[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 30 (Wednesday, February 13, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3785-3795]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02134]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2015-N-0126]

Authorization of Emergency Use of an In Vitro Diagnostic Device
for Detection of Ebola virus; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
issuance of an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) (the Authorization)
for an in vitro diagnostic device for detection of Ebola virus (species
Zaire ebolavirus and hereafter referred to as Ebola virus) in response
to the Ebola virus outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
FDA issued this Authorization under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), as requested by Chembio Diagnostic
Systems, Inc. The Authorization contains, among other things,
conditions on the emergency use of the authorized in vitro diagnostic
device. The Authorization follows the September 22, 2006, determination
by then-Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Michael
Chertoff, that the Ebola virus presents a material threat against the
U.S. population sufficient to affect national security. On the basis of
such determination, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS)
declared on August 5, 2014, that circumstances exist justifying the
authorization of emergency use of in vitro diagnostic devices for
detection of Ebola virus, subject to the terms of any authorization
issued under the FD&C Act. The Authorization, which includes an
explanation of the reasons for issuance, is reprinted in this document.

DATES: The Authorization is effective as of November 9, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the EUA to the
Office of Counterterrorism and Emerging Threats, Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 1, rm. 4338, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist
that office in processing your request or include a fax number to which
the Authorization may be sent. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section for electronic access to the Authorization.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Mair, Office of
Counterterrorism and Emerging Threats,

Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave. Bldg. 1, rm.
4340, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER> (this is not a toll-
free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 564 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360bbb-3) as amended by the
Project BioShield Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-276) and the Pandemic and
All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act of 2013 (Pub. L. 113-5),
allows FDA to strengthen the public health protections against
biological, chemical, nuclear, and radiological agents. Among other
things, section 564 of the FD&C Act allows FDA to authorize the use of
an unapproved medical product or an unapproved use of an approved
medical product in certain situations. With this EUA authority, FDA can
help assure that medical countermeasures may be used in emergencies to
diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or
conditions caused by biological, chemical, nuclear, or radiological
agents when there are no adequate, approved, and available
alternatives.
    Section 564(b)(1) of the FD&C Act provides that, before an EUA may
be issued, the Secretary of HHS must declare that circumstances exist
justifying the authorization based on one of the following grounds: (1)
A determination by the Secretary of Homeland Security that there is a
domestic emergency, or a significant potential for a domestic
emergency, involving a heightened risk of attack with a biological,
chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents; (2) a determination
by the Secretary of Defense that there is a military emergency, or a
significant potential for a military emergency, involving a heightened
risk to U.S. military forces, including personnel operating under the
authority of title 10 or title 50, United States Code, of attack with
(i) a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents;
or (ii) an agent or agents that may cause, or are otherwise associated
with, an imminently life-threatening and specific risk to U.S. military
forces\1\; (3) a determination by the Secretary of HHS that there is a
public health emergency, or a significant potential for a public health
emergency, that affects, or has a significant potential to affect,
national security or the health and security of U.S. citizens living
abroad, and that involves a biological, chemical, radiological, or
nuclear agent or agents, or a disease or condition that may be
attributable to such agent or agents; or (4) the identification of a
material threat by the Secretary of Homeland Security under section
319F-2 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. 247d-6b)
sufficient to affect national security or the health and security of
U.S. citizens living abroad.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In the case of a determination by the Secretary of Defense,
the Secretary of HHS shall determine within 45 calendar days of such
determination, whether to make a declaration under section 564(b)(1)
of the FD&C Act, and, if appropriate, shall promptly make such a
declaration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Once the Secretary of HHS has declared that circumstances exist
justifying an authorization under section 564 of the FD&C Act, FDA may
authorize the emergency use of a drug, device, or biological product if
the Agency concludes that the statutory criteria are satisfied. Under
section 564(h)(1) of the FD&C Act, FDA is required to publish in the
Federal Register a notice of each authorization, and each termination
or revocation of an authorization, and an explanation of the reasons
for the action. Section 564 of the FD&C Act permits FDA to authorize
the introduction into interstate commerce of a drug, device, or
biological product intended for use when the Secretary of HHS has
declared that circumstances exist justifying the authorization of
emergency use. Products appropriate for emergency use may include
products and uses that are not approved, cleared, or licensed under
sections 505, 510(k), 512 or 515 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355,
360(k), 360b and 360e) or section 351 of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 262),
or conditionally approved under section 571 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C.
360ccc). FDA may issue an EUA only if, after consultation with the HHS
Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, the Director of the
National Institutes of Health, and the Director of the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (to the extent feasible and appropriate
given the applicable circumstances), FDA \2\ concludes: (1) That an
agent referred to in a declaration of emergency or threat can cause a
serious or life-threatening disease or condition; (2) that, based on
the totality of scientific evidence available to FDA, including data
from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials, if available, it is
reasonable to believe that: (A) The product may be effective in
diagnosing, treating, or preventing (i) such disease or condition or
(ii) a serious or life-threatening disease or condition caused by a
product authorized under section 564, approved or cleared under the
FD&C Act, or licensed under section 351 of the PHS Act, for diagnosing,
treating, or preventing such a disease or condition caused by such an
agent and (B) the known and potential benefits of the product, when
used to diagnose, prevent, or treat such disease or condition, outweigh
the known and potential risks of the product, taking into consideration
the material threat posed by the agent or agents identified in a
declaration under section 564(b)(1)(D) of the FD&C Act, if applicable;
(3) that there is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to
the product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating such disease or
condition; (4) in the case of a determination described in section
564(b)(1)(B)(ii), that the request for emergency use is made by the
Secretary of Defense; and (5) that such other criteria as may be
prescribed by regulation are satisfied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Secretary of HHS has delegated the authority to issue an
EUA under section 564 of the FD&C Act to the Commissioner of Food
and Drugs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No other criteria for issuance have been prescribed by regulation
under section 564(c)(4) of the FD&C Act. Because the statute is self-
executing, regulations or guidance are not required for FDA to
implement the EUA authority.

II. EUA Request for an In Vitro Diagnostic Device for Detection of the
Ebola Zaire Virus

    On September 22, 2006, then-Secretary of DHS, Michael Chertoff,
determined that the Ebola virus presents a material threat against the
U.S. population sufficient to affect national security.\3\ On August 5,
2014, under section 564(b)(1) of the FD&C Act and on the basis of such
determination, the Secretary of HHS declared that circumstances exist
justifying the authorization of emergency use of in vitro diagnostic
devices for detection of Ebola virus, subject to the terms of any
authorization issued under section 564 of the FD&C Act. Notice of the
declaration of the Secretary was published in the Federal Register on
August 12, 2014 (79 FR 47141). On November 5, 2018, Chembio Diagnostic
Systems, Inc. submitted a complete request for, and on November 9,
2018, FDA issued, an EUA for the DPP Ebola Antigen System, subject to
the terms of the Authorization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Under section 564(b)(1) of the FD&C Act, the HHS Secretary's
declaration that supports the EUA issuance must be based on one of
four determinations, including the identification by the DHS
Secretary of a material threat under section 319F-2 of the PHS Act
sufficient to affect national security or the health and security of
U.S. citizens living abroad (section 564(b)(1)(D) of the FD&C Act).

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

III. Electronic Access

    An electronic version of this document and the full text of the
Authorization are available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov.

IV. The Authorization

    Having concluded that the criteria for issuance of the
Authorization under section 564(c) of the FD&C Act are met, FDA has
authorized the emergency use of an in vitro diagnostic device for
detection of Ebola virus subject to the terms of the Authorization. The
Authorization in its entirety (not including the authorized versions of
the fact sheets and other written materials) follows and provides an
explanation of the reasons for its issuance, as required by section
564(h)(1) of the FD&C Act.
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN13FE19.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN13FE19.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN13FE19.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN13FE19.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN13FE19.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN13FE19.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN13FE19.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN13FE19.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN13FE19.010

    Dated: February 7, 2019.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Acting Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-02134 Filed 2-12-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-C


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 236 (Thursday, December 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76703-76704]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31513]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14259-000]

Jordan Whittaker; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and
Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, Protests, Recommendations,
and Terms and Conditions

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Conduit Exemption.
    b. Project No.: 14259-000.
    c. Date filed: August 25, 2011, and supplemented November 17 and
21, 2011.
    d. Applicant: Jordan Whittaker.
    e. Name of Project: Eightmile Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The proposed Eightmile Project would be located on an
irrigation pipeline in Lemhi County, Idaho. The land on which all the
project structures are located is owned by the applicant.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Nicholas E. Josten, GeoSense., 2741 St.
Charles Avenue, Idaho Falls, ID 83404, phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Robert Bell,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Status of Environmental Analysis: This application is ready for
environmental analysis at this time, and the Commission is requesting
comments, reply comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and
prescriptions.
    k. Deadline for filing responsive documents: Due to the small size
of the proposed project, as well as the resource agency consultation
letters filed with the application, the 60-day timeframe specified in
18 CFR 4.34(b) for filing all comments, motions to intervene, protests,
recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions is shortened
to 30 days from the issuance date of this notice. All reply comments
filed in response to comments submitted by any resource agency, Indian
Tribe, or person, must be filed with the Commission within 45 days from
the issuance date of this notice.
    Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper; see 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's web site under the http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. The Commission strongly
encourages electronic filings.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person in the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    l. Description of Project: The Eightmile Project would consist of:
(1) A proposed powerhouse containing one proposed generating unit with
an installed capacity of 460 kilowatts; and (2) appurtenant facilities.
The applicant estimates the project would have an average annual
generation of 1.12 gigawatt-hours.
    m. This filing is available for review and reproduction at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room, Room 2A, 888 First Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filing may also be viewed on the web at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number, P-14259, in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-(866) 208-3676 or
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy
is also available for review and reproduction at the address in item h
above.
    n. Development Application--Any qualified applicant desiring to
file a competing application must submit to the Commission, on or
before the specified deadline date for the particular application, a
competing development application, or a notice of intent to file such
an application. Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an
interested person to file the competing development application no
later than 120 days after the specified deadline date for the
particular application. Applications for preliminary permits will not
be accepted in response to this notice.
    o. Development Application--Any qualified applicant desiring to
file a competing application must submit to the Commission, on or
before the specified deadline date for the particular application, a
competing development application, or a notice of intent to file such
an application. Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an
interested person to file the competing development application no
later than 120 days after the specified deadline date for the
particular application. Applications for

preliminary permits will not be accepted in response to this notice.
    p. Protests or Motions to Intervene--Anyone may submit a protest or
a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, 385.211, and 385.214. In
determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will
consider all protests filed, but only those who file a motion to
intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party
to the proceeding. Any protests or motions to intervene must be
received on or before the specified deadline date for the particular
application.
    q. All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title
``PROTEST'', ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', ``COMMENTS'', ``REPLY COMMENTS,''
``RECOMMENDATIONS,'' ``TERMS AND CONDITIONS,'' or ``PRESCRIPTIONS;''
(2) set forth in the heading, the name of the applicant and the project
number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the
name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or
intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR
385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, recommendations, terms and
conditions or prescriptions must set forth their evidentiary basis and
otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may
obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. Any of
these documents must be filed by providing the original and seven
copies to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. An additional copy must be sent
to Director, Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance,
Office of Energy Projects, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, at the
above address. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be
served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the
particular application. A copy of all other filings in reference to
this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons
listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this
proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    Dated: December 2, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-31513 Filed 12-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 64 (Monday, April 4, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19557-19563]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06987]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-94540; File No. SR-CBOE-2022-014]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Update
Its Fees Schedule in Connection With the Exchange's Plans To List and
Trade Nanos S&P 500 Index Options

March 29, 2022.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on March 23, 2022, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'' or ``Cboe
Options'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe Options'') proposes
to update its Fees Schedule in connection with the Exchange's plans to
list and trade Nanos S&P 500 (``NANOS'') Index options. The text of the
proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule in connection with
its plans to list and trade Nanos options.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange initially filed the proposed fee changes on
March 14, 2022 (SR-CBOE-2022-010). On March 23, 2022, the Exchange
withdrew that filing and submitted this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NANOS options are options on the Mini-S&P 500 (``XSP'') Index (the
value of which is 1/10th the value of the S&P 500 (``SPX'') Index) that
have an index multiplier of one, and thus a smaller notional value. The
Exchange believes that investors will benefit from the availability of
NANOS options by making options overlying the larger-valued SPX Index
more readily available as an investing tool and at more affordable
prices for investors.\4\ The Exchange also believes that the investor-
base for NANOS options will be a similar investor-base for XSP options,
as well as Mini-Russell 2000 (``MRUT'') options, which are also
proprietary, reduced-value (1/10th) options on a broad-based index. XSP
and MRUT options are also designed to provide low-cost means to hedge
investors' portfolios in connection with larger-value broad-based
indexes (i.e., the RUT and SPX Index) with a smaller outlay of capital.
The Exchange now proposes to amend its Fees Schedule to accommodate the
planned listing and trading of NANOS options. The Exchange notes that
because NANOS, MRUT and XSP are all options on mini-indexes and are
intended for a similar investor-base, the majority of the proposed
changes amend the Fees Schedule in connection with trading in NANOS
options in a manner that is generally consistent with the way in which
existing transactions fees and programs currently apply to trading in
XSP and MRUT options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 90853 (January 5,
2021), 86 FR 2006 (January 11, 2021) (SR-CBOE-2020-117); and 91528
(April 9. 2021), 86 FR 19933 (April 15, 2021) (SR-CBOE-2020-117).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Standard Transaction Rates and Surcharges
    First, the Exchange proposes to adopt certain standard transaction
fees in connection with NANOS options. Specifically, the proposed rule
change adopts certain fees for NANOS options in the Rate Table for All
Products Excluding Underlying Symbol A,\5\ as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Underlying Symbol List A includes OEX, XEO, RUT, RLG, RLV,
RUI, UKXM, SPX (includes SPXW), SPESG and VIX. See Cboe Options Fees
Schedule, Footnote 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Adopts fee code NO, appended to all Customer (capacity
``C'') orders in NANOS options and assesses no fee;
     Adopts fee code NN, appended to all non-Customer, non-
Market-Maker (i.e., Clearing Trading Permit Holders (capacity ``F''),
Non-Clearing Trading Permit Holder Affiliates (capacity ``L''), Broker-
Dealers (capacity ``B''), Joint Back-Offices (capacity ``J''), Non-
Trading Permit Holder Market-Makers (capacity ``N''), and Professionals
(capacity ``U'')) orders in NANOS options and assesses a fee of $0.01
per contract; and
     Adopts fee code NM, which is appended to all Market-Maker
(capacity ``M'') orders in NANOS options and assesses a fee of $0.01
per contract.
    The Exchange notes that the proposed standard transaction fees in
connection with NANOS options are slightly less than the fees assessed
for XSP options. As described above, both NANOS options and XSP options
overly the Mini-S&P 500 Index; however, NANOS options are lower-priced
given their multiplier of one.
    The Exchange proposes to exclude NANOS orders from the AIM Contra
Fee by amending footnote 18 (appended to the AIM Contra Fee) to provide
that the AIM Contra Execution Fee applies to all orders (excluding
facilitation orders, per footnote 11) in all products, except MRUT,
NANOS, XSP, Sector Indexes and Underlying Symbol List A, executed in
the Automated Improvement Mechanism (``AIM''), Solicitation Auction
Mechanism (``SAM''), FLEX AIM and FLEX SAM auctions, that were
initially entered as the contra party to an Agency/Primary Order.
Applicable standard transaction fees will apply to AIM, SAM, FLEX AIM
and FLEX SAM executions in MRUT, NANOS, XSP, Sector Indexes and
Underlying Symbol List A. The Exchange also proposes to exclude Market-
Maker and non-Customer, non-Market-Maker complex orders in NANOS from
the Complex Surcharge by amending footnote 35 (appended to the Complex
Surcharge) to provide that the

Complex Surcharge applies per contract per side surcharge for
noncustomer complex order executions that remove liquidity from the COB
and auction responses in the Complex Order Auction (``COA'') and AIM in
all classes except MRUT, NANOS, XSP, Sector Indexes and Underlying
Symbol List A. The proposed exclusion from the AIM Contra Fee (and,
instead, the application of the proposed standard transaction fees) and
Complex Surcharge in connection with transactions in NANOS will provide
consistency with the fees and exclusions currently applicable to
transactions in similar reduced-value XSP and MRUT options.
Fees Programs
    The proposed rule change excludes NANOS volume from the Liquidity
Provider Sliding Scale, which offers credits on Market-Maker orders
where a Market-Maker achieves certain volume thresholds based on total
national Market-Maker volume in all underlying symbols, excluding
Underlying Symbol List A, MRUT and XSP, during the calendar month.
Specifically, the proposed rule change updates the Liquidity Provider
Sliding Scale table to provide that volume thresholds are based on
total national Market-Maker volume in all underlying symbols excluding
Underlying Symbol List A, MRUT, NANOS and XSP during the calendar
month, and that it applies in all underlying symbols excluding
Underlying Symbol List A, MRUT, NANOS and XSP. The proposed rule change
also updates footnote 10 (appended to the Liquidity Provider Sliding
Scale) to provide that the Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale applies to
Liquidity Provider (Cboe Options Market-Maker, DPM and LMM) transaction
fees in all products except (1) Underlying Symbol List A (34), MRUT,
NANOS and XSP, and (2) volume executed in open outcry.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The proposed rule change also updates footnote 6, which is
appended to the Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale Program, the VIP,
and the ORS/CORS Programs to reflect the exclusion of MRUT options
from these programs in the same manner as the options classes
currently excluded from these programs. Specifically, amended
footnote 6 provides that in the event of a Cboe Options System
outage or other interruption of electronic trading on Cboe Options
that lasts longer than 60 minutes, the Exchange will adjust the
national volume in all underlying symbols excluding Underlying
Symbol List A, Sector Indexes, MRUT, MXEA, MXEF, NANOS, DJX and XSP
for the entire trading day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change updates the Volume Incentive Program
(``VIP'') table to exclude NANOS volume from the VIP, which currently
offers a per contract credit for certain percentage threshold levels of
monthly Customer volume in all underlying symbols, excluding Underlying
Symbol List A, Sector Indexes, DJX, MRUT, MXEA, MXEF and XSP. The
proposed rule change also amends footnote 36 (appended to the VIP
table) to reflect the proposed exclusion of NANOS from the VIP by
providing (in relevant part) that: The Exchange shall credit each
Trading Permit Holder the per contract amount resulting from each
public customer (``C'' capacity code) order transmitted by that Trading
Permit Holder which is executed electronically on the Exchange in all
underlying symbols excluding Underlying Symbol List A, Sector Indexes,
DJX, MRUT, MXEA, MXEF, NANOS, XSP, QCC trades, public customer to
public customer electronic complex order executions, and executions
related to contracts that are routed to one or more exchanges in
connection with the Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Market
Plan referenced in Rule 5.67, provided the Trading Permit Holder meets
certain percentage thresholds in a month as described in the Volume
Incentive Program (VIP) table; the percentage thresholds are calculated
based on the percentage of national customer volume in all underlying
symbols excluding Underlying Symbol List A, Sector Indexes, MRUT, MXEA,
MXEF, NANOS, DJX and XSP entered and executed over the course of the
month; and in the event of a Cboe Options System outage or other
interruption of electronic trading on Cboe Options, the Exchange will
adjust the national customer volume in all underlying symbols excluding
Underlying Symbol List A, Sector Indexes, MRUT, MXEA, MXEF, NANOS, DJX
and XSP for the entire trading day.
    The proposed rule change excludes NANOS from the list of products
eligible to receive Break-Up Credits in orders executed in AIM, SAM,
FLEX AIM, and FLEX SAM, by amending the Break-Up Credits table to
exclude NANOS along with the products currently excluded--Underlying
Symbol List A, Sector Indexes, DJX, MRUT, MXEA, MXEF and XSP.
    The Exchange also proposes to exclude Firm (i.e., Clearing Trading
Permit Holders (capacity ``F'') and Non-Clearing Trading Permit Holder
Affiliates (capacity ``L'')) transactions in NANOS from the Clearing
TPH Fee Cap. Specifically, it amends footnote 22 (appended to the
Clearing TPH Fee Cap table) to provide that all non-facilitation
business executed in AIM or open outcry, or as a QCC or FLEX
transaction, transaction fees for Clearing TPH Proprietary and/or their
Non-TPH Affiliates in all products except MRUT, NANOS, XSP, Sector
Indexes and Underlying Symbol List A (which includes SPX), in the
aggregate, are capped at $65,000 per month per Clearing TPH. It
additionally updates footnote 11 (which is also appended to the
Clearing TPH Fee Cap table) to provide that the Clearing TPH Fee Cap in
all products except MRUT, NANOS, XSP, Underlying Symbol List A and
Sector Indexes (the ``Fee Cap''), among other programs, apply to (i)
Clearing TPH proprietary orders (``F'' capacity code), and (ii) orders
of Non-TPH Affiliates of a Clearing TPH.
    The Exchange proposes to exclude NANOS from eligibility for the
Order Router Subsidy (``ORS'') and Complex Order Router Subsidy
(``CORS'') Programs, in which Participating TPHs or Participating Non-
Cboe TPHs may receive a payment from the Exchange for every executed
contract routed to the Exchange through their system in certain
classes. Specifically, the proposed rule change updates the ORS/CORS
Program tables to provide that ORS/CORS participants whose total
aggregate non-customer ORS and CORS volume is greater than 0.25% of the
total national volume (excluding volume in options classes included in
Underlying Symbol List A, Sector Indexes, DJX, MRUT, MXEA, MXEF, NANOS
or XSP) will receive an additional payment for all executed contracts
exceeding that threshold during a calendar month, and updates footnote
30 (appended to the ORS/CORS Program tables) to accordingly provide
that Cboe Options does not make payments under the program with respect
to executed contracts in options classes included in Underlying Symbols
List A, Sector Indexes, DJX, MRUT, MXEA, MXEF, NANOS or XSP.
    The Exchange proposes to exclude NANOS from the Floor Broker
Sliding Scale Rebate Program. The Floor Broker Sliding Scale Rebate
Program offers rebates for Firm Facilitated and non-Firm Facilitated
orders that correspond to certain volume tiers and is designed to
incentivize order flow in multiply-listed options to the Exchange's
trading floor. As such, the Floor Broker Sliding Scale Rebate Program
excludes options that are not multiply-listed, which would include
NANOS. As proposed, the Floor Broker Sliding Scale Rebate Program
applies to all products except for Underlying Symbol List A, Sector
Indexes, DJX, MRUT, MXEA, MXEF, NANOS and XSP.
    The Exchange notes that excluding NANOS transactions from the
above-described programs is consistent with the manner in which XSP and
MRUT

transactions are also excluded each of these programs today.
    Additionally, the Exchange proposes to include NANOS in the
Marketing Fee Program. The Exchange notes that XSP is also currently
included in the Marketing Fee Program. The Marketing Fee is assessed on
transactions of Market-Makers, resulting from customer orders at the
per contract rate provided above on all classes of equity options,
options on ETFs, options on ETNs and index options, except that the
marketing fee shall not apply to Sector Indexes, DJX, MRUT, MXEA, MXEF
or Underlying Symbol List A. A Designated Primary Market-Maker
(``DPM''), a ``Preferred Market[hyphen]Maker (``PMM''), or a Lead
Market-Maker (``LMM'') (collectively ``Preferenced
Market[hyphen]Maker'') are given access to the marketing fee funds
generated from a Preferenced order. The funds collected via this
Marketing Fee are then put into pools controlled by the Preferenced
Market-Maker. The Preferenced Market-Maker controlling a certain pool
of funds can then determine the order flow provider(s) to which the
funds should be directed in order to encourage such order flow
provider(s) to send orders to the Exchange. The Exchange proposes to
add NANOS to the Marketing Fee table to be assessed a $0.09 collection
per contract, which is less than the current collection fee of $0.25
for XSP. The Exchange notes that, like XSP, NANOS will not be eligible
for the SCORe Program--a discount program for Retail, Non-FLEX Customer
(``C'' origin code) volume in SPX (including SPXW), VIX, RUT, MXEA and
MXEF (``Qualifying Classes'') available to any TPH Originating Clearing
Firm or non-TPH Originating Clearing Firm that sign up for the
program--but instead eligible for the Marketing Fee Program. Because
not all Firms are registered for the SCORe Program, the Exchange
believes that providing NANOS, like XSP, as eligible for the Marketing
Fee Program (which automatically applies to all classes unless
otherwise explicitly excluded) as opposed to the SCORe Program
potentially generates more customer order flow in NANOS by allowing
Preferenced Market-Makers to amass a pool of funds from NANOS
transactions with which to use to incentivize any customer order flow
provider to submit Customer orders in NANOS to the Exchange.
NANOS LMM Program
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to adopt a financial program in
connection with NANOS options for LMMs appointed to the program. As
proposed, the NANOS LMM Incentive Program provides that if the LMM
appointed to the NANOS LMM Incentive Program provides continuous
electronic quotes during Regular Trading Hours that meet or exceed the
proposed heightened quoting standards (below) in at least 99% of the
series 90% of the time in a given month, the LMM will receive a payment
for that month in the amount of $15,000 (or pro-rated amount if an
appointment begins after the first trading day of the month or ends
prior to the last trading day of the month).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For the month of March 2022, the Exchange proposes to apply
the heightened quoting standard from March 14 to March 31, in light
of the mid-month launch of NANOS options and proposal to adopt the
heighted quoting standards. The appointed LMM will be eligible for
the full financial payment for March 2022 if the LMM meets the
heightened quoting standard from March 14 to March 31. The Exchange
notes that other LMM Incentive Programs in the Fees Schedule have
previously adopted the same mid-month application upon adopting or
modifying the program mid-month. See e.g., Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 87590 (November 22, 2019), 84 FR 65859 (November 29,
2019) (SR-CBOE-2019-109).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Premium level                    Width           Size
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      VIX Value at Prior Close <20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$0.00-$2.00.............................           $0.28            1000
$2.01-$5.00.............................            0.32            1000
$5.01-$15.00............................            0.35             500
Greater than $15.00.....................            0.50             300
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   VIX Value at Prior Close from 20-30
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$0.00-$2.00.............................            0.30            1000
$2.01-$5.00.............................            0.35             500
$5.01-$15.00............................            0.40             500
Greater than $15.00.....................            0.55             300
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               VIX Value at Prior Close from 30
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$0.00-$2.00.............................            0.35             500
$2.01-$5.00.............................            0.40             500
$5.01-$15.00............................            0.45             300
Greater than $15.00.....................            0.60             200
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes the different sets of quoting standards are
applicable depending on the VIX Index value at the (i.e., at the close
of the preceding RTH session). Meeting or exceeding the heightened
quoting standards in NANOS, as proposed, to receive the proposed
compensation payment is optional for an LMM appointed to the Program.
The Exchange may consider other exceptions to this quoting standard
based on demonstrated legal or regulatory requirements or other
mitigating circumstances. In calculating whether an LMM met the
heightened quoting standard each month, the Exchange will exclude from
the calculation in that month the business day in which the LMM missed
meeting or exceeding the heightened quoting standard in the highest
number of series. The heightened quoting requirements offered by the
NANOS LMM Incentive Program are designed to incentivize LMMs appointed
to the Program to provide significant liquidity in NANOS options during
the trading day upon their listing and trading on the Exchange, which,
in turn, would provide greater trading opportunities,

added market transparency and enhanced price discovery for all market
participants in NANOS.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\8\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\9\ in particular, as it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its Members and issuers and other persons
using its facilities. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \10\
requirements that the rules of an exchange be designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest, and, particularly, is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Standard Transaction Rates and Surcharges
    The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to the Fees
Schedule in connection with standard transaction rates and surcharges
for NANOS transactions are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory. Specifically, the Exchange believes that it is
reasonable to assess fees for Customer, Market-Maker, and non-Market-
Maker, non-Customer orders in NANOS that are slightly less than those
fees for transactions in XSP options (both of which overly the Mini-S&P
500 Index) because NANOS options have a smaller notional value given
their multiplier of one. Moreover, the Exchange believes it is
reasonable to exclude NANOS from the Complex Surcharge and AIM Contra
Fee (and to apply the standard transaction fees for NANOS orders in
lieu of the AIM Contra Fee) because these proposed surcharge exclusions
will provide consistency between the fees assessed for orders in MRUT
and XSP, which, like NANOS, are reduced-value index options designed to
offer investors lower cost options to obtain the potential benefits of
options on a broad-based index option and intended for a similar
investor-base. Therefore, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to
amend the Fees Schedule in a manner that generally situates fees
assessed for orders in NANOS options with those assessed for orders in
XSP and MRUT options.
    The Exchange believes the proposed standard transaction rates and
exclusion from certain surcharges are equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because they will apply automatically and uniformly to
all capacities as applicable (i.e., Customer, Market-Maker and non-
Market-Maker, non-Customer), in NANOS options. The Exchange also notes
that, regarding the proposed standard transaction rate of no charge for
Customer transactions in NANOS options, there is a history in the
options markets of providing preferential treatment to customers and
customer order flow attracts additional liquidity to the Exchange,
providing market participants with more trading opportunities and
signaling an increase in Market-Maker activity, which facilitates
tighter spreads. This may cause an additional corresponding increase in
order flow from other market participants, contributing overall towards
a robust and well-balanced market ecosystem, particularly in a newly
listed and traded product.
Fees Programs
    The Exchange believes that the proposed updates to the Fees
Schedule in connection with the application of certain fees programs to
transactions in NANOS options are reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory. Particularly, the Exchange believes it is
reasonable to exclude transactions in NANOS options from the Liquidity
Provider Sliding Scale, the VIP, the Break-Up Credits table, the
Clearing TPH Fee cap, the ORS/CORS, and the Floor Broker Sliding Scale
Rebate programs in the same manner in which transactions in XSP and
MRUT options are currently excluded from the same programs today as the
Exchange believes it is appropriate to update these fees programs in a
manner that generally situates transactions in NANOS with transactions
in XSP and MRUT, as all three index options are designed to offer
investors lower cost options to obtain the potential benefits of
options on a broad-based index options and are intended for a similar
investor base. The Exchange believes that excluding NANOS transactions
from certain fees programs is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because the programs will equally not apply to, or exclude in the same
manner, all market participants' orders in NANOS options. The Exchange
notes that the proposed rule change does not alter any of the existing
program rates or volume calculations, but instead, merely proposes not
to include transactions in NANOS in those programs and volume
calculations in the same way that transactions in XSP and MRUT options
are not currently included.
    Additionally, the Exchange believes that including NANOS in the
Marketing Fee Program is reasonably designed to attract additional
NANOS order flow to the Exchange, which would increase liquidity and
benefit all market participants. More specifically, the Exchange
believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to
incentivize customer order flow providers to submit customer order flow
in NANOS via the Marketing Fee because customer order flow benefits all
market participants as it attracts liquidity to the Exchange by
providing more trading opportunities. This, in turn, attracts Market-
Makers, signaling additional corresponding increase in order flow from
other market participants, and, as a result, contributing towards a
robust, well-balanced market ecosystem to the benefit of investors. The
Exchange believes that assessing a collection fee of $0.09 per contract
for NANOS orders in the Marketing Fee Program is reasonable because it
is less than the collection fee assessed for other classes, including
XSP, which have a higher notional value than NANOS. The Exchange
additionally believes that providing NANOS, like XSP, as eligible for
the Marketing Fee Program (which automatically applies) as opposed to
the SCORe Program potentially generates more customer order flow in
NANOS, which ultimately benefits investors, by providing an incentive
to all customer order flow providers to submit customer orders in NANOS
to the Exchange. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to include
NANOs in the Marketing Fee Program along with XSP, as both NANOS and
XSP options are options on the same underlying index--the Mini-S&P 500
Index. The Exchange lastly believes the proposed marketing fee for
NANOS is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will
apply equally to all applicable transactions in NANOS, in that all
Market-Maker orders in NANOS resulting from customer orders will be
uniformly assessed under, and otherwise a part of, the Marketing Fee
Program.

NANOS LMM Program
    The Exchange believes the proposed NANOS LMM Incentive Program is
reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. Particularly,
the proposed NANOS LMM Incentive Program is a reasonable financial
incentive program because the proposed heightened quoting standards and
rebate amount for meeting the heightened quoting standards in NANOS
series are reasonably designed to incentivize an LMM appointed to the
Program to meet the proposed heightened quoting standards during RTH
for NANOS, thereby providing liquid and active markets, which
facilitates tighter spreads, increased trading opportunities, and
overall enhanced market quality to the benefit of all market
participants, particularly in a newly listed and traded product on the
Exchange during the trading day.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed heightened quoting
standards are reasonable because they are similar to the detail and
format (VIX Index value indicator, where applicable, corresponding
premiums, quote widths, and sizes) of the quoting standards currently
in place for LMM Incentive Programs for other proprietary Exchange
products.\11\ The Exchange also believes that proposed heightened
quoting requirements are reasonably tailored to reflect market
characteristics of NANOS. The Exchange believes the generally smaller
premium levels and widths appropriately reflect the lower-priced NANOS
product. The Exchange also notes that the larger quote size
requirements reflect NANOS smaller multiplier, but are comparatively
``smaller'' in notional size than the quote size requirements of LMM
Incentive Programs for other proprietary Exchange products. For
example, a NANOS order for a size of 1000 only equates to an SPX order
for a size of one, as NANOS options are 1/1000 the size of SPX options
(XSP options are 1/10th the size of SPX options and, given a multiplier
of one, NANOS are 1/100th the size of XSP options). The Exchange
believes the proposed finer premiums, smaller quote widths and smaller
sizes (comparatively) in the proposed heightened quoting standards for
the NANOS LMM Incentive Program reasonably reflect what the Exchanges
believes will be typical market characteristics in NANOS options, given
their multiplier of one, their smaller notional value and general
anticipated retail base, thus smaller, retail-sized orders. The
Exchange also notes that the proposed heightened quoting requirements
do not provide for various expiration categories which the Exchange
believes is reasonable because it will make the proposed heightened
quoting requirements relatively easier for appointed LMMs to meet at
the onset of the listing and trading of NANOS, thereby incentivizing
additional liquidity in a new product. The Exchange notes it may update
the heightened quoting requirements in the future to accommodate expiry
categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Cboe Options Fees Schedule, ``MRUT LMM Incentive
Program'', ``MSCI LMM Incentive Program'', ``GTH1 VIX/VIXW LMM
Incentive Program'', ``GTH2 VIX/VIXW LMM Incentive Program'', ``GTH1
SPX/SPXW LMM Incentive Program'', ``GTH2 SPX/SPXW LMM Incentive
Program'', and ``RTH SPESG LMM Incentive Program''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further believes the proposed heighten quoting
requirements are also reasonably tailored to reflect then-current
market conditions and market characteristics, as the proposed quoting
standards that are applicable depend on the VIX Index value at the
prior market close (i.e., at the close of the preceding RTH session).
Spreads in SPX-based options generally widen when the market
experiences higher volatility (i.e., the VIX Index level is higher in
value). Therefore, to encourage LMMs to meet the proposed quoting
standards regardless of market volatility, the proposed rule change
adopts generally wider widths and smaller quote sizes where the market
may be experiencing higher volatility (i.e., when the value of the VIX
Index in the proposed VIX value categories becomes relatively higher
compared to the closing index value from the preceding trading
session). The Exchange notes that the quoting standards currently in
place under the GTH1 and GTH2 VIX/VIXW and SPX/SPXW LMM Incentive
Programs are tailored in a similar manner. Moreover, the Exchange
believes that the proposed $15,000 monthly rebate for an appointed LMM
that meets the proposed heightened quoting standards in NANOS in a
month is reasonable and equitable as it equal or comparable to the
rebates offered for other LMM Incentive Programs for other proprietary
products.\12\ For example, the GTH1 and GTH2 LMM Incentive Programs for
SPX/SPXW and for VIX/VIXW offer $15,000 per month for SPX and VIXW,
respectively, in which an appointed LMM meets the given quoting
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to offer the financial incentive to LMMs appointed to
the NANOS LMM Incentive Program, because it will benefit all market
participants trading in NANOS during RTH by encouraging the appointed
LMMs to satisfy the heightened quoting standards, which incentivizes
continuous increased liquidity and thereby may provide more trading
opportunities and tighter spreads. Indeed, the Exchange notes that
these LMMs serve a crucial role in providing quotes and the opportunity
for market participants to trade NANOS, which can lead to increased
volume, providing for robust markets. The Exchange ultimately proposes
to offer the NANOS LMM Incentive Program to sufficiently incentivize
the appointed LMMs to provide key liquidity and active markets in the
newly listed and traded NANOS options during the trading day to
encourage liquidity, thereby protecting investors and the public
interest. The Exchange also notes that an LMM appointed to the Program
may undertake added costs each month to satisfy that heightened quoting
standards (e.g., having to purchase additional logical connectivity).
The Exchange believes the proposed program is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because similar programs currently exist for
LMMs appointed to programs in other proprietary products,\13\ and the
proposed program will equally apply to any TPH that is appointed as an
LMM to the NANOS LMM Incentive Program. Additionally, if an appointed
LMM does not satisfy the heightened quoting standard in NANOS for any
given month, then it simply will not receive the offered payment for
that month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See supra note 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes the proposed amendments to its Fee Schedule
will not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange
does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden
on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed NANOS
transaction fees for the separate types of market participants will be
assessed automatically and uniformly to all such market participants,
i.e., all qualifying Customer orders in NANOS will be assessed the same
amount, all Market-Maker orders in NANOS will be assessed the same
amount, and all non-Customer, non-Market-Maker orders in NANOS will be
assessed the same

amount. The Exchange again notes that there is a history in the options
markets of providing preferential treatment to customers and, as
described above, customer order flow tends to attract key liquidity
from other market participants. Further, the proposed rule change will
uniformly exclude all transactions in NANOS from certain programs and
fees/surcharges (i.e., the AIM Contra Fee and Complex Surcharge), as it
currently does for XSP and MRUT options, and as it does for many of the
Exchange's other proprietary products. In addition to this, the
proposed rule change to include NANOS in the Marketing Fee Program will
apply equally to all applicable transactions in NANOS, in that, all
Market-Maker orders in NANOS resulting from customer orders will be
uniformly assessed under, and otherwise a part of, the Marketing Fee
Program (as almost all other classes on the Exchange are). The Exchange
again notes that XSP, which is also on option on the Mini-SPX Index, is
currently included in the Marketing Fee Program. Overall, the proposed
rule change is designed to increase incentive for customer order flow
providers to submit customer order flow in a newly listed and traded
product, which, as indicated above, contributes to a more robust market
ecosystem to the benefit of all market participants.
    The Exchange also does not believe that the proposed LMM Incentive
Program for NANOS options would impose any burden on intramarket
competition because it applies to all LMMs appointed to the NANOS LMM
Incentive Program in a uniform manner, in the same way similar programs
apply to appointed LMMs in other proprietary products today. To the
extent appointed LMMs receive a benefit that other market participants
do not, these LMMs in their role as Market-Makers on the Exchange have
different obligations and are held to different standards. For example,
Market-Makers play a crucial role in providing active and liquid
markets in their appointed products, especially in the newly developing
NANOS market, thereby providing a robust market which benefits all
market participants. Such Market-Makers also have obligations and
regulatory requirements that other participants do not have. The
Exchange also notes that an LMM appointed to an incentive program may
undertake added costs each month to satisfy that heightened quoting
standards (e.g., having to purchase additional logical connectivity).
The Exchange also notes that the NANOS LMM Incentive Program, like the
other LMM Incentive Programs, is designed to attract additional order
flow to the Exchange, wherein greater liquidity benefits all market
participants by providing more trading opportunities, tighter spreads,
and added market transparency and price discovery, and signals to other
market participants to direct their order flow to those markets,
thereby contributing to robust levels of liquidity.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the
proposed rule changes apply only to a product exclusively listed on the
Exchange. Additionally, the Exchange notes it operates in a highly
competitive market. In addition to Cboe Options, TPHs have numerous
alternative venues that they may participate on and director their
order flow, including 15 other options exchanges, as well as off-
exchange venues, where competitive products are available for trading.
Based on publicly available information, no single options exchange has
more than 16% of the market share of executed volume of options
trades.\14\ Therefore, no exchange possesses significant pricing power
in the execution of option order flow. Moreover, the Commission has
repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory
intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the
securities markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission
highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and
SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the
market system ``has been remarkably successful in promoting market
competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors
and listed companies.'' \15\ The fact that this market is competitive
has also long been recognized by the courts. In NetCoalition v.
Securities and Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit stated as follows:
``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . .
As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and
sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-
routing agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders
for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share
percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly,
regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker
dealers'. . . .''.\16\ Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe its
proposed changes to the incentive programs impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Cboe Global Markets, U.S. Options Market Volume Summary
by Month (March 14, 2022), available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/options/market_share/.
    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
    \16\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 written comments from members or other interested parties.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \17\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \18\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2022-014 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-CBOE-2022-014. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2022-014, and should be submitted
on or before April 25, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-06987 Filed 4-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 232 (Monday, December 3, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71568-71572]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29107]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0237; FRL-9757-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Tennessee;
Interstate Transport Infrastructure Requirements (Prevention of
Significant Deterioration) for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Supplemental proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to conditionally approve the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submission, submitted by the State of
Tennessee through the Tennessee Department of Environment and
Conservation (TDEC). This proposal pertains to the Clean Air Act (CAA)
requirements pertaining to prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD) (concerning the PM2.5 increments) for the for the 2008
8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)
infrastructure SIPs. The CAA requires that each state adopt and submit
a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each
NAAQS promulgated by EPA, which is commonly referred to as an
``infrastructure'' SIP. TDEC certified that the Tennessee SIP contains
provisions that ensure the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS are implemented,
enforced, and maintained in Tennessee (hereafter referred to as
``infrastructure submission''). EPA is proposing to supplement the
earlier proposed approval related to sections related to prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) (concerning the PM2.5
increments) by proposing conditional approval of the State's
infrastructure submission based upon a October 4, 2012, commitment by
the State to submit a SIP revision to address current deficiencies in
these sections. EPA is proposing to conditionally approve these
sections related to PSD because the current Tennessee SIP does not
include provisions to fully comply with the requirements of these
sections. All of the other required infrastructure elements for the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS are being addressed in a separate rulemaking.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before December 24,
2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2012-0237, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0237,'' Regulatory Development Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2012-0237. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at

www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or
email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding
federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nacosta C. Ward, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number
is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Ms. Ward can be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Table of Contents

I. Background
II. What elements are required under sections 110(a)(1) and (2)?
III. Scope of Infrastructure SIPs
IV. What is EPA's analysis of how tennessee addressed sections
110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i), and 110(a)(2)(J)
``infrastructure'' provisions?
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On March 27, 2008, EPA promulgated a new NAAQS for ozone based on
8-hour average concentrations. EPA revised the level of the 8-hour
standard to 0.075 parts per million (ppm). See 77 FR 16436. Pursuant to
section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to submit SIPs
meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years after
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) requires
states to address basic SIP requirements, including emissions
inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS. States were required to submit such SIPs for
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS to EPA no later than March 2011.
    Midwest Environmental Defense and Sierra Club submitted a complaint
on November 20, 2011, related to EPA's failure to issue findings of
failure to submit related to the infrastructure requirements for the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On December 13, 2011, and March 6, 2012,
Midwest Environmental Defense and Sierra Club submitted amended
complaints for failure to promulgate prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) regulations within two years and failure to approve
or disapprove SIP submittals, and to remove claims regarding states
that have submitted SIPs for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, respectively.
Tennessee was among the states named in the November 2011 complaint,
and the December 2011 and March 2012 amended complaints. Specifically,
the plaintiffs claim that EPA has failed to perform its mandatory duty
by not approving in full, disapproving in full, or approving in part
and disapproving in part Tennessee's 2008 ozone infrastructure SIP
addressing sections 110(a)(2)(A)-(H) and (J)-(M) by no later than April
19, 2011.
    Tennessee's infrastructure submission was received by EPA on
October 19, 2009, for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The submission was
determined to be complete on April 19, 2010. On July 3, 2012, Tennessee
submitted a letter to EPA withdrawing the portion of its October 19,
2009, SIP submission that purported to address the requirements related
to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport. On August 22, 2012,
EPA proposed approval of Tennessee's 2008 8-hour ozone infrastructure
SIP, with the exception of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).\1\ See 77 FR
50651. The proposed approval included sections 110(a)(2)(C),
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and 110(a)(2)(J); however, it was subsequently
found that Tennessee's SIP did not contain all of the requisite
provisions in its SIP necessary to fully approve these elements. The
deficient portion of Tennessee's SIP pertains to PM2.5 PSD
increments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS
will be addressed through a separate rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 4, 2012, Tennessee submitted a request for conditional
approval of sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to
the PSD requirements (hereafter referred to as prong 3 of
110(a)(2)(D)(i)),\2\ and 110(a)(2)(J) to address the SIP deficiencies
concerning PM2.5 PSD increments for these elements. Today's
action proposes conditional approval for these sections based upon a
commitment by Tennessee to submit the necessary SIP revisions to
address PM2.5 PSD increments for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four requirements referred
to as prongs 1 through 4. Prongs 1 and 2 are provided at section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I); prongs 3 and 4 are provided at section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What elements are required under sections 110(a)(1) and (2)?

    Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs to provide
for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a new or
revised NAAQS within three years following the promulgation of such
NAAQS, or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section
110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to
EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submission may
vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. In particular, the
data and analytical tools available at the time the state develops and
submits the SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affects the content of the
submission. The contents of such SIP

submissions may also vary depending upon what provisions the state's
existing SIP already contains. In the case of the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, states typically have met the basic program elements required in
section 110(a)(2) through earlier SIP submissions in connection with
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and
timing requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements
that states must meet for ``infrastructure'' SIP requirements related
to a newly established or revised NAAQS. As mentioned above, these
requirements include SIP infrastructure elements such as modeling,
monitoring, and emissions inventories that are designed to assure
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The requirements that are the
subject of this proposed rulemaking are listed below.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not
governed by the three year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1)
because SIPs incorporating necessary local nonattainment area
controls are not due within three years after promulgation of a new
or revised NAAQS, but rather due at the time the nonattainment area
plan requirements are due pursuant to section 172. These
requirements are: (1) Submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(C)
to the extent that subsection refers to a permit program as required
in part D Title I of the CAA; and (2) submissions required by
section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertain to the nonattainment planning
requirements of part D, Title I of the CAA. Today's proposed
rulemaking does not address infrastructure elements related to
section 110(a)(2)(I) or the nonattainment planning requirements of
110(a)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.
     110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.
     110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control
measures.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This rulemaking only addresses requirements for this element
as they relate to attainment areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Today's proposed rulemaking does not address element
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (Interstate Transport) for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. Interstate transport requirements were formerly addressed by
Tennessee consistent with the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On December 23, 2008, CAIR was remanded
by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, without vacatur, back to EPA.
See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Prior to
this remand, EPA took final action to approve Tennessee's SIP
revision, which was submitted to comply with CAIR. See 72 FR 46388
(August 20, 2007). In so doing, Tennessee's CAIR SIP revision
addressed the interstate transport provisions in section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In response to
the remand of CAIR, EPA has promulgated a new rule to address
interstate transport. See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) (the
Transport Rule). That rule was recently vacated by the D.C. Circuit
Court of Appeals. As a result of both the remand of CAIR and vacatur
of the Transport Rule, Tennessee has not yet made a submission to
address interstate transport. EPA's action on element
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS will be addressed
in a separate action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources.
     110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring system.
     110(a)(2)(G): Emergency power.
     110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions.
     110(a)(2)(I): Areas designated nonattainment and meet the
applicable requirements of part D.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ This requirement was inadvertently omitted from EPA's
October 2, 2007, memorandum entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements
Required Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone
and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' but
as mentioned above is not relevant to today's proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government officials;
public notification; and PSD and visibility protection.
     110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/data.
     110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
     110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local
entities.

III. Scope of Infrastructure SIPs

    EPA notes that this rulemaking does not address four substantive
issues that are not integral to the state's infrastructure SIP
submission. These four issues are: (i) Existing provisions related to
excess emissions during periods of start-up, shutdown, or malfunction
at sources (SSM), that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's policies
addressing such excess emissions; (ii) existing provisions related to
``director's variance'' or ``director's discretion'' that purport to
permit revisions to SIP approved emissions limits with limited public
process or without requiring further approval by EPA, that may be
contrary to the CAA (director's discretion); (iii) existing provisions
for minor source new source review (NSR) programs that may be
inconsistent with the requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations
that pertain to such programs (minor source NSR); and, (iv) existing
provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with current
requirements of EPA's ``Final NSR Improvement Rule,'' 67 FR 80186
(December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (NSR
Reform).
    Instead, EPA has indicated that it has other authority to address
any such existing SIP defects in other rulemakings, as appropriate. A
detailed rationale for why these four substantive issues are not part
of the scope of infrastructure SIP rulemakings can be found in EPA's
June 11, 2012, proposed rule entitled, ``Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Tennessee 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure
Requirements for the 1997 and 2006 Fine Particulate Matter National
Ambient Air Quality Standards'' in the section entitled, ``Scope of
Infrastructure SIPs'' (See 77 FR 34306). It can also be found in EPA's
August 22, 2012, proposed rule entitled, ``Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Tennessee 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure
Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Matter National Ambient Air
Quality Standards'' in the section entitled, ``Scope of Infrastructure
SIPs.'' See 77 FR 50651.

IV. What is EPA's analysis of how Tennessee addressed sections
110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i), and 110(a)(2)(J)
``infrastructure'' provisions?

    In this action, EPA is proposing to conditionally approve
Tennessee's infrastructure SIP for the following infrastructure
sections for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS: (1) Section 110(a)(2)(C) to
include a program in the SIP that regulates the modification and
construction of any stationary source as necessary to assure that the
NAAQS are achieved, (2) prong 3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) to include
adequate provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions
activity within the State from emitting any air pollutant in amount
which will interfere with measure required to be include in the
applicable SIP for any State necessary to prevent significant
deterioration, and (3) section 110(a)(2)(J) to include a program in the
SIP that regulates the modification and construction of any stationary
source as necessary to assure that the NAAQS are achieved.
    There are four revisions to the Tennessee SIP that are necessary to
meet the requirements of infrastructure requirements of sections
110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i), and 110(a)(2)(J). These four
revisions are related to (1) the Ozone Implementation NSR Update
(November 29, 2005, 70 FR 71612), (2) the ``Prevention of Significant
Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule'' (June 3,
2010, 75 FR 31514), (3) the NSR PM2.5 Rule (May 16, 2008, 73
FR 28321), and (4) the portion of the final rulemaking entitled ``Final
Rule Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate
Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)--Increments,
Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring
Concentration (SMC): Final Rule'' that relates to the PM2.5
PSD increments requirements (hereafter referred to as the
PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule (only as it relates to
PM2.5 PSD Increments) (75 FR 64864).

    Tennessee's Ozone Implementation NSR Update revision was submitted
by TDEC on May 28, 2009, and approved by EPA on February 7, 2012. See
77 FR 6016. Tennessee submitted its Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Tailoring
Rule, to EPA on January 11, 2012, and EPA approved it on February 28,
2012. See 77 FR 11744. Tennessee submitted its NNSR requirements
related to the implementation of the NSR PM2.5 Rule on July
29, 2011, and EPA approved this revision on July 30, 2012. See 77 FR
44481. On October 4, 2012, Tennessee submitted a letter to EPA
requesting conditional approval of specific enforceable measures
related to 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i), and 110(a)(2)(J)
concerning the October 20, 2010, PSD PM2.5 Increments, SILs
and SMC Rule because Tennessee's SIP does not currently contain
provisions to address requirements associated with PM2.5
increments. Tennessee's October 4, 2012, letter to EPA contained a
schedule and commitment to provide the necessary SIP revision to
address its SIP deficiencies related to the PM2.5
increments. Today's conditional approval applies only to the
PM2.5 increments portion of the PM2.5 Increments,
SILs and SMC Rule. The PM2.5 Increments, SILs and SMC Rule
provided additional regulatory requirements under the PSD program
regarding the implementation of the PM2.5 NAAQS for NSR by
specifically establishing PM2.5 increments pursuant to
section 166(a) of the CAA to prevent significant deterioration of air
quality in areas meeting the NAAQS. The letter can be accessed at
www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0237. The four
SIP revisions outlined above \7\ address the requisite requirements of
sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i), and 110(a)(2)(J) and
are necessary for approval of these infrastructure requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ (1) EPA's approval of Tennessee's PSD/NSR regulations which
address the Ozone Implementation NSR Update requirements, (2) EPA's
approval of Tennessee's PSD GHG Tailoring Rule revisions which
addresses the thresholds for GHG permitting applicability in
Tennessee, (3) EPA's approval of Tennessee's NSR PM2.5
Rule, which adopts required federal PSD and NNSR permitting
provisions governing the implementation of the NSR program for
PM2.5 as promulgated in the NSR PM2.5 Rule,
and (4) EPA's proposed conditional approval of Tennessee's PSD
PM2.5 Increments, SILs, and SMC rulemaking to the extent
it addresses the PM2.5 Increments portion of the
PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule..
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 110(k)(4) of the CAA, EPA is proposing
to conditionally approve these sections based upon a commitment from
Tennessee that the State will submit a SIP revision addressing the
increments associated with the PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC
Rule (only as it relates to PM2.5 Increments) to EPA for
approval within one year from EPA's final conditional approval action.
In its October 4, 2012, letter, TDEC committed to adopt the above-
specified provisions and submit them to EPA for incorporation into the
SIP by no later than one year from the publication date of EPA's final
conditional approval action for that requirement. Failure by the State
to adopt these provisions and submit them to EPA for incorporation into
the SIP within one year from the effective date of EPA's final
conditional approval action would result in this proposed conditional
approval being treated as a disapproval. Should that occur, EPA would
provide the public with notice of such a disapproval in the Federal
Register.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ EPA notes that pursuant to section 110(k)(4), a conditional
approval is treated as a disapproval in the event that a State fails
to comply with its commitment. Notification of this disapproval
action in the Federal Register is not subject to public notice and
comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of Tennessee's formal commitment to correct the
deficiency contained in the Tennessee SIP pertaining to
PM2.5 PSD increments, EPA is proposing to conditionally
approve sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i), and
110(a)(2)(J) requirements consistent with section 110(k)(4) of the Act.

V. Proposed Action

    As described above, EPA is proposing to conditionally approve
Tennessee's infrastructure submissions pertaining to sections
110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i), 110(a)(2)(J) related to PSD,
provided to EPA on October 4, 2012, as addressing the infrastructure
requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Specifically, this
conditional approval is based upon Tennessee's commitment that TDEC
will provide the necessary SIP revision to address its SIP deficiencies
related to the October 20, 2010, final rulemaking related to PSD
PM2.5 Increments. EPA is proposing to conditionally approve
Tennessee's SIP submission consistent with section 110(k)(4) of the
CAA.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: November 21, 2012.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2012-29107 Filed 11-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: December 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 236)]
[Notices]
[Page 74538-74539]
[DOCID:fr08de08-90]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59024; File No. 4-533]

Joint Industry Plan; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness
of an Amendment to the National Market System Plan for the Selection
and Reservation of Securities Symbols To Add the International
Securities Exchange, LLC as a Party Thereto

November 26, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 11A(a)(3) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 608 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on November 18, 2008, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(``ISE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') an amendment to the National Market System
Plan for the Selection and Reservation of Securities Symbols
(``Symbology Plan'' or ``Plan'').\3\ The

amendment proposes to add ISE as a party to the Symbology Plan. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed amendment from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(3).
    \2\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \3\ On November 6, 2008, the Commission approved the Symbology
Plan that was originally proposed by the Chicago Stock Exchange,
Inc. (``CHX''), The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. (``Nasdaq''), National
Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (``NASD'') (n/k/a Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'')),4
National Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NSX''), and Philadelphia Stock
Exchange, Inc. (``Phlx''), subject to certain changes. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58904, 73 FR 67218 (November 13,
2008) (File No. 4-533).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Description and Purpose of the Amendment

    The current parties to the Symbology Plan are CHX, Nasdaq, FINRA,
NSX, and Phlx. The proposed amendment to the Symbology Plan would add
ISE as a party to the Symbology Plan. A self-regulatory organization
(``SRO'') may become a party to the Symbology Plan if it satisfies the
requirements of Section I(c) of the Plan. Specifically, an SRO may
become a party to the Symbology Plan if: (i) It maintains a market for
the listing or trading of Plan Securities,\4\ in accordance with rules
approved by the Commission, which securities are identified by one,
two, three, four, or five character symbols; (ii) it signs a current
copy of the Plan; and (iii) it pays to the other parties a
proportionate share of the aggregate development costs, based upon the
number of symbols reserved by the new party during the first twelve
(12) months of such party's membership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``Plan Securities'' are defined in the Symbology Plan as
securities that: (i) Are NMS securities as currently defined in Rule
600(a)(46) under the Act; and (ii) any other equity securities
quoted, traded and/or trade reported through an SRO facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ISE has submitted a signed copy of the Symbology Plan to the
Commission in accordance with the requirement set forth in the
Symbology Plan regarding new parties to the plan.

II. Effectiveness of the Proposed Symbology Plan Amendment

    The foregoing proposed Symbology Plan amendment has become
effective pursuant to Rule 608(b)(3)(iii) \5\ because it involves
solely technical or ministerial matters. At any time within sixty days
of the filing of this amendment, the Commission may summarily abrogate
the amendment and require that it be refiled pursuant to paragraph
(b)(1) of Rule 608,\6\ if it appears to the Commission that such action
is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection
of investors or the maintenance of fair and orderly markets, to remove
impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a national market system
or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 242.608(b)(3)(iii).
    \6\ 17 CFR 242.608(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the amendment 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 4-533 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 4-533. 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 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 4-533
and should be submitted on or before December 29, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-28958 Filed 12-5-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P