[Federal Register: July 26, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 143)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 41025-41026]
[DOCID:fr26jy07-6]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 70

[Docket No. EPA-R02-OAR-2006-0963, FRL-8446-4]

Approval of New Jersey's Title V Operating Permit Program
Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is approving a revision to
the New Jersey Operating Permit Program related to the permitting of
stationary sources subject to title V of the Clean Air Act in the state
of New Jersey. The revision consists of amendments to Subchapter 22 of
Chapter 27 of Title 7 of the New Jersey Administrative Code,
``Operating Permits.'' The revision was submitted to amend the
definition, permit application, and fees sections of the Operating
Permit Rule. The changes add clarity to the rule and assure adequate
funding for New Jersey's Operating Permit Program. The intended effect
of this action is to approve the program revision requested by New
Jersey to assure proper implementation of the requirements of title V
of the CAA.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will be effective August 27, 2007.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under the
Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) which replaces the Regional
Materials in EDOCKET (RME) docket system. The new FDMS is located at
http://www.regulations.gov and the docket ID for this action is EPA-

R02-OAR-2006-0963. All documents in the docket are listed in the FDMS
index. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in FDMS or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 2 Office, Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor,
New York, New York 10007-1866. Copies of the documents relevant to this
action are also available for public inspection during normal business
hours, by appointment at the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection, Division of Air Quality, 401 East State Street, Trenton,
New Jersey 08625.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Suilin Chan, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York,
New York 10007-1866,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What was included in New Jersey's submittal?

    On October 4, 2006, New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP) submitted to EPA a request to revise its Operating
Permits Rule. The revisions consisted of amendments to sections 22.1,
22.3, 22.4, 22.6, 22.10, and 22.31 of the Operating Permits Rule
codified at Title 7 of the New Jersey Administrative Code, Chapter 27,
Subchapter 22. These revisions were adopted by the State on May 1, 2006
(inadvertently listed June 9, 2006 as the adoption date in the
proposal) and became effective on June 19, 2006.
    On March 20, 2007 (72 FR 13059), EPA proposed to approve the
revised Subchapter 22 as part of New Jersey's Operating Permits Rule.
For a detailed discussion on the content of the revisions to New
Jersey's rule, the reader is referred to EPA's proposed rulemaking
action.

II. What comments did EPA receive in response to its proposal?

    In response to EPA's March 20, 2007, proposed rulemaking action,
EPA received no comments.

III. What is EPA's conclusion?

    EPA has evaluated New Jersey's submittal for consistency with the
Act, EPA regulations, and EPA policy. EPA has determined that the
revisions to Subchapter 22, New Jersey's Operating Permits Rule meet
title V of the CAA and its implementing regulations codified at Title
40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 70. Therefore, EPA is
approving the subject revisions.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it 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).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the
states, on the relationship between the national government and the
states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule
implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Act.
This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing State Operating Permit Programs submitted pursuant to
title V of the Clean Air Act, EPA will approve such regulations
provided that they meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act and EPA's
regulations codified at 40 CFR part 70. In this context, in the

absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary
consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove such
regulations for failure to use VCS. It would, thus, be inconsistent
with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews such regulations, to use
VCS in place of a State regulation that otherwise satisfies the
provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
section 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by September 24, 2007. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: July 8, 2007.
Alan J. Steinberg,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.

0
Part 70, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 70--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 70 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Appendix A to part 70 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to the
entry for New Jersey to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 70--Approval Status of State and Local Operating
Permit Programs

* * * * *

New Jersey

* * * * *
    (d) The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection submitted
program revisions on October 4, 2006; approval effective August 27,
2007.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E7-14483 Filed 7-25-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 54 (Wednesday, March 22, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14779-14781]
[FR Doc No: 2017-05607]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80262; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2017-15]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Change Modifying the NYSE Amex
Options Fee Schedule

March 16, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on March 9, 2017, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
MKT'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to modify the NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule
(``Fee Schedule''). The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change
effective March 9, 2017. The proposed change is available on the
Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to modify the Fee Schedule to:
    (i) Provide Order Flow Providers (each an ``OFP'') that achieve
certain tiers of the Amex Customer Enhancement (``ACE'') Program the
opportunity to receive an additional credit for Customer Complex
Orders; and
    (ii) establish a surcharge on any Electronic non-Customer Complex
Order that executes against a Customer Complex Order.
    The ACE Program features five tiers, expressed as a percentage of
total industry Customer equity and Exchange Traded Fund option average
daily volume (``TCADV'') \4\ and provides two alternative methods for
OFPs to receive per contract credits for Electronic Customer volume
that the OFP, as agent, submits to the Exchange.\5\ Currently, the
Exchange incents OFPs to achieve Tier 2 of the ACE Program by offering
an $0.18 per contract credit on Electronic Customer volume or a
slightly higher credit of $0.19 per contract on Customer Complex
Orders.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The volume thresholds are based on an OFP's Customer volume
transacted Electronically as a percentage of total industry TCADV as
reported by the Options Clearing Corporation (the ``OCC''). See OCC
Monthly Statistics Reports, available here, http://www.theocc.com/webapps/monthly-volume-reports.
    \5\ See Fee Schedule, Section I. E. (Amex Customer Engagement
(``ACE'') Program--Standard Options), available here, https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/amex-options/NYSE_Amex_Options_Fee_Schedule.pdf.
    \6\ See id. at n.1. The Exchange proposes to correct a
typographical error by capitalizing the defined term Electronic as
it is used in note 1 to Section I.E. See proposed Fee Schedule,
Section I. E., n. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to offer OFPs that achieve Tier 4 or 5 of the
ACE Program a credit of $0.25 per contract, per leg for Electronic
executions of

Customer Complex Orders, provided the OFP executes more than 0.50% of
TCADV in initiating CUBE Orders in a calendar month (the ``Credit'').
The Credit would be paid regardless of whether the Complex Order trades
against interest in the Complex Order Book or ``legs out'' and trades
with individual orders and quotes in the Consolidated Book. An OFP that
achieves Tier 4 or 5 would remain eligible to receive the applicable
per contract credit on Electronic Customer volume, which range from
$0.20-$0.24, but would be eligible to receive the slightly higher per
contract credit of $0.25 for its Complex Customer volume provided the
OFP meets the criteria for the Credit. For example, an OFP that
achieved Tier 4 and also met the criteria for the Credit would receive
at least $0.20 per contract for non-Complex Electronic Customer volume
and $0.25 per contract for Electronic Complex Customer volume.
    The Exchange also proposes to establish a $0.05 surcharge on any
Electronic Non-Customer Complex Order that executes against a Customer
Complex Order (the ``Surcharge).\7\ The Surcharge would apply to all
such Complex executions, including Complex Orders executed in the
Exchange's single-sided Complex Order Auction (``COA''). The CUBE
Auction is not available for Complex Orders and therefore the proposed
Surcharge would not apply to executions in a CUBE Auction.\8\ The
Exchange notes that the proposed Surcharge is consistent with charges
imposed by other options exchanges.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See proposed Fee Schedule, at Section I. A., n.6. Per the
Fee Schedule, a ``Customer'' is an individual or organization that
is not a Broker-Dealer, per Rule 900.2NY(18); and is not a
Professional Customer; and a ``Non-Customer'' is anyone who is not a
Customer. See Fee Schedule, ``Key Terms and Definitions,'' supra
note 5. Thus, Non-Customer includes Specialists, e-Specialists,
Directed Order Market Makers, Firms, Broker Dealers, and
Professional Customers. The Exchange notes that Firm Facilitation
trades are not electronic and are therefore not subject to the
proposed surcharge.
    \8\ See Rule 971.1NY (Electronic Cross Transactions) for a
description of the CUBE Auction, which is an electronic crossing
mechanism for single-leg orders with a price improvement auction.
    \9\ See Miami Securities International Exchange, LLC (``MIAX'')
fee schedule, available here, https://www.miaxoptions.com/sites/default/files/page-files/MIAX_Options_Fee_Schedule_03012017B.pdf
(imposing a $0.10 on certain complex orders). See also The Chicago
Board Options Exchange, Inc. (``CBOE'') fee schedule, available
here, http://www.cboe.com/publish/feeschedule/CBOEFeeSchedule.pdf,
at n. 35 (same).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\10\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\11\ in particular,
because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and other persons
using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed Credit on Complex Orders is
reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory, as it provides
OFPs with an additional incentive to achieve the highest two tiers of
the ACE Program--Tier 4 or 5. The Exchange believes that incentivizing
OFPs to route orders to the Exchange would attract more volume and
liquidity to the Exchange, which benefits all market participants by
providing more trading opportunities and tighter spreads, even to those
market participants that do not participate in the ACE Program.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed Surcharge is reasonable,
equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory, as it applies to all Non-
Customer orders. Applying the Surcharge to all market participant
orders except Customer orders is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because Customer order flow enhances liquidity on the
Exchange for the benefit of all market participants. Specifically,
Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more
trading opportunities, which attracts Market Makers. An increase in the
activity of Specialists and Market Makers in turn facilitates tighter
spreads, which may cause an additional corresponding increase in order
flow from other market participants.
    In addition, the proposed surcharge is reasonable, equitable, and
not unfairly discriminatory as it is consistent with fees charged by
other options exchanges.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, MIAX imposes a $0.10 ``Per Contract Surcharge for
Removing Liquidity Against A Resting Priority Customer Complex Order on
the Strategy Book'' for all option classes), which may result in an
overall per contract fee of $0.60.\13\ Similarly, CBOE imposes a $0.10
``Complex Surcharge'' on certain ``noncustomer complex order executions
that remove liquidity,'' but caps at $0.50 per contract ``auction
responses in COA.'' \14\ The Exchange notes that the proposed Surcharge
of $0.05 per contract is $0.05 less than--or half the amount of--the
surcharges imposed on both MIAX and CBOE, and is therefore competitive.
In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed surcharge is not
new or novel as it incorporates aspects of the (higher) surcharges that
are already imposed on MIAX and CBOE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See MIAX fee schedule, supra note 9 (providing for a
potential total per contract fee of $0.60 for Market Makers, which
includes a ``Complex Per Contract Fee for Penny Classes,'' a per
contract ``Marketing Fee,'' and a $0.10 ``Per Contract Surcharge for
Removing Liquidity Against a Resting Priority Customer Complex Order
on the Strategy Book for Penny and Non-Penny Classes''). The
Exchange believes that MIAX does not subject transactions in COA to
any fee cap.
    \14\ See CBOE fee schedule, supra note 8 (regarding the Complex
Surcharge, providing that ``[a]uction responses in COA and AIM for
noncustomer complex orders in Penny classes will be subject to a cap
of $0.50 per contract, which includes the applicable transaction
fee, Complex Surcharge and Marketing Fee (if applicable)).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the proposed change to capitalize the defined term
Electronic, would add clarity and internal consistency to the Fee
Schedule by correcting a typographical error.
    Finally, the Exchange believes the proposed changes are consistent
with the Act because, to the extent the modifications permit the
Exchange to continue to attract greater volume and liquidity, the
proposed changes would improve the Exchange's overall competitiveness
and strengthen its market quality for all market participants.
    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is
consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\15\ the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden
on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes the proposed Credit is
pro-competitive as it would incent OFPs to direct Complex Order flow to
the Exchange, and thus provide additional liquidity that enhances the
overall market quality and increases the volume of contracts traded on
the Exchange. The proposed Surcharge would not impose an unfair burden
on competition as it is consistent with fees charged by other
exchanges.\16\ To the extent that the proposed changes make NYSE Amex a
more attractive marketplace for market participants at other exchanges,
such market

participants are welcome to become NYSE Amex Options ATP Holders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \16\ See supra notes 9, 13, 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market
in which market participants can readily favor competing venues. In
such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider
adjusting, its fees and credits to remain competitive with other
exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees and
credits in response, and because market participants may readily adjust
their order routing practices, the degree to which fee changes in this
market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited. For
the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed
rule change reflects this competitive environment.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \17\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \18\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2017-15 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-NYSEMKT-2017-15. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2017-15, and should
be submitted on or before April 12, 2017.

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

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-05607 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 191 (Monday, October 3, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67920-67922]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23608]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0920; FRL-9947-92]

Bacillus Mycoides Isolate J; Exemption From the Requirement of a
Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of Bacillus mycoides solate J in or on all
agricultural commodities when used in accordance with label directions
and good agricultural practices. Certis USA LLC submitted a petition to
EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting
an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation
eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for
residues of Bacillus mycoides isolate J under FFDCA.

DATES: This regulation is effective October 3, 2016. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before December 2, 2016,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0920, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert McNally, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file
an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions

provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must
identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0920 in the subject line on
the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a
hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk
on or before December 2, 2016. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of
objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0920, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. Additional
instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more
information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background

    In the Federal Register of January 28, 2015 (80 FR 4525) (FRL-9921-
55), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance
petition (PP 4F8252) by Certis USA LLC, 9145 Guilford Rd., Suite 175,
Columbia, MD 21046. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be
amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of Bacillus mycoides isolate J, in or on all
agricultural commodities. That document referenced a summary of the
petition prepared by the petitioner Certis USA LLC, which is available
in the docket via http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments
received in response to the notice of filing.
    In addition, the Agency is removing the existing paragraph
contained in section 180.1269 because that exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for Bacillus mycoides isolate J residues has
expired.

III. Final Rule

A. EPA's Safety Determination

    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and in residential settings but does not include
occupational exposure. Pursuant to FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), in
establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in
FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C), which require EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance or tolerance exemption,
and to ``ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will
result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide
chemical residue . . . .'' Additionally, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D)
requires that EPA consider ``available information concerning the
cumulative effects of [a particular pesticide's] . . . residues and
other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA evaluated the available toxicity and exposure data on Bacillus
mycoides isolate J and considered its validity, completeness, and
reliability, as well as the relationship of this information to human
risk. A full explanation of the data upon which EPA relied and its risk
assessment based on that data can be found within the May 9, 2016,
document entitled ``Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)
Considerations for Bacillus mycoides isolate J.'' This document, as
well as other relevant information, is available in the docket for this
action as described under ADDRESSES. Based upon its evaluation, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate
exposure to residues of Bacillus mycoides isolate J. Therefore, an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for
residues of Bacillus mycoides isolate J in or on all agricultural
commodities when used in accordance with label directions and good
agricultural practices.

B. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes for
the reasons contained in the May 9, 2016, document entitled ``Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) Considerations for Bacillus
mycoides isolate J'' and because EPA is establishing an exemption from
the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes a tolerance exemption under FFDCA section
408(d) in response to a petition submitted to EPA. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance
exemption in this action, do not require the issuance of a proposed
rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes. As a result, this
action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such,

EPA has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct
effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the
national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus,
EPA has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism''
(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply to this action. In addition,
this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require EPA's consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

V. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: September 15, 2016.
Yu-Ting Guilaran,
Acting Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. Revise Sec.  180.1269 to read as follows:

Sec.  180.1269  Bacillus mycoides isolate J; exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance.

    An exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for
residues of Bacillus mycoides isolate J in or on all agricultural
commodities when used in accordance with label directions and good
agricultural practices.

[FR Doc. 2016-23608 Filed 9-30-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 165 (Monday, August 28, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58633-58634]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18472]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2023-1718]

Notice of Intent To Designate as Abandoned Supplemental Type
Certificate No. SA1201GL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent to designate Supplemental Type Certificate as
abandoned; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This Notice announces the FAA's intent to designate
Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) No. SA1201GL as abandoned and make
the related engineering data available upon request. The FAA has
received a request to provide engineering data concerning this STC. The
FAA has been unsuccessful in contacting the STC holder concerning the
STC. This action is intended to enhance aviation safety.

DATES: We must receive all comments by February 26, 2024.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments on this notice by any of the following
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: JoWanna Jenkins, Program Management Specialist,
Central Certification Branch, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Room 107, Des
Plaines, IL 60018.
     Email: [email protected]. Include ``Docket No. FAA-
2023-1718'' in the subject line of the message.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: JoWanna Jenkins, Program Management
Specialist, Central Certification Branch, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Room
107, Des Plaines, IL 60018; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested parties to provide comments, written
data, views, or arguments relating to this notice. Send your comments
to an address

listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2023-
1718'' at the beginning of your comments. The FAA will consider all
comments received on or before the closing date. All comments received
will be available in the docket for examination by interested persons.

Background

    The FAA is posting this notice to inform the public of the intent
to designate as abandoned STC No. SA1201GL, which authorized a gross
weight increase for Aeronca Model 65-C and S-65-C airplanes, and
subsequently release the related engineering data.
    The FAA has received a third-party request for the release of the
aforementioned engineering data under the provisions of the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552. The FAA cannot release commercial
or financial information under FOIA without the permission of the data
owner. However, in accordance with title 49 of the United States Code
Sec.  44704(a)(5), the FAA can provide STC ``engineering data'' it
possesses for STC maintenance or improvement, upon request, if the
following conditions are met:
    1. The FAA determines the STC has been inactive for three years or
more;
    2. Using due diligence, the FAA is unable to locate the owner of
record or the owner of record's heir; and
    3. The availability of such data will enhance aviation safety.
    There has been no activity with this STC holder for more than three
years.
    On September 23, 2022, the FAA sent a registered letter to the STC
holder, Lawrence F. Diedrich, at his last known address, Route 3, Box
279, Lodi, WI 53555. The letter informed Mr. Diedrich that the FAA had
received a request for engineering data related to STC No. SA1201GL and
was conducting a due diligence search to determine whether the STC was
inactive and may be considered abandoned. The letter further requested
Mr. Diedrich to respond in writing within 60 days and state whether he
is the holder of the STC.

Information Requested

    If you are the owner or heir or a transferee of STC No. SA1201GL or
have any knowledge regarding who may now hold STC No. SA1201GL, please
contact JoWanna Jenkins using a method described in this notice under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. If you are the heir of the owner, or
the owner by transfer, of STC No. SA1201GL, you must provide a
notarized copy of your government-issued identification with a letter
and background establishing your ownership of the STC and, if
applicable, your relationship as the heir to the deceased holder of the
STC.

Conclusion

    If the FAA does not receive any response by February 26, 2024, the
FAA will consider STC No. SA1201GL abandoned, and the FAA will proceed
with the release of the requested data. This action is for the purpose
of maintaining the airworthiness of an aircraft and enhancing aviation
safety.

    Issued on August 21, 2023.
Victor Wicklund,
Deputy Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-18472 Filed 8-25-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 12 (Friday, January 17, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 3104]
[FR Doc No: 2020-00670]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Rescindment of a system of records notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the Department of
Transportation is proposing to retire a Department of Transportation
system of records titled, ``Department of Transportation/Federal
Aviation Administration (DOT/FAA) 813 Civil Aviation Security System of
Records.''

DATES: January 17, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number DOT-
OST-2020-0007. by any of the following methods:
    Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments. Mail: Docket Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Hand
Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Ave. SE, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: You must include the agency name and docket number
DOT-OST-2020-0007. All comments received will be posted without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received in any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the
DOT's complete Privacy Act statement in the Federal Register published
on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or to the street
address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general questions please contact:
Essie L. Bell, FAA Chief Privacy Officer, Acting,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Federal Aviation Administration, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Washington, DC
20024. For privacy issues please contact: Claire W. Barrett,
Departmental Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, Department of
Transportation, Washington, DC 20590<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the
Department of Transportation (DOT)/Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) proposes to retire DOT system of records titled, ``Department of
Transportation/Federal Aviation Administration (DOT/FAA) 813 Civil
Aviation Security System of Records.''
    This system was originally established to collect and maintain
records on hijacking or attempted hijacking incidents at airports or
aboard civil aviation aircraft, information on K-9 assignments to
airports, K-9 handler evaluations and information necessary to manage
the Federal Air Marshals (FAM).
    Following September 11, 2001 Congress passed the Aviation and
Transportation Security Act (ATSA) (Pub. L. 107-71) which established
the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). The ATSA transferred
the TSA from the Department of Transportation to the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS).
    The ATSA transferred responsibility for civil aviation security
from the FAA to TSA on February 22, 2002. A Transfer of Function Memo
(October 30, 2003) from the FAA Assistant Administrator, Office of
Security and Hazardous Materials, to the FAA Freedom of Information
Staff and the Director of TSA, Freedom of Information Office,
memorializes the transfer of function. The memo evidences that all
records maintained in accordance with the DOT/FAA 813 Civil Aviation
Security System of Records notice were transferred to the TSA. The FAA
kept only duplicate copies of Civil Aviation Security records that
related to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, but no longer
maintains these copies.
    Retiring this FAA system of records notice will have no adverse
impact on individuals because the records and functions were
transferred from the FAA to TSA.

SYSTEM NAME AND NUMBER:
    Department of Transportation/Federal Aviation Administration (DOT/
FAA) 813 Civil Aviation Security System of Records

HISTORY:
    A full notice of this system of records, DOT/FAA 813 Civil Aviation
Security System, was last published in the Federal Register on April
11, 2000 (65 FR 19519).

Claire W. Barrett,
Departmental Chief Privacy Officer.
[FR Doc. 2020-00670 Filed 1-16-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 239 (Monday, December 14, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77394-77396]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31326]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76588; File No. SR-C2-2015-034]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend the Certificate of Incorporation of Its Parent Company

December 8, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on November 25, 2015, C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated (the
``Exchange'' or ``C2'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the certificate of incorporation of
its parent Company, CBOE Holdings, Inc. (``CBOE Holdings''). The text
of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site
(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
    On May 21, 2015, CBOE Holdings' stockholders approved proposed
amendments to the Certificate. On October 22[sic], 2015, in accordance
with Article Eleventh of the Certificate, the Exchange submitted a rule
filing proposing to make the approved amendments to the Certificate.\3\
The Exchange notes however, that it inadvertently omitted in its rule
filing two changes to the Certificate in the Exhibit 5 that had been
approved by CBOE Holdings' shareholders. In order to conform the
current Certificate to the Certificate approved by CBOE Holdings'
shareholders in May 2015, CBOE Holdings proposes to correct the omitted
changes. First, in Article Third, the Exchange had omitted to eliminate
the word ``other'' from the following language ``The nature of the
business or purposes to be conducted or promoted by the Corporation is
to engage in any other lawful act or activity for which corporations
may be organized under the GCL.'' The Exchange believes that the
reference to ``other'' in this section is unnecessary and that the
change is non-substantive and clarifying in nature. The Exchange notes
that the proposed change does not affect the rights of shareholders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76281 (October 27,
2015), 80 FR 211 [sic] (November 2, 2015) (SR-C2-2015-026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next, CBOE Holdings proposes to correct an error related to the
ownership concentration limitation. Particularly, CBOE Holdings had
proposed to remove references to the 10% ownership concentration
limitation applicable before CBOE Holdings' initial public offering
(``IPO'') in 2010, as discussed in SR-C2-2015-026.\4\ This change did
not change the current ownership concentration limitation, which is
20%. In Article Sixth, subparagraph (b)(iii), the Exchange
inadvertently omitted references to both 10% and 20%. Specifically, the
language ``10% or 20% (as applicable at such time)'' was eliminated in
its entirety. CBOE Holdings notes that only ``10% or'' and ``(as
applicable at such time)'' should have been eliminated (i.e., reference
to 20% should have remained). Accordingly, CBOE Holdings proposes to
add ``20%'', the current ownership concentration limitation, back into
Article Sixth, Subparagraph (b)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\5\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \6\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \7\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, CBOE Holdings believes the proposed amendments to
its Certificate are non-substantive and clarifying in nature,
alleviating potential confusion. Additionally, CBOE Holdings believes
that conforming the current Certificate to the Certificate approved by
CBOE Holdings' shareholders on May 21, 2015, alleviates potential
confusion. The alleviation of potential confusion removes impediments
to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general, protect investors and the public
interest.

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

    Because the proposed rule change relates to the governance of CBOE
Holdings and not to the operations of the Exchange, the Exchange does
not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on
competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes
of the Act.

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

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

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

    Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its filing, the Exchange requested that the Commission waive
both the 5 business day prefiling requirement as well as the 30-day
operative delay so that the Exchange can expeditiously obtain
effectiveness, as required by CBOE Holdings' governing documents, for
two changes approved by CBOE Holdings' shareholders to the Certificate
of Incorporation of CBOE Holdings that the Exchange failed to correctly
mark in the recent filing it submitted to seek effectiveness of the
overall package of shareholder-approved changes.
    The Commission believes that waiving the 5 business day prefiling
requirement and the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest, as it will allow two
non-controversial proposed conforming edits to the CBOE Holdings
Certificate of Incorporation to take effect without delay. The
Commission notes the Exchange previously filed to amend the Certificate
and that filing has since become effective. The Exchange represents
that the change to Article Third is non-substantive and non-
controversial. The change to Article Sixth corrects an obvious
typographical error, as the language continued to reference the
ownership concentration limit but failed to include the limit's
numerical expression. That limit is contained elsewhere in Article
Sixth (b), including in the opening paragraph. Accordingly, adding a
reference to the long-standing ``20%'' back to paragraph (b)(iii) is a
conforming edit to fill an obvious gap created by a rule text marking
error in the Exchange's recent filing. The two proposed edits do not
raise any new or novel issues, and allowing these edits to be made
without further delay will allow the Exchange to promptly update the
Certificate of Incorporation of CBOE Holdings. For this reason, the

Commission designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon
filing.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-C2-2015-034 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-C2-2015-034. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-C2-2015-034 and should be
submitted on or before January 4, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12) and (59).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-31326 Filed 12-11-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P