submit orders during the Pre-Market Session on behalf of non-
members to disclose the risks of participating in such session to their
customers. The Exchange proposes to expand this customer disclosure
requirement to also apply to the Post-Market Session.
    The Exchange proposes to adopt rule text governing trading halts in
the Pre- and Post-Market Sessions. Specifically, if a security begins
trading on the Exchange in the Pre-Market Session and subsequently a
temporary interruption occurs in the calculation or wide dissemination
of the intraday indicative value (``IIV'') or the value of the
underlying index by a major market data vendor, the Exchange may
continue to trade the derivative securities product for the remainder
of the Pre-Market Session.
    The Exchange will continue to halt trading during the Regular-
Market Session in accordance with the provisions set forth in existing
ISE Rule 2101(a)(2)(iii)(A) and (B).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange is also amending ISE Rule 2101(a)(2)(iii)(A) to
delete language addressing the halting and subsequent resumption of
trading when the underlying value of a securities derivative product
continues not to be calculated or widely available as of the
commencement of trading on the next business day. The Exchange
believes that it is appropriate to delete this language because it
is being added to proposed Rule 2102(e)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange will halt trading during the Post-Market Session if
the IIV or the value of the underlying index continues not to be
calculated or widely available after the close of the Regular-Market
Session. The Exchange may trade derivative securities products in the
Post-Market Session only if the listing market traded such securities
until the close of its regular trading session without a halt.
    If the IIV or the value of the underlying index continues not to be
calculated or widely available as of the commencement of the Pre-Market
Session on the next business day, the Exchange will not begin trading
the derivative securities product in the Pre-Market Session that day.
If an interruption in the calculation or wide

dissemination of the IIV or the value of the underlying index
continues, the Exchange may resume trading in the derivative securities
product only if calculation and wide dissemination of the IIV or the
value of the underlying index resumes or trading in the derivative
securities product resumes in the listing market.
    The Exchange intends to distribute to its Equity EAMs and make
available on its Web site at http://www.ise.com a Regulatory
Information Circular (``RIC'') that discloses, among other things: (1)
The current underlying index value and IIV may not be updated during
the Pre- and Post-Market Sessions; (2) lower liquidity in the Pre- and
Post-Market Sessions may impact pricing; (3) higher volatility in the
Pre- and Post-Market Sessions may impact pricing; (4) wider spreads may
occur in the Pre- and Post-Market Session; (5) the circumstances that
trigger trading halts; (6) required customer disclosures; and (7)
suitability requirements. The RIC will also highlight that investors
may be at a disadvantage to market professionals during the Pre- and
Post-Market Sessions in that they may not have access to an updated
index value or IIV that would otherwise be available during the Regular
Market Session. The Exchange is also amending the Supplementary
Material to Rule 2102 to require Equity EAMs to disclose additional
risks associated with extended trading hours in Exchange Traded Funds
to customers.
    Additionally the Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 2102(b) to
precisely define the transition between the Pre-Market Session and the
Regular-Market Session as is described above.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations under the Act applicable to a
national securities exchange and, in particular, the requirements of
Section 6(b) of the Act.\9\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the
proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act's
\10\ requirements that the rules of a national securities exchange be
designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and, in general, to protect investors
and the public interest. In particular, the proposed rule change will
allow the Exchange to provide a competitive marketplace for Equity EAMs
to trade securities during extended hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The proposed rule change does not 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 not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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

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

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). The Commission notes that ISE has
satisfied the five-day pre-filing notice requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ISE has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay.
The Commission believes that such waiver is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest because such waiver
should benefit investors by allowing ISE, without undue delay, to
expand its hours of trading, which should add competition in the
trading of equity securities and new derivative securities products. In
addition, proposed ISE Rule 2102 is closely modeled after similar rules
of other national securities exchanges \13\ and does not raise any
novel or significant regulatory issues. Therefore, the Commission
designates the proposed rule change as operative upon filing.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See e.g., NYSE Arca Rule 7.34 and Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 54997 (December 21, 2006), 71 FR 78501 (December 29,
2006) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-77) (reflecting trading halt procedures for
securities trading in extended hours). See also Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 56625 (October 5, 2007), 72 FR 58144 (October 12,
2007) (SR-NYSEArca-2007-73) (discussing disclosure to be included in
regulatory information bulletin).
    \14\ For purposes only of waiving the operative date of this
proposal, the Commission has considered the rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change the Commission 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.

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ISE-2008-73 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-ISE-2008-73. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the
Commission's Public Reference Room on official business days between
the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing will also 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-ISE-
2008-73 and should be submitted on or before October 27, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-23489 Filed 10-3-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 203 (Friday, October 21, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 64126]
[FR Doc No: 2022-22855]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 34729; File No. 812-15371]

Emerald Strategic Innovation Interval Fund and Emerald Mutual
Fund Advisers Trust

October 17, 2022.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'' or ``SEC'').

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Notice of an application for an order pursuant to section 6(c) of
the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the ``Act'') for an exemption from
sections 18(a)(2), 18(c), and 18(i) of the Act, pursuant to sections
6(c) and 23(c) of the Act for certain exemptions from rule 23c-3 under
the Act, and pursuant to section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1
thereunder.

Summary of Application:  Applicants request an order to permit certain
registered closed-end management investment companies to issue multiple
classes of shares and asset-based distribution and/or service fees with
respect to certain classes.

Applicants:  Emerald Strategic Innovation Interval Fund (the ``Initial
Fund'') and Emerald Mutual Fund Advisers Trust (the ``Adviser'').

Filing Dates:  The application was filed on July 21, 2022, and amended
on September 27, 2022.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the requested
relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by emailing
the SEC's Secretary at [email protected] and serving the
Applicants with a copy of the request by email, if an email address is
listed for the relevant Applicant below, or personally or by mail, if a
physical address is listed for the relevant Applicant below. Hearing
requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on, November
11, 2022, 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 fact 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 emailing the Commission's Secretary at [email protected].

ADDRESSES: The Commission: [email protected]. Applicants:
Jeremy Senderowicz, [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terri Jordan, Branch Chief, at (202)
551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For Applicants' representations, legal
analysis, and conditions, please refer to Applicants' first amended and
restated application, dated September 27, 2022, which may be obtained
via the Commission's website by searching for the file number at the
top of this document, or for an Applicant using the Company name search
field, on the SEC's EDGAR system. The SEC's EDGAR system may be
searched at, at http://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/legacy/companysearch.html. You may also call the SEC's Public Reference Room
at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-22855 Filed 10-20-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 213 (Thursday, November 3, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76670-76671]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26508]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. IC-32342]

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

October 28, 2016.
    The following is a notice of applications for deregistration under
section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 for the month of
October 2016. 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 November 22, 2016, 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: Jessica Shin, Attorney-Adviser, at
(202) 551-5921 or Chief Counsel's Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>; SEC,
Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office, 100 F Street
NE., Washington, DC 20549-8010.

Arden Investment Series Trust [File No. 811-22701]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On March 31, 2016 and September 20, 2016,
applicant made liquidating distributions to its shareholders, based on
net asset value. Applicant's custodian is holding remaining assets of
approximately $816,214 in cash and $105,662 in tax reclaims receivables
to cover current and anticipated liabilities and expenses in connection
with applicant's liquidation and dissolution as well as to cover any
unexpected liabilities. Expenses of approximately $611,038 incurred in
connection with the liquidation were paid by the applicant and the
applicant's investment advisers.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on April 20, 2016, and
amended on September 21, 2016 and October 26, 2016.
    Applicant's Address: 375 Park Avenue, 32nd Floor, New York, New
York 10152.

Roge Partners Fund [File No. 811-21571]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. The series of applicant has transferred its
assets to a corresponding series of Northern Lights Fund Trust III,
and, on April 24, 2014, made a final distribution to its shareholders
based on net asset value. Expenses of approximately $9,084 incurred in
connection with the reorganization were paid by the applicant's
investment adviser.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on September 23, 2016 and
amended on October 20, 2016.
    Applicant's Address: 630 Johnson Avenue, Suite 103, Bohemia, New
York 11716.

Dreyfus New York AMT-Free Municipal Money Market Fund [File No. 811-
05160]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On October 28, 2015, applicant made a
liquidating distribution to its shareholders, based on net asset value.
Expenses of approximately $2,016 incurred in connection with the
liquidation were paid by the applicant's investment adviser.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on August 5, 2016, and
amended on September 8, 2016 and October 7, 2016.
    Applicant's Address: 200 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10166.

Little Harbor MultiStrategy Composite Fund [File No. 811-22891]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On July 11,
2016 and August 26, 2016, applicant made a liquidating distribution to
its shareholders, based on net asset value. Applicant is retaining
remaining assets of approximately $9,708 in cash to cover current and
anticipated liabilities and expenses in connection with applicant's
liquidation. Expenses of approximately $69,863 incurred in connection
with the liquidation were paid by the applicant.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on October 7, 2016.
    Applicant's Address: c/o Little Harbor Advisors, LLC, 30 Doaks
Lane, Marblehead, Massachusetts 01945.

Dreyfus Worldwide Dollar Money Market Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-05717]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. The applicant has transferred its assets to
Dreyfus Liquid Assets, Inc. and, on September 18, 2016, made a final
distribution to its shareholders based on net asset value. Expenses of
$131,250 incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by
the applicant's investment adviser.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on August 30, 2016, and
amended on October 13, 2016.
    Applicant's Address: c/o The Dreyfus Corporation, 200 Park Avenue,
New York, New York 10166.

Dreyfus One Hundred Percent US Treasury Money Market Fund [File No.
811-04430]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. The applicant has transferred its assets to
General Treasury Securities Money Market Fund (formerly, General
Treasury Prime Money Market Fund), a series of General Government
Securities Money Market Funds Inc. and, on December 4, 2015, made a
final distribution to its shareholders based on net asset value.
Expenses of approximately $199,495 incurred in connection with the
reorganization were paid by the applicant's investment adviser.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on October 17, 2016.
    Applicant's Address: c/o The Dreyfus Corporation, 200 Park Avenue,
New York, New York 10166.

Western Asset Inflation Management Fund Inc. [File No. 811-21533]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On May 30,
2014, applicant made a liquidating distribution to its shareholders,
based on net asset value. Expenses of $137,100 incurred in connection
with the liquidation were paid by the applicant.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on October 20, 2016.
    Applicant's Address: 620 Eighth Avenue, 49th Floor, New York, New
York 10018.

Western Asset 2008 Worldwide Dollar Government Term Trust Inc. [File
No. 811-07740]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On November
30, 2008, applicant made a liquidating distribution to its
shareholders, based on net asset value. Expenses of $20,000 incurred in
connection with the liquidation were paid by the applicant.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on October 20, 2016.
    Applicant's Address: 55 Water Street, New York, New York 10041.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
pursuant to delegated authority.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-26508 Filed 11-2-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: February 6, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 25)]
[Notices]
[Page 6956-6957]
[DOCID:fr06fe08-46]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP08-54-000]

Columbia Gulf Transmission Company; Notice of Application

January 29, 2008.
    Take notice that on January 15, 2008, Columbia Gulf Transmission
Company (Columbia Gulf), 5151 San Felipe Suite 2500, Houston, Texas
77056, filed an abbreviated application pursuant to section 7(b) of the
Natural Gas Act for permission and approval to abandon: (1) By sale to
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (Tennessee) certain natural gas
facilities, most of which are jointly owned with Tennessee, located
both offshore and onshore Louisiana; (2) the services currently
provided through the facilities to be sold; (3) certain transportation/
exchange agreements with Tennessee; and (4) Columbia Gulf's lease to
Tennessee of a portion of Columbia Gulf's South Pass 77 System capacity
(South Pass Lease), all as more fully set forth in the application.
This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public
Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov
 using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number

excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,

contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Specifically, Columbia Gulf requests authorization to abandon by
sale to Tennessee of Columbia Gulf's ownership interest in: (a) The
Blue Water System and all offshore laterals and appurtenant facilities
contiguous thereto, and the onshore portion of the Blue Water System to
Egan, Louisiana, together with the associated rights-of-way and
appurtenances; (b) the South Timbalier System and all offshore laterals
and appurtenant facilities contiguous thereto, together with the
associated rights-of-way and appurtenances; and (c) the South Pass
System and all offshore laterals and appurtenant facilities contiguous
thereto, together with the associated rights-of-way and appurtenances.
In addition, Columbia Gulf states that as a result of the proposed
sale, Columbia Gulf requests abandonment of the interruptible
transportation services provided through the facilities to be sold;
abandonment of Rate Schedules X-8 and X-57 in Columbia Gulf's Volume
No. 2 of its FERC Gas Tariff; and abandonment of the lease of capacity
to Tennessee (South Pass Lease).
    Any initial questions regarding Columbia Gulf's proposal in this
application should be directed to counsel for Columbia Gulf, Fredric J.
George, Lead Counsel, Columbia Gulf Transmission Company, P.O. Box
1273, Charleston, West Virginia 25325-1273; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant. On or before the comment date, it is
not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons
other than the Applicant.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically

should submit the original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention
to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Comment Date: February 19, 2008.

 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-2112 Filed 2-5-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


***********************************************

BRIEFING FOR OMB ON PROPOSED NESHAP ( CAA 112D)

FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE COMBUSTORS ***********************************************

Office of Solid Waste January 26, 2004 ***********************************************  2

PURPOSE OF BRIEFING

To summarize MACT rulemaking proposal for hazardous waste combustors SCOPE OF BRIEFING

BACKGROUND   DESCRIPTION OF AFFECTED INDUSTRY SECTORS

OVERVIEW OF CLEAN AIR ACT REQUIREMENTS GOVERNING TECHNOLOGY BASED EMISSION STANDARDS

HISTORY  IMPETUS OF RULEMAKING  LITIGATION  COURT DECISION

SCOPE OF RULEMAKING

DESCRIPTION OF FLOOR METHODOLOGIES USED TO ADDRESS COURT OPINION

PROPOSED STANDARDS, COSTS AND BENEFITS  3

BACKGROUND   DESCRIPTION OF AFFECTED INDUSTRY SECTORS

Industry sectors combusting hazardous waste that are subject to this rulemaking:

o Cement Kilns, Lightweight Aggregate Kilns, Incinerators, Industrial Boilers, Hydrochloric Acid Production Furnaces

Amount of hazardous waste combusted and number of affected sources o See figures on following pages  4

Estimated Total Annual Hazardous Waste Generation U. S. Tons Total, Excluding Combusted HW, 36,426,050 Combusted Hazardous Waste, 3,600,000  5

Estimated Annual Quantity of Hazardous Waste Combusted U. S. Tons Commercial Incinerators 452,200 Captive Incinerators ( On

Site) 1,010,600 Commercial Energy Recovery ( Cement Kilns, LWAKs)

1,093,800 Captive Energy Recovery ( Boilers ) 1,001,500  6

Hazardous Waste Burning Sources Commercial Incinerators, 15 On Site Incinerators, 92 Cement Kilns, 26 LWAKs, 7 Solid Fuel Boilers, 12 Liquid Fuel Boilers, 107 HCL Production Furnaces, 17  7

OVERVIEW OF CLEAN AIR ACT REQUIREMENTS GOVERNING TECHNOLOGY BASED EMISSION STANDARDS

Hazardous waste combustor ( HWC) emissions historically regulated by RCRA ( risk based standards)

HWC emissions of hazardous air pollutants ( HAPs) also must be regulated under CAA technology based standards reflecting the performance of the Maximum Achievable Control Technology ( MACT)

o OSW designated as lead office to issue these technology based standards for HWCs o MACT standards, for the most part, will supersede current RCRA emission standards

MACT standards ( CAA 112( d)( 3)) must reflect a minimum level of stringency, known as the " Floor"

o What is the Floor? MACT standards for existing sources shall not be less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of the existing sources ( for which the Administrator has emissions information), in the category or subcategory with 30 or more sources; or the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 5 sources in the category or subcategory with fewer than 30 sources.

Costs cannot be considered in determining the Floor level. Considerations of risk are likewise legally irrelevant.

EPA must then determine if more stringent standards are achievable, and must consider costs, energy use,

and nonair health and environmental impacts in making this determination. Standards issued pursuant to this authority are called ` beyond the floor'.  8

Comparable provisions exist for establishing standards for new sources, except Floor is based on performance of the single best performing source.

HISTORY  IMPETUS OF RULEMAKING  LITIGATION  COURT DECISION

Originally planned to promulgate MACT standards for HWCs in two phases o Phase 1: hazardous waste incinerators, cement kilns, and lightweight aggregate kilns o Phase 2: hazardous waste boilers and hydrochloric acid production furnaces o Phase 1 MACT standards promulgated September 1999  Regulated specific HAP metals, particulate matter ( as a surrogate for other HAP metals),

dioxin/ furans, total chlorine, and organic hazardous air pollutant emissions   Estimated total annualized social costs to comply with rule: $ 50 63 million   Estimated total annualized human health benefits: $ 19 million  Industry and environmental groups litigated

Court Decision o On July 24, 2001, DC Circuit Court granted Sierra Club's Petition for Review  9

 Vacated the challenged emission standards o Court said EPA failed to demonstrate that its methodology for ascertaining the floor level for new and existing sources adequately assessed the performance of the average of the 12% of best performing sources; key inadequacy was failure to assess " best performing"

What was our general methodology?

o Defined MACT control for each pollutant as either a " back end" control ( assessing performance of air pollution control device on stack emissions), or hazardous waste feedrate control, or combination of both o Looked at emissions from all sources using that MACT technology when properly designed and operated, not just the best 12% ( expanded MACT pool)

o Highest emissions in expanded pool represented the MACT floor o Method was chosen as a way to assess emission variability for the best performing sources  OAQPS used this methodology in a number of their rules as well

What specifically did the Court reject?

o We failed to justify that expansion of the MACT pool reflected the best sources' performance o Court opinion left door open for negotiated interim standards; ultimate standards satisfying the court's  10

mandate still required

Negotiated Interim Standards o The court indicated it would not vacate the rule until we adopted interim standards, so that there would be no regulatory gap. In February 2002, we negotiated interim standards that remain in effect until we promulgate replacement standards that address the court opinion o Key aspects of negotiated agreement  Interim standards:

  Relaxed 10 of the 48 promulgated emission standards ( see Attachment A for a comparison of the standards promulgated in 1999 and the negotiated interim standards)

   These standards do not represent MACT; they are placeholders   Delayed the compliance date one year   Relaxed several compliance/ implementation requirements  Schedule for rule actually reflecting MACT ( called replacement standards):

  Entered into consent decree ( which is judicially enforceable) requiring us to issue a final rule for incinerators, cement kilns, and aggregate kilns by June 14, 2005

By a different consent decree, MACT standards for boilers and hydrochloric acid production furnaces are  11

subject to that same completion date o Phase 2 rulemaking also on court enforceable schedule to propose by March 31, 2004 SCOPE OF RULEMAKING

Emissions Database o We have updated the emissions database that was used to support the 1999 rule for incinerators,

cement kilns, and lightweight aggregate kilns o Industry stakeholders believe we are inappropriately using emissions data from sources that tested after retrofitting their emission control systems to meet the emission standards promulgated in September 1999 ( which were vacated and replaced by the February 2002 Interim Standards).

 Stakeholders refer to this as " MACT on MACT," i. e., establishing MACT floors based on sources that already upgraded to meet the 1999 standards.

 We believe the proposed approach to use all available emissions data from existing sources to calculate MACT floors is appropriate because the motivation for a source's performance is legally irrelevant in developing the floors.

Phase 1 Sources ( cement kilns, lightweight aggregate kilns, and incinerators)  12

o Must propose/ promulgate emission standards reflecting MACT for virtually every HAP  We will retain the carbon monoxide, hydrocarbon, and destruction and removal efficiency standards promulgated in 1999   We do not need to propose these standards again because they were not challenged o Majority of compliance requirements promulgated in 1999 will not be addressed/ affected by this rulemaking since they were not vacated by the court o We are addressing a total of 17 compliance requirements in the proposal  Some we are required to propose and/ or take comment on as a result of the settlement agreement  Some we are required to address because they were previously litigated issues that were " put in abeyance"

 Others are fixes and/ or clarifications  These compliance issues apply to both phase 1 and phase 2 sources

Phase 2 sources ( boilers, hydrochloric acid production furnaces)

o Must propose/ promulgate full suite of emission standards and compliance provisions  13

 We are proposing the same compliance provisions that are currently required for the phase 1 source categories

Site Specific Risk Assessment ( SSRA)

o In February 2002, the Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition ( CKRC) filed a petition with EPA requesting that we repeal the SSRA Policy and Guidance and promulgate them as regulations if we continue to believe that they are necessary.

o We will be partially granting and denying CKRC's request  We are proposing to deny CKRC's request that we repeal the SSRA policy and guidance because we believe that there may be situations where permitting authorities find that compliance with the MACT standards alone may not be sufficiently protective. In those situations, it is important that the permitting authority retain the ability to use a tool such as an SSRA to estimate potential risk.

 We are proposing to grant CKRC's request by codifying our explicit authority to require SSRAs on a site specific basis using notice and comment rulemaking procedures, since we agree with CKRC that it would be appropriate to codify the authority to require SSRAs and SSRA based permit conditions for the sake of regulatory clarity and transparency. We are requesting comment on our tentative decision.

o Site Specific Risk Assessment guidance was designated for review as part of OMB's 2002 Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on State, Local, and  14

Tribal Entities or " Thompson Report", based on comments submitted by CKRC. In our response for the Thompson Report, we stated that we would respond to CKRC's petition as soon as possible, but no later than the proposal of the Phase I and Phase II rules.

DESCRIPTION OF FLOOR METHODOLOGIES USED TO ADDRESS COURT OPINION

Background o In the 1999 rule, the Court concluded that we did not show that our " expanded MACT pool" approach to account for emissions variability actually reflected the worst performance of the best performing sources o What are we doing different to address the Court opinion?

 No longer using the expanded MACT pool concept to address emission variability  Instead, we calculate floor levels using only the emissions from the top 12% of the sources  The methodologies, as described later, define how the top 12% sources are chosen o How are we addressing emission variability?

 Most importantly, we add a statistical variability factor to the average emissions of the top 12%

of sources to establish a floor level that the average of the best performing sources could be expected to achieve in 99 of 100 tests when operating under the same conditions under which  15

the emissions data were obtained  We also generally base the floor on compliance test data that were conducted under worst foreseeable operational circumstances ( e. g., spiked feeds of metals and chlorine, detuned emission control device); or absent compliance test data, we base the floor on data from normal operations, and express the standard as a long term emission limit   This accounts for day to day, month to month, emissions variability

Description of MACT Approaches Used to Calculate Proposed Floor Levels o Two generic MACT methodology approaches:

 1. Emissions Approach: Best performers are sources with lowest stack emission concentrations  2. SRE/ Feed Approach: For metal and chlorine standards, best performers are sources with the best combination of hazardous waste feed control of metals/ chlorine and back end ( stack) air pollution control as defined by our ranking procedure   SRE = system removal efficiency  the % metal/ chlorine that is emitted compared to the amount fed   Hazardous waste combustors utilize both hazardous waste feed control and back end air pollution control to limit their emissions; as a result, both are components of MACT control for these pollutants

Special Considerations for Energy Recovery Sources  16

o Energy recovery sources cement kilns, lightweight aggregate kilns, and liquid fuel boilers   burn hazardous waste fuels at various firing rates to displace fossil fuel  from 5% to 100% hazardous waste fuel o Both the Emissions Approach and SRE/ Feed Approach can be biased against sources with high hazardous waste firing rates  Their emissions and feedrates of metals/ chlorine can be higher because hazardous waste generally has higher levels of metals/ chlorine than the displaced fossil fuel.

o To avoid this potential bias, we are altering the form of the standard for these sources. We do so by expressing emission limits ( for both the Emissions Approach and SRE/ Feed Approach) as " hazardous waste thermal emission concentrations" ( when data are available to calculate thermal emissions),

which represents pounds of metal/ chlorine in emissions attributable to the hazardous waste per million BTU of heat input from hazardous waste

Special Consideration for Particulate Matter Floors o We are proposing particulate matter standards to control HAP metals ( except mercury) that originate from both the hazardous waste and nonhazardous feedstreams ( e. g., coal, raw material)

o We use the MACT methodology approach the Agency used in the proposed Industrial Boiler MACT to identify the best performing sources for particulate matter  17

 Industrial Boiler MACT methodology identifies best performers as those with the best back end pollution control devices  methodology does not directly assess feed control   This is because feed control of fossil fuels is neither duplicable ( by a single source) nor replicable ( by other sources).

o We do not believe ash feed control needs to be directly assessed for establishing PM floors  PM standard is a surrogate to control metals   PM ( ash) feed control may not appropriately assess feed control of metals because the ash can contain varying levels of metals.

Proposed MACT Floor Methodology Hierarchy o SRE/ Feed Approach used for metals/ chlorine when data allow  If SRE/ Feed Approach cannot be used, then we use the Emissions Approach   Emissions approach is not the preferred approach for feed controlled pollutants because we do not necessarily believe the sources with the lowest emissions in fact represent the best performing sources o Emissions Approach used for other floors ( e. g., dioxin/ furan floors)

o Express floors as hazardous waste thermal emission concentration for energy recovery units when data allow  18

o Exception:

 Industrial Boiler MACT technology based approach used for PM for all sources categories

Special Consideration for Total Chlorine Standards ( invoking Section 112( d)( 4))

o For pollutants for which a health threshold has been established, Section 112( d)( 4) allows the Administrator to consider the threshold level with an ample margin of safety when establishing emission standards. This level is likely to be less restrictive than MACT.

o We will propose to invoke 112( d)( 4) for the total chlorine standard for all source categories except hydrochloric acid production furnaces ( for which the chlorine standard is a surrogate to control metal HAP)

 EPA has invoked this authority for several promulgated and proposed MACT rules o Note that we have not provided preamble and regulatory language for invoking 112( d)( 4). We have inserted a " placeholder", however, that states this section will be inserted at a later time.

 The Agency is determining how it should apply 112( d)( 4) in the future. Issues include: Hazard Index limit; accounting for emissions of HAP from collocated sources that affect the target organ; accounting for ambient background; and HCl acidification of acid sensitive surface waters.  19

PROPOSED STANDARDS, COSTS/ BENEFITS/ RISK ASSESSMENT

Attachments B and C summarize the proposed standards for new and existing sources for each source category

Attachment D summarizes the proposed beyond the floor standards

Emission reductions for all source categories for proposed standards ( note that emission reductions for phase 1 sources do not include the emission reductions that are necessary for compliance with the interim standards)

o Dioxin/ furans: 5 grams/ year o Mercury: 1 ton/ year o Particulate Matter: 1700 tons/ year o Semivolatile Metals: 4 tons/ year o Low Volatile Metals: 10 tons/ year o Total Chlorine ( upper bound, no sources use 112d4 provision): 2600 tons/ year o Total Chlorine ( lower bound, all eligible sources use 112d4 provision and do not upgrade chlorine control device): 140 tons/ year

Retrofit and compliance costs for proposed standards ( annualized  no market adjustments)

o $ 83 million/ year ( upper bound, no sources use 112d4 provision)

o $ 58 million/ year ( lower bound, all eligible sources use 112d4 provision and do not upgrade chlorine control device)

o compliance costs for phase 1 sources do not include costs incurred to comply with interim standards

Total annualized market adjusted costs  20

o $ 56 million/ year ( upper bound, all eligible sources use 112d4 provision and do not upgrade chlorine control device)

o $ 41 million/ year ( lower bound, no sources use 112d4 provision)

o Phase II sources represent about 80 percent of the upper bound market adjusted total. Our economic model indicates that commercial incinerators and cement kilns would experience net gains following all market adjustments. This occurs due to increased waste receipts and relatively low upgrade costs.

Total annual government costs are approximately $ 500,000  600,000 for the proposed standards.

Health benefits o Total annual monetized benefits are estimated to range from $ 4.5 million to $ 10.3 million for the Agency's proposed approach, attributable primarily to particulate matter reductions.

Risk Assessment o A comprehensive risk assessment is not being conducted for this rule; however, a comprehensive risk assessment for incinerators, cement kilns, and lightweight aggregate kilns was conducted for the 1999 HWC MACT rule in order to show that national RCRA standards were no longer required o For this proposed rule, we are comparing characteristics of the sources covered by the 1999 rule to the sources covered by the replacement rule that are related to risk o These characteristics include emissions, stack characteristics, meteorology, and potentially exposed population o We will use statistical comparisons to support the conclusion of the 1999 risk assessment that the standards are sufficiently protective that national RCRA standards are not needed, but that site  21

specific standards pursuant to RCRA omnibus provision could still be needed o Risk inferences for boilers and HCl production furnaces will be based on comparisons with incinerators for the 1999 rule o Note we are currently reevaluating the comparative risk analysis methodology originally used to lend additional support to our conclusion that these proposed technology based standards are generally protective. This preamble section, and associated background document, will be updated in the near future if in fact this reevaluation results in a revised methodology to assess risks from these sources.

We are confident any changes to this comparative risk methodology will not result in changes to our original conclusion that these proposed standards are generally protective.

STAKEHOLDERS

Who are the key stakeholders?

o Sierra Club: Represented by Earth Justice o Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition ( CKRC): Represents cement kilns that combust hazardous waste o American Chemistry Council ( ACC): Represents subset of on site incinerators, boilers, and hydrochloric acid production furnaces at chemical and petroleum plants o Coalition for Responsible Waste Incineration ( CRWI): Represents subset of incinerators, boilers,

cement kilns, hydrochloric acid prod. furnaces; overlapping membership with other stakeholders  22

o Environmental Treatment Council ( ETC): Represents subset of commercial incinerators o Solite Corporation: Operates two of the three lightweight aggregate kiln facilities  23

Attachment B. Proposed Standards for Existing Sources Incinerators Cement Kilns Lightweight Aggregate Kilns Solid Fuel Fired Boilers1 Liquid Fuel Fired Boilers1 Hydrochloric Acid Production Furnaces1 Dioxin/ Furans ( ng TEQ/ dscm) 0.28 for dry APCD and WHB sources; 6 0.40 for others 0.20 or 0.40 +

400

F at APCD inlet 0.40 CO or THC standard as a surrogate 0.40 for dry APCDsources;

CO or THC standard as surrogate for others 0.40 Mercury 130 ug/ dscm 64 ug/ dscm2 67 ug/ dscm2 10 ug/ dscm 3.7E 6 lb/ MMBtu2,5 Total chlorine standard as surrogate Particulate Matter 0.015 gr/ dscf 8 0.028 gr/ dscf 0.025 gr/ dscf 0.030 gr/ dscf 8 0.032 gr/ dscf 8 Total chlorine standard as surrogate Semivolatile Metals ( lead + cadmium) 59 ug/ dscm 4.0E 4 lB/ MMBtu5 3.1E 4 lb/ MMBtu5 and 250 ug/ dscm3 170 ug/ dscm 1.1E 5 lb/ MMBtu2,5 Total chlorine standard as surrogate Low Volatile Metals ( arsenic + beryllium +

chromium) 84 ug/ dscm 1.4E 5 lbs/ MMBtu5 9.5E 5 lb/ MMBtu5 and 110 ug/ dscm3 210 ug/ dscm 1.1E 4 lbMMBtu4,5 Total chlorine standard as surrogate Total Chlorine ( hydrogen chloride + chlorine gas) 1.5 ppmv 7 110 ppmv 7 150 ppmv 7 110 ppmv 7 2.5E 2 lb/ MMBtu5, 7 14 ppmv or 99.9927%

system removal efficiency Carbon Monoxide ( CO)

or Hydrocarbons ( HC) 100 ppmv CO or 10 ppmv HC See Part Two,

Section VIII 100 ppmv CO or 20 ppmv HC 100 ppmv CO or 10 ppmv HC Destruction and Removal Efficiency ( DRE) 99.99% for each principal organic hazardous pollutant. For sources burning hazardous wastes F020, F021, F022, F023, F026, or F027, however, 99.9999% for each principal organic hazardous pollutant.

Notes:

1 Particulate matter, semivolatile metal, low volatile, and total chlorine standards apply to major sources only for solid fuel fired boilers, liquid fuel fired boilers, and hydrochloric acid production furnaces.

2 Standard is based on normal emissions data.

3 Sources must comply with both the thermal emissions and emission concentration standards.

4 Low volatile metal standard for liquid fuel fired boilers is for chromium only. Arsenic and beryllium are not included in the low volatile metal total for liquid fuel fired boilers.

5 Standards are expressed as mass of pollutant contributed by hazardous waste per million Btu contributed by the hazardous waste.

6 APCD denotes " air pollution control device", WHB denotes " waste heat boiler".

7 Sources may elect to comply with site specific, risk based emission limits for hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas based on national exposure standards. See Part Two,

Section XIII.

8 Sources may elect to comply with an alternative to the particulate matter standard. See Part Two, Section XVIII.  24

Attachment C. Proposed Standards for New Sources Incinerators Cement Kilns Lightweight Aggregate Kilns Solid Fuel Boilers 1 Liquid Fuel Boilers 1 Hydrochloric Acid Production Furnaces1 Dioxin/ Furans ( ng TEQ/ dscm) 0.11 for dry APCD or WHBs5;

0.2 for others 0.20 or 0.40 + 400

F at inlet to particulate matter control device 0.40 Carbon monoxide ( CO) or hydrocarbon ( HC) as a surrogate 0.015 for dry APCD;

CO or HC as surrogate for others 0.40 Mercury 8 ug/ dscm 35 ug/ dscm2 67 ug/ dscm2 10 ug/ dscm 3.8E 7 lb/ MMBtu2,4 TCl as surrogate Particulate matter 0.00070 gr/ dscf 7 0.0058 gr/ dscf 0.0099 gr/ dscf 0.015 gr/ dscf 7 0.0076 gr/ dscf 7 TCl as surrogate Semivolatile Metals ( lead + cadmium) 6.5 ug/ dscm 6.2E 5 lb/ MMBtu4 2.4E 5 lb/ MMBtu4 170 ug/ dscm 4.3E 6 lb/ MMBtu2,4 TCl as surrogate Low Volatile Metals ( arsenic + beryllium +

chromium) 8.9 ug/ dscm 1.4E 5 lb/ MMBtu4 3.2E 5 lb/ MMBtu4 190 ug/ dscm 3.6E 5 lb/ MMBtu in HW3,4 TCl as surrogate Total Chlorine ( Hydrogen chloride +

chlorine gas) 0.18 ppmv 6 78 ppmv 6 150 ppmv 6 73 ppmv 6 7.2E 4 lb/ MMBtu4,6 1.2 ppmv or 99.99937% SRE Carbon monoxide ( CO)

or Hydrocarbons ( HC) 100 ppmv CO or 10 ppmv HC See Part Two,

Section VIII 100 ppmv CO or 20 ppmv HC 100 ppmv CO or 10 ppmv HC Destruction and Removal Efficiency 99.99% for each principal organic hazardous pollutant. For sources burning hazardous wastes F020, F021, F022, F023, F026, or F027, however, 99.9999% for each principal organic hazardous pollutant.

Notes:

1 Particulate matter, semivolatile metal, low volatile metal, and total chlorine standards apply to major sources only for solid fuel fired boilers, liquid fuelfired boilers, and hydrochloric acid production furnaces.

2 Standard is based on normal emissions data.

3 Low volatile metal standard for liquid fuel fired boilers is for chromium only. Arsenic and beryllium are not included in the low volatile metal total for liquid fuel fired boilers.

4 Standards are expressed as mass of pollutant contributed by hazardous waste per million Btu contributed by the hazardous waste.

5 APCD denotes " air pollution control device", WHB denotes " waste heat boiler".

6 Sources may elect to comply with site specific, risk based emission limits for hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas based on national exposure standards. See Part Two, Section XVIII and Section XIII.

7 Sources may elect to comply with an alternative to the particulate matter standard. See Part Two, Section XVIII.  25

Attachment D. Proposed Beyond the Floor Standards ( Existing Sources)

Coal Fired Boilers Lightweight Aggregate Kilns Liquid Fuel Boilers HCl Production Furnaces PM TCl TCl D/ F D/ F D/ F Floor Level 0.06 gr/ dscf 440 ppm 600 ppm 6.4 ng TEQ/ dscm 3.0 ng TEQ/ dscm 6.8 ng TEQ/ dscm BTF Standard 0.03 gr/ dscf 110 ppm 150 ppm 0.4 ng/ dscm 0.4 ng/ dscm 0.4 ng/ dscm   Emission Reduction 400 ton/ yr 790 ton/ yr 280 ton/ yr 1.9 gram/ yr 0.06 gram/ yr 2.3 gram/ yr   Annualized Cost, before Closures ($ MM) 1.5 3.7 1.9 2.2 0.08 1.9 Cost Effectiveness, before Closures $ 3,600/ ton $ 4,700/ ton $ 6,800/ ton $ 910,000/ gram $ 1,300,000/ gra m $ 820,000/ gram


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON D.C., 20460

PC Code: 080818

DP Barcodes: 356140, 367446

   	Date: April 15, 2010

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Memorandum: Revised Spray Drift Modeling and Terrestrial Plant
Risk Characterization in Support of the Section 3 Registration of the
New Chemical Indaziflam (BCS-AA10717)

TO:		Erik Kraft, Chemical Review Manager

		Jim Tompkins, Risk Manager

		Registration Division (7505P)

FROM:	Alicia Korol, Biologist

		Environmental Risk Branch IV

		Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

REVIEWED

BY:		Melissa Panger, Acting Risk Assessment Process Leader

Chuck Peck, Environmental Engineer

Environmental Risk Branch IV

		Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

APPROVED

BY:		Mark Corbin, Acting Branch Chief

		Environmental Risk Branch IV

		Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

≤) 2-3 feet, turf use was modeled assuming a low boom height.  EFED
chose to model the ≤ 2-3 feet requirement as a low boom height (20 in)
rather than high boom height (50 in), the only release height parameter
inputs in Tier I AgDRIFT, to avoid overestimating exposure.
Recommendations for potential label revisions to the ≤ 2-3 feet
release height language are provided under the Labeling Recommendations
section below.

	In re-evaluating the spray drift exposure estimates, EFED reconsidered
the protectiveness of employing AgDRIFT’s orchard scenario to model
food use applications; a ground application exposure was found to be a
more appropriate modeling scenario for these uses.  Modeling inputs are
presented in Table 2.

	For purposes of investigating the influence of input parameters on
exposure estimates, EFED modeled three exploratory scenarios that would
reduce overall spray drift exposure.  An alternative ground application
exposure for food uses was modeled assuming a low boom height.  Two
alternative aerial application exposures were modeled assuming ASAE
Medium to Coarse and ASAE Coarse to Very Coarse droplet size
distributions.  These scenarios are highlighted in Table 2.

Table 1:  Toxicity Endpoints used to Determine a Spray Drift Buffer for
Terrestrial Plants

Test Type / Crop	Most Sensitive Study Species	NOAEC

(lbs a.i./A)	EC25

(lbs a.i./A)	Most Sensitive Parameter

Seedling Emergence:

Dicot	Oilseed Rape	0.00011	0.000062	Emergence

Table 2: AgDrift Exposure Input Parameters

Use	Application Type	Label	Application rate (lbs a.i./A)	Droplet Size
Boom Height1

Food

	Ground	Indaziflam 200 SC; Indaziflam 500 SC	0.085 	ASAE Fine-Medium/

Coarse	Low Boom

	Ground	Indaziflam 200 SC; Indaziflam 500 SC	0.085 	ASAE Fine-Medium/

Coarse	High Boom

Turf2	Ground	BCS-AA 10717 20WSP	0.017 	ASAE Fine-Medium/

Coarse	Low Boom3

Roadsides/Rights-of-way/Site Preparation/

Other3	Ground	Esplanade 200 C	0.089 	ASAE Fine-Medium/

Coarse	High Boom

Forested Areas

	Ground	Esplanade F	0.125 	ASAE Fine-Medium/

Coarse	High Boom

	Aerial	Esplanade F	0.125 	ASAE Fine-Medium4 	N/A

	Aerial	Esplanade F	0.125 	ASAE Medium-Coarse	N/A

	Aerial	Esplanade F	0.125 	ASAE Coarse-Very Coarse	N/A

1 Tier I Low boom height = 0.508 m (20 in); Tier I High boom height =
1.27 m (50 in)

2 Established turf in areas such as parks, cemeteries, gold courses, sod
farms, sports fields, home and commercial lawns.

3 Other uses include: railroads, railway yards, bareground, landscape
plantings on roadsides, ornamentals, dormant woody or conifer plant
species, hardscapes

4 Label specifies droplet size of 150-200 microns

	Dissipation to the EC25 and no effect level was modeled in order to
provide potential buffer distances that are protective of nonlisted and
listed terrestrial plant species, respectively (Table 3).  As in Table
2, exploratory scenarios are highlighted.  The results of AgDRIFT
modeling show that levels of concern (LOC) for terrestrial plants are
exceeded from 62 ft to greater than  ~1,000 feet from the site of
application, with risk extending furthest for forested area uses and
extending the least for turf uses.  The AgDISP model was used to refine
spray drift exposure estimates from aerial applications to forested
areas based on proposed management practices, e.g., boom length along
aircraft wing and spray volume rate; however, the refined estimates were
not found to reduce the LOC for terrestrial plants below ~1000 feet from
the application site.

	Using the proposed labeled spray drift restrictions, spray drift
buffers of 62 feet for turf uses would be necessary to reduce spray
drift deposition below the non-listed species LOC, while for listed
species these buffers would need to be 131 feet.  These distances are
lower than the previously calculated turf use buffer distances of 341
feet for nonlisted species and 528 feet for listed species, based on
assumptions of an ASAE Very Fine to Fine spray droplet distribution and
a high boom height.  For food uses, buffers ranging from 466 to 640 feet
would be necessary to create spray drift deposition below the level of
concern for non-listed plants, and at a minimum of 843 feet for listed
species.  Buffers at, or greater than, 666 feet are needed for ground
and aerial applications to roadsides/rights-of-ways/site
preparation/other and forested areas.

	To further characterize the exposure to terrestrial plant species, RQs
per use pattern were developed for spray drift exposures ranging from
distances of 0 (on the field) to 950 feet off the field.  Figure 1
depicts the nonlisted species RQs relative to distances off field, while
Figure 2 depicts the listed species RQs relative to distances off field.

Table 3: Summary of AgDRIFT Modeling Results for Listed and Non-Listed
Terrestrial Plant Species By Use Pattern

Use1

(Single Max Application Rate)

	Distance (ft) from edge of field where LOC is no longer exceeded –

Ground Application 	Distance (ft) from edge of field where LOC is no
longer exceeded — Aerial Applications

	Non-listed Plants2	Listed Plants3	Non-listed Plants2	Listed Plants3

Food – Low Boom

(0.085 lbs ai/A)	466	843	-	-

Food – High Boom

(0.085 lbs ai/A)	640	>997	-	-

Turf

(0.017 lbs ai/A)	62	131	-	-

Roadsides/Rights-of-way/Site Preparation/ Other

(0.089 lbs ai/A)	666	>997	-	-

Forested Areas

Fine-Med/Coarse

(0.125 lbs ai/A)	896	>997	>997	>997

Forested Areas

Med-Coarse

(0.125 lbs ai/A)	--	--	>997	>997

Forested Areas

Coarse-Very Coarse

(0.125 lbs ai/A)	--	--	>997	>997

1 Only proposed uses of indaziflam for broadcast spray via ground or
aerial methods were modeled with AgDrift.

2 Most sensitive terrestrial plant EC25 = 0.00011 lbs a.i./A (1.1x10E-4
lbs a.i.A)

3 Most sensitive terrestrial plant NOAEC = 0.000062 lbs a.i./A
(6.2x10E-5 lbs a.i./A)

Figure 1: RQs for the most sensitive nonlisted terrestrial plant exposed
to spray drift from proposed broadcast uses of indaziflam.  The risk to
nonlisted species LOC is 1.0 (RQ = 1.0).

Figure 2: RQs for the most sensitive listed terrestrial plant exposed to
spray drift from proposed broadcast uses of indaziflam.  The risk to
listed species LOC is 1.0 (RQ = 1.0).

	Based on this analysis of spray drift exposure and resulting RQs at
carrying distances from the field, non-listed species LOCs for
terrestrial plants are not exceeded with buffers of ~ 60 feet for turf
uses.  Likewise, for turf uses, listed species LOCs are not exceeded
with buffers of ~130 feet.  These LOC exceedances apply to direct
effects to listed terrestrial plants and any listed species that has an
obligate relationship with terrestrial plants (i.e., 130 ft buffer), and
indirect effects for listed species that rely on terrestrial plants but
are not obligates (i.e., 60 ft buffer).  Furthermore, indirect effects
to other taxa that rely on terrestrial plants may also occur.  For all
other uses, buffer distances < ~450 ft would not preclude risk of
indaziflam toxicity to off-field nonlisted and listed species of
terrestrial plants, but they are expected to reduce the number of
species ultimately affected.

Labeling Recommendations

	The following label recommendations apply to proposed Esplanade F and
BCS-AA10717 20 WSP formulations.

The proposed Esplanade F formulation label states, “To reduce the
potential for drift, apply large droplets (i.e., 150-200 microns) under
low spray pressure”.  This range overlaps the lower drop size
classification regime of ASAE Very Fine to Fine, and the next higher,
ASAE Fine to Medium droplet size distribution.  Label specification of a
volume median diameter (VMD), Dv0.5, of 255 microns for spray droplets
would reduce ambiguity because 255 microns is the median diameter for an
ASAE Fine to Medium droplet size distribution

Proposed revisions to the BCS-AA10717 20 WSP formulation label
(Attachment I) require that “For use on golf courses and commercial
lawns, the boom height must be no higher than 2-3 feet above the
ground…”  EFED modeled a ground application to turf assuming a low
boom height (20in) rather than a high boom height (50in) to avoid
overestimating exposure.  However, the distance from the application
site where the risk to plant species LOC is exceeded is potentially
underestimated for boom heights greater than 20in (up to 36in).  EFED
recommends that the specific boom height for turf be restricted to boom
heights no greater than 2 feet (24in).

	The following label recommendations are relevant to the exploratory,
reduced exposure scenarios modeled above and apply to the Esplanade F,
Indaziflam 200 SC, and Indaziflam 500 SC formulations.

EFED recommends that the Esplanade F label explicitly specify the drop
regime to be either ASAE Medium-Coarse or ASAE Coarse-Very Coarse for
aerial applications.  Alternatively, the label could explicitly specify
the Dv0.5, equal to 341 microns for ASAE Medium-Coarse and 439 microns
for ASAE Coarse-Very Coarse.

For the Indaziflam 200 SC and Indaziflam 500 SC labels, formulations for
food use, EFED recommends that a boom height no greater than 2 feet
(24in) be specified.

Attachment 1

Indaziflam and Drift Potential with Spray Applications

Bayer is proposing to add to their commercial end-use indaziflam labels
certain spray parameters to reduce drift.  Since spray drift is not an
issue for granular applied herbicides, Bayer assumes that granular
applications are okay to use without further spray drift language.
Since homeowner applications are made with either hose-in or hand wand
applicators, Bayer believes that label language on the consumer (Bayer
Advanced) products is adequate.

is a pre-emergent herbicide with very little post-emergent activity.
This has been seen in efficacy testing with the compound and is
confirmed by the seedling emergence and vegetative vigor data submitted
to the Agency. Pre-emergent applications of indaziflam to turf are made
using spray volumes and spray pressures that are conducive to reducing
the potential for spray drift.  In the unlikely event of spray drift
onto non-target plants, any small amount of spray drift from indaziflam
applications that reaches non-target plants will have little, if any,
adverse effects. In order for indaziflam to have any effect on
non-target seeds, it would need to get through any vegetation that is
present and be moved down into the soil to the non-germinated seeds.
However, any small amounts of indaziflam reaching the non-target plants
will already be at sub lethal dosage and will be further degraded on the
plant and the soil surface before reaching any non-germinated seed.  In
most cases, the first contact from spray drift will be existing
vegetation and not bare ground.  Therefore, the consideration of a spray
buffer for the indaziflam label should be based upon vegetative vigor
data rather than seedling emergence.

Proposed label language:

SPRAY DRIFT MANAGEMENT

Ground Application

Spray equipment and weather affect spray drift. Consider all factors
when making application decisions.  Where states have more stringent
regulations, they must be observed.  Avoiding spray drift is the
responsibility of the applicator or grower.  To reduce the potential for
drift, the application equipment must be set to apply medium to large
droplets (i.e., ASAE Standard 572) with corresponding spray pressure.
Use high flow rate nozzles to apply the highest practical spray volume.
With most nozzle types, narrower spray angles produce larger droplets.
Follow the nozzle manufacturer’s directions on pressure, orientation,
spray volume, etc., in order to minimize drift and optimize coverage and
control.

Golf Course, Residential, and Commercial Lawns

Set the boom and make applications at the lowest height that safely
permits uniform coverage of the soil and minimizes droplet evaporation.
For use on golf courses and commercial lawns, the boom height must be no
higher than 2-3 feet above the ground and nozzles tips must be set to
spray out medium to very coarse spray droplets.  Applications to
residential lawns must be made by equipment that maintains coarse spray
droplets (to reduce drift).

Ornamentals

For deciduous ornamental plants, the spray must be directed at the base
of the plant or away from the plant but as not to come in contact with
the foliage as some leaf malformations or discoloration may occur.
Dormant deciduous trees are tolerant to Indaziflam herbicide.

Conifers including Christmas trees are tolerant to foliar applications
of indaziflam.  In Christmas tree farm operations, the common practice
is to direct the spray to the base of the trees on a band or broadcast
application.

Wind

Avoid making applications when spray particles may be carried by air
currents to areas where sensitive crops and plants are growing.  Do not
spray near sensitive plants if wind is gusty, below 2 mph, or in excess
of 10 mph and moving in the direction of adjacent areas of sensitive
crops or plants.  Do not apply during temperature inversions.  Always
make applications when there is some air movement to determine the
direction and distance of possible spray drift.

Local terrain may influence wind patterns; the applicator should be
familiar with local conditions and understand how they may impact spray
drift. Boom or nozzle shielding can reduce the effects of wind or air
currents on drift. Verify that the shields do not interfere with uniform
deposition of product prior to application.

Aerial Application

When applying by air only, orient nozzles so that the spray is applied
backwards, parallel to the airstream. This practice will produce larger
droplets than other nozzle orientations. With fixed-wing aircraft, the
length of the boom should not exceed 3/4 the length of the wing.  For
helicopters, use a boom length and position that prevents the spray from
entering the rotor vortices.  Use a minimum of 5 gallons or more of
spray volume when applying by air.

Temperature Inversion

A surface temperature inversion (i.e., increasing temperature with
increasing altitude) greatly increases the potential for drift. Avoid
application when conditions are favorable to inversion. Presence of
ground fog is a good indicator of a surface temperature inversion.

Sensitive Areas

Sensitive areas are areas where the application of Indaziflam 20 WSP
Herbicide is not labeled. These include bodies of water (ponds, lakes,
rivers, streams, and ditches containing casual water), habitats for
endangered species, and non-target plants including agricultural crop
areas.  Applications of Indaziflam 20 WSP Herbicide need to be made when
wind is blowing away from sensitive areas. Maintain a practical and
appropriate untreated buffer (15 ft) between application of Indaziflam
20 WSP Herbicide and any sensitive areas.

옍

-

=

o

p

Æ

Æ

m

n

p

q

r

t

}

~

‡

˜

¤

¬

°

»

ý

/p

q

t

u

v

w

x

y

z

{

|

}

+

:

?

A

E

F

G

—

™

®

Ï

õ

h W

h

hC

hC

hC

hC

hC

h<w

h<w

hC

 hC

hC

hC

  hC

hC

 hC

hC

hC

h W

 The American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE) became the
American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE) in
2005.  ASABE standards are labeled "ASAE" rather than "ASABE" since
standards were developed before the name change.

 PAGE

Page   PAGE  1  of   NUMPAGES  8

OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND

TOXIC SUBSTANCES


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 75 (Tuesday, April 19, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23040-23043]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08942]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77605; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2016-43]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 72--
Equities Relating to Setting Interest

April 13, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on March 29, 2016, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
MKT'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 72--Equities relating to
setting interest. The proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

of the most significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE MKT Rule 72--Equities (``Rule
72'') relating to setting interest to provide that interest that
establishes a new Exchange best bid or offer (``BBO'') would be
considered setting interest even if a Limit Order designated Add
Liquidity Only (``ALO'') or sell short order during a Short Sale
Period, as defined in Rule 440B(d)--Equities, is re-priced and
displayed at the same price as such interest that became the Exchange
BBO.
Background
    Under Rule 72(a)(ii), a bid or offer, including pegging interest,
is considered the ``setting interest'' when it is established as the
only displayable bid or offer made at a particular price and is the
only displayable interest when such price is or becomes the Exchange
BBO. Setting interest is entitled to priority for allocation of
executions at that price, as provided for under Rule 72. If there is no
setting interest, all interest is allocated on parity pursuant to Rule
72(c).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Rule 72(c)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2008, when the Exchange added the current form of Rule 72,
current paragraph (a)(ii)(G) of the rule provided that if, at the time
non-pegging interest becomes the Exchange BBO, an e-Quote is pegging to
such non-pegging interest, all such interest was considered to be
entered simultaneously and, therefore, no interest was considered the
setting interest.\5\ Because the Exchange believed that permitting
pegging e-Quotes to eliminate the priority to which a non-pegging e-
Quote might otherwise be entitled could disincentivize aggressive
displayed quoting, the Exchange amended Rule 72(a)(ii)(G) to provide
that non-pegging interest that becomes the Exchange BBO will be
considered the setting interest even if an e-Quote is pegging to such
non-pegging interest.\6\ The Exchange's goal in providing priority to
setting interest was to create an incentive for participants to display
aggressive prices. The Exchange amended Rule 72(a)(ii)(G) in 2011
because it believed a participant may be reluctant to enter such
displayed interest if a non-displayed pegging e-Quote could deny
priority to such displayed interest.\7\ Because pegging interest cannot
peg to other pegging interest, the current rule specifies that non-
pegging interest would retain priority if pegging interest is pegging
to such non-pegging interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59022 (Nov. 26,
2008), 73 FR 73683 (Dec. 3, 2008) (SR-NYSEALTR-2008-10) (adopting
the New York Stock Exchange LLC's New Market Model rules, including
Rule 72). See also Rule 70--Equities (defining e-Quotes and d-
Quotes).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65884 (Dec. 5,
2011), 76 FR 77038 (Dec. 9, 2011) (SR-NYSEAmex-2011-91) (Notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness of proposed rule change amended
Rule 72).
    \7\ Because the Exchange does not publicly identify interest as
pegging interest that is eligible to re-price based on changes to
the PBBO, a participant seeking to set the Exchange BBO would be
unaware that one or more pegging interest could join it at the
Exchange BBO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule Change
    The Exchange believes there are additional circumstances when
orders that are re-priced due to an external pricing change may
similarly disincentivize aggressive displayed quoting by permitting
such re-priced interest to eliminate the setting priority to which non-
pegging interest may otherwise be entitled. For example, similar to
pegging interest,\8\ which is re-priced based on changes to the PBBO, a
Limit Order to buy (sell) designated ALO may be re-priced and re-
displayed based on changes to the best-priced sell (buy) interest at
the Exchange.\9\ Likewise, sell short orders that are re-priced to a
Permitted Price during a Short Sale Period may be re-priced and re-
displayed as the national best bid (``NBB'') moves.\10\ In both these
scenarios, the participant sending aggressive display interest would be
unaware that when it sets a new Exchange BBO, existing interest on the
Exchange may be eligible to be re-priced to that new Exchange BBO
price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Pegging interest is defined in Rule 13(f)(1)--Equities as
displayable or non-displayable interest to buy or sell at a price
set to track the PBBO as the PBBO changes and must be an e-Quote or
d-Quote.
    \9\ See Rule 13(e)(1)--Equities (defining ALO modifier) and
Supplementary Material .10 to Rule 13--Equities (defining the term
``best-priced sell (buy) interest'' to be the lowest-priced sell
(highest-priced buy) interest against which incoming buy (sell)
interest would be required to execute with and/or route to,
including Exchange displayed offers, Non-Display Reserve Orders,
Non-Display Reserve e-Quotes, odd-lot sized sell (buy) interest, and
protected offers (bids) on away markets).
    \10\ See Rule 440B(e)--Equities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the same reason as the Exchange filed to change Rule
72(a)(ii)(G) in 2011, the Exchange is proposing that Limit Orders
designated ALO or sell short orders during a Short Sale Period that are
re-priced and displayed based on changes to the best-priced sell (buy)
interest or NBB would not deny priority to displayed interest that sets
a new Exchange BBO. In addition, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule
72(a)(ii)(G) to provide that if interest becomes the Exchange BBO, it
would retain its priority (i.e., considered setting interest) even if
pegging interest, Limit Orders designated ALO, or sell short orders
during a Short Sale Period under Rule 440B(e) are re-priced and
displayed at the same price as such interest. Finally, the Exchange
proposes a non-substantive amendment to delete the cross-reference to
Rule 13--Equities--Pegging Interest.
    The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 72(a)(ii)(G) to reflect
that any interest, and not just ``non-pegging'' interest, is eligible
to be setting interest even if other interest re-prices and is
displayed at the new Exchange BBO. As provided for in Rule
13(f)(1)(B)(iii)--Equities, pegging interest may establish an Exchange
BBO, which would occur if pegging interest pegs to a PBBO that is more
aggressively priced than the Exchange's current BBO. For example, if
the PBB is higher than the Exchange BB and the Exchange receives
pegging interest to buy with a limit price equal to or higher than such
PBB price, the pegging interest would peg to the PBB and be displayed
as a new Exchange BB. If there were no other interest when the pegging
interest establishes the Exchange BBO, such pegging interest would be
entitled to priority under Rule 72(a)(ii).\11\ However, if more than
one pegging interest is pegging to the PBBO and together they establish
a new Exchange BBO, Rule 72(a)(ii) would not provide either pegging
interest with priority. Current Rule 72(a)(ii)(G), which provides that
``non-pegging interest'' is considered setting interest if it becomes
the Exchange BBO, even if pegging interest is pegging to such non-
pegging interest, is consistent with Rule 72(a)(ii) because any such
pegging interest would not be the only displayable interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Rule 72(a)(ii) explicitly includes pegging interest as
being setting interest entitled to priority for allocation of
executions, when such interest is established as the only
displayable bid or offer made at a particular price and is the only
displayable interest when such price is or becomes the Exchange BBO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule
72(a)(ii)(G) to specify additional interest that could reprice without
denying priority to interest that sets the Exchange BBO. As a result,
such non-pegging interest could be repriced to join pegging interest
that establishes the Exchange BBO and that otherwise would be entitled
to be setting interest. The Exchange therefore proposes that if a
single pegging interest establishes the BBO, it would be

entitled to priority even if a Limit Order designated ALO or short sale
order during a Short Sale Period is re-priced and displayed at that
same price. In such scenario, the pegging interest would be the
aggressively-priced interest that established the new Exchange BBO, and
other interest that re-prices at that price would be the reactive
orders. Accordingly, to address such scenario, the Exchange proposes to
change the references in Rule 72(a)(ii)(G) from ``non-pegging
interest'' to ``interest.''
    Currently, in limited circumstances, Limit Orders designated ALO
that are re-priced to a price other than its limit price to join
interest that sets a new Exchange BBO do not deny priority to the
interest that set the Exchange BBO.\12\ Because of technology changes
associated with implementing this rule change for all circumstances
when Limit Orders designated ALO and sell short orders during a Short
Sale Period reprice to join interest that sets a new Exchange BBO, the
Exchange will announce by Trader Update the full implementation of this
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Trader Update dated February 17, 2016, available here:
https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/nyse/NYSE_Trader_Update_Priority_Allocation.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\13\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\14\ in particular, because
it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change meets these requirements because
it would permit interest that sets a new Exchange BBO, including
pegging interest that establishes an Exchange BBO, to be considered the
setting interest and therefore retain priority, as provided for under
Rule 72, over other interest that reacts and re-prices based on such
interest setting a new Exchange BBO. The current rule already provides
for non-pegging interest to retain priority if pegging interest pegs to
such price, and the proposed rule change would afford similar treatment
to any interest that establishes an Exchange BBO if pegging interest,
Limit Orders designated ALO, or sell short orders during a Short Sale
Period are re-priced and displayed at the same price as such interest.
In addition, the proposed rule change is consistent with current rules
in that it would allow for pegging interest that is entitled to be
setting interest, as provided for in Rules 13(f)(1)(B)(iii)--Equities
and 72(a)(ii), to retain priority if joined at that price by a Limit
Order designated ALO or a sell short order during a Short Sale Period.
Accordingly, the proposal is designed to incentivize and reward
aggressive displayed quoting by market participants, which would remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
national market system by contributing to the market quality of the
Exchange and the national market system in general. In this regard, the
Exchange believes that this proposed change would have positive impact
on the Exchange's market, on the Exchange's members, and on investors
generally by promoting the display of aggressively-priced liquidity on
a registered exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change is not
designed to address any competitive issue but rather to promote the
additional display of aggressively-priced liquidity on the Exchange by
allowing interest that sets a new Exchange BBO to be considered setting
interest even if other orders react and re-price based on such interest
setting a new Exchange BBO.

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 Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \15\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\16\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
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, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \17\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b4(f)(6)(iii),\18\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2016-43 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2016-43. 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-NYSEMKT-2016-
43 and should be submitted on or before May 10, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-08942 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 236 (Friday, December 7, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 72957]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29595]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0974]

Special Local Regulation; Southern California Annual Marine
Events for the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulations
during the Mission Bay Parade of Lights, on the waters of Mission Bay,
San Diego, California from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. on 08 December 2012. These
special local regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of
the participants, crew, spectators, sponsor vessels of the race, and
general users of the waterway. During the enforcement period, persons
and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or
anchoring within this special local regulation unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port, or his designated representative.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 100.1101 will be enforced on December
8, 2012 from 6 p.m. until 8 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call or email Petty Officer Deborah Metzger, Waterways Management, U.S.
Coast Guard Sector San Diego, CA; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the special
local regulations in 33 CFR 100.1101 in support of the annual Mission
Bay Parade of Lights (Item 6 on Table 1 of 33 CFR 100.1101). The Coast
Guard will enforce the special local regulations in the main entrance
of the channel, in Sail Bay and in the vicinity of the southern tip of
Fiesta Island on December 08, 2012 from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.
    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 100.1101, persons and vessels are
prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within
this special local regulation unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port, or his designated representative. The Coast Guard may be assisted
by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing
this regulation.
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 100.1101 and 5
U.S.C. 552 (a). In addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the
Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with extensive advance
notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to
Mariners, state, or local agencies.

    Dated: November 15, 2012.
S.M. Mahoney,
Captain of the Port San Diego, United States Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2012-29595 Filed 12-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P