[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 82 (Monday, May 1, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20399-20401]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08700]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80523; File No. SR-CBOE-2017-017]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Bylaws and Certificate of Incorporation

April 25, 2017.

I. Introduction

    On February 22, 2017, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend its Bylaws \3\ and
Certificate of

Incorporation.\4\ The Commission published the proposed rule change for
comment in the Federal Register on March 13, 2017.\5\ The Commission
received no comments on the proposal. This order approves the proposed
rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Amended and Restated Bylaws of Chicago Board Options
Exchange, Incorporated (``Bylaws'').
    \4\ See Certificate of Incorporation of Chicago Board Options
Exchange, Incorporated (``Certificate of Incorporation'').
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80167 (March 7,
2017), 82 FR 13527 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    First, the Exchange proposes to amend its Bylaws relating to the
Board of Directors (``Board'') size range. Currently, Section 3.1 of
the Bylaws provides that the Board shall consist of not less than 12
and not more than 16 directors. The Exchange proposes to change the
Board size range such that the Board shall consist of no less than five
directors. The Exchange also proposes to make conforming changes to its
Certificate of Incorporation by amending subparagraph (b) of Article
Fifth to also provide that the Board shall consist of not less than
five directors and to eliminate the current referenced range of 12 to
16 directors.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id. at 13528.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the Exchange-level
Compensation Committee. CBOE is proposing to delete Section 4.3 of the
Bylaws, which provides for the CBOE Compensation Committee, and to
delete a reference to the CBOE Compensation Committee in Section 4.1(a)
of the Bylaws (which lists the required Board committees). CBOE also
proposes to eliminate the reference to the CBOE Compensation Committee
in Section 5.11 of the Bylaws, which provides that officers are
entitled to salaries, compensation or reimbursement as shall be fixed
or allowed from time to time by the Board unless otherwise delegated to
the Board's Compensation Committee or to senior management. The
Exchange justifies eliminating the CBOE Compensation Committee because
its functions largely are duplicative of those of the Compensation
Committee of its parent company, CBOE Holdings.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Id. The Exchange notes that the composition of both
committees currently are the same. See id. at 13528 n.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act,\8\
and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange.\9\ In particular, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(1) of the Act,\10\
which requires a national securities exchange to be so organized and
have the capacity to carry out the purposes of the Act and to comply,
and to enforce compliance by its members and persons associated with
its members, with the provisions of the Act. The Commission also finds
that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(3) of the
Act,\11\ which requires that the rules of a national securities
exchange assure a fair representation of its members in the selection
of its directors and administration of its affairs and provide that one
or more directors shall be representative of issuers and investors and
not be associated with a member of the exchange, broker, or dealer. The
Commission further finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\12\ which requires, among other
things, that a national securities exchange have rules 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \9\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(3).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Commission notes that the proposal to require at
least five directors for the Board, rather than a required range of not
less than 12 and not more than 16, is comparable to the board size
requirements stipulated in the bylaws of at least one other exchange,
which was approved by the Commission.\13\ Importantly, the Exchange
represents that it is not proposing to amend any of the compositional
requirements of the Board, including its provision relating to the fair
representation of members, which are set forth in Section 3.2 of the
Bylaws.\14\ The Commission notes that the Exchange represents that,
while the proposal provides the Board with greater flexibility to
determine the size of the Board without amending the Bylaws, it will
continue to allow the Exchange to ensure that the Board is of adequate
size and includes directors with relevant and diverse experience.\15\
The Exchange also notes that it has no current plans to change the size
of its Board outside of the original range of 12-16 directors.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69884 (June 27,
2013), 78 FR 40255 (July 3, 2013) (SR-BYX-2013-013) (providing that
the BATS Y-Exchange board of directors will consist of four or more
directors).
    \14\ See Notice, supra note 5, at 13528-29.
    \15\ See id. at 13529.
    \16\ See id. at 13528 n.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the proposal to eliminate the CBOE Compensation
Committee, the Commission notes that this change is comparable to the
governing structures of other exchanges, which the Commission has
previously approved.\17\ As more fully set forth in the Notice, the
Exchange explains that the CBOE Compensation Committee's
responsibilities largely are duplicative of those of the corresponding
Compensation Committee of CBOE Holdings, other than to the extent that
the CBOE Compensation Committee recommends the compensation of
executive officers whose compensation is not already determined by the
CBOE Holdings Compensation Committee.\18\ Accordingly, under the
proposed rule change, such functions now will be performed by the CBOE
Holdings Compensation Committee or as otherwise provided in the
Bylaws.\19\ The Commission notes that the Exchange represents that
currently, each of the executive officers whose compensation would need
to be determined by the Compensation Committee are officers of both
CBOE and CBOE Holdings, but should compensation need to be determined
in the future for any CBOE officer who is not also a CBOE Holdings
officer, the CBOE Board or CBOE senior management will perform such
action without the use of a compensation committee, as provided for in
Section 5.11 of the Bylaws.\20\ Further, the Commission notes that the
CBOE Regulatory Oversight and Compliance Committee (``ROCC'') of the
Board will continue to recommend to the Board the compensation for the
Chief Regulatory Officer and any Deputy Chief Regulatory

Officers, and this process is not be affected by this proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60276 (July
9, 2009), 74 FR 34840 (July 17, 2009) (SR-NASDAQ-2009-042); see also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62304 (June 16, 2010), 75 FR
36136 (June 24, 2010) (SR-NYSEArca-2010-31).
    \18\ See Notice, supra note 5, at 13528.
    \19\ Id.
    \20\ See Bylaws Section 5.11 (providing that ``[o]fficers of the
Corporation shall be entitled to such salaries, compensation or
reimbursement as shall be fixed or allowed from time to time by the
Board unless otherwise delegated to the Compensation Committee of
the Board or to members of senior management'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons noted above, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the Act.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\21\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2017-017) be, and
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-08700 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: April 18, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 74)]
[Notices]
[Page 19566-19567]
[DOCID:fr18ap07-105]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55610; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2007-034]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Augment the TotalView Enterprise License

April 10, 2007.
    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 March 30, 2007, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by Nasdaq. The
Exchange has filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon filing with the
Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Nasdaq is proposing to add Nasdaq OpenView, which contains full
depth of book data for Nasdaq trading of NYSE and Amex stocks, to the
TotalView Enterprise License set forth in Nasdaq Rule 7023(a). The text
of the proposed rule change is available at Nasdaq, the Commission's
Public Reference Room, and http://www.nasdaq.com.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq 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. Nasdaq 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 February 12, 2007, Nasdaq completed the implementation of the
new Nasdaq Market Center Execution System, commonly known as ``Single
Book.'' The Single Book is the product of the integration of Nasdaq's
three separate execution platforms into a single platform trading all
Nasdaq, NYSE, and Amex securities.
    A by-product of this integration and the new system is a re-
alignment of Nasdaq data feeds. Under the previous systems, market data
for Nasdaq securities was disseminated on one set of data feeds and
market data for NYSE and Amex securities was disseminated on another.
Because the Single Book processes Nasdaq, NYSE, and Amex securities on
a single platform, the market data for all securities is disseminated
on a single set of data feeds. For example, full depth of book data for
Nasdaq securities was previously disseminated via one feed and full
depth data for NYSE and Amex securities was disseminated via another.
Starting February 12, 2007, market participants' best bids and offers
for all securities are disseminated together via various unified data
feeds. Full depth of book data for Nasdaq securities and for NYSE and
Amex securities are now also disseminated via a unified full depth of
book feed, made available in various formats.
    Nasdaq has not received regulatory approval for the fee schedule
for its new unified system and data feeds. In November 2006, Nasdaq
filed SR-NASDAQ-2006-048,\5\ a proposed rule change to lower the
distributor fees applicable to the full depth feed emanating from the
Single Book which has not yet been approved. Therefore, Nasdaq must
continue to assess its previously-approved fees to its new data feeds.
This situation results in economic continuity in that market data
recipients will continue to pay the same amount if they continue to
receive the same market data elements. Thus, for example, a
professional user that receives full depth of book for both Nasdaq and
NYSE/Amex stocks in the past paid $70 for the Nasdaq data and $6 for
the NYSE/Amex data, and will continue to pay that amount in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55443 (March 12,
2007), 72 FR 13325 (March 21, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to purchasers of the TotalView Enterprise License,
however, Nasdaq's inability to gain approval of its unified fee
schedule will cause economic harm. Nasdaq had intended that purchasers
of the TotalView Enterprise License would, upon the launch of the
Single Book on February 12, 2007, have gained the ability to distribute
the unified TotalView feed containing full depth of book for Nasdaq,
NYSE, and Amex securities. Because Nasdaq has not received final
approval of the unified feeds and fee schedule, it is unclear that the
Enterprise License includes the ability to distribute market data for
NYSE and Amex stocks.
    Accordingly, Nasdaq is proposing to add the current OpenView feed
to the Enterprise License, thereby clearly establishing that purchasers
of the Enterprise License have the ability to distribute full depth of
book for Nasdaq, NYSE, and Amex securities for the same currently
approved fee. This will be a benefit to purchasers of the Enterprise
License in that they will be permitted to distribute more data for the
same fee.
2. Statutory Basis
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\6\ in general, and with Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\7\ in particular, in that adding OpenView to the
TotalView Enterprise License will encourage broader dissemination of
that data and thereby increase transparency in those securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing rule change does not: (1) Significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (2) impose
any significant burden on competition; and (3) become operative for 30
days after the date of this filing, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, it 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under 19b-4(f)(6) normally may not
become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.\10\
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \11\ permits the Commission to designate
a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Commission believes
that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest because such waiver
would permit Nasdaq to implement the proposed rule change on April 1,
2007, clarifying that the Enterprise License includes the ability to
distribute market data for NYSE and Amex securities. For this reason,
the Commission designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon
filing with the Commission.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) requires that a self-regulatory organization submit to
the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed
rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed
rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing
of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by
the Commission. The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive
the 5-day pre-filing notice requirement. The Commission has
determined to grant this request.
    \11\ Id.
    \12\ For the purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative
delay, the Commission has 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 such proposed rule
change the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors or otherwise in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-NASDAQ-2007-034 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2007-034. 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. Copies of the
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of Nasdaq. 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-NASDAQ-2007-034 and should be submitted on or before May
9, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-7319 Filed 4-17-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 51 (Monday, March 16, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14990-14993]
[FR Doc No: 2020-05238]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88352; File No. SR-PEARL-2020-04]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX PEARL, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Chapter
XVII, Consolidated Audit Trail Compliance Rule

March 10, 2020.
    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 February 27, 2020, MIAX PEARL, LLC (``MIAX PEARL'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a 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

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend Chapter XVII,
Consolidated Audit Trail Compliance Rule (``Compliance Rule'')
regarding the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated
Audit Trail (the ``CAT NMS Plan'' or ``Plan'') \3\ to be consistent
with an exemption from the CAT NMS

Plan regarding Options Market Makers' reporting obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67457 (July 18, 2012),
77 FR 45722 (August 1, 2012) (``Adopting Release''). Unless
otherwise specified, capitalized terms used in this rule filing are
defined as set forth in the Compliance Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings/pearl at MIAX
PEARL's principal office, 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

Purpose
    Rule 613(c)(7) sets forth data recording and reporting requirements
for the CAT NMS Plan. Specifically, Rule 613(c)(7), in relevant part,
requires every member of a national securities exchange or national
securities association to record and electronically report to the
Central Repository details for each order and each Reportable Event.
Options Market Maker quotes are included within the meaning of an
``order'' under Rule 613(j)(8), which defines an ``order'' to include
``any bid or offer.'' As a result, Rule 613(c)(7) states that the CAT
NMS Plan must require every market maker on an options exchange to
record and report all quotes and related Reportable Events to the
Central Repository. Rule 613(c)(7) also requires the options exchanges
to record and report the details of Options Market Maker quotes
received by the options exchanges to the Central Repository. Given that
the options exchanges and the Options Market Makers will be submitting
virtually identical details concerning the Options Market Maker quotes
to the Central Repository, the dual reporting of this information will
at least double the size of the options quotation data reported to the
CAT, which will create extensive overlap in the data elements reported.
    To address the issue of double reporting of quote data, the
Participants filed with the Commission a request for exemptive relief
from certain provisions Rule 613(c)(7) such that the CAT NMS Plan could
be amended so that only options exchanges would record and report
details for each Options Market Maker quote and related Reportable
Event to the Central Repository, while Options Market Makers would be
relieved of their obligation to record and report their quotes and
related Reportable Events to the Central Repository.\4\ As a condition
to this exemption, each Industry Member that is an Options Market Maker
shall report to the Exchange the time at which its quote in a Listed
Option is sent to the Exchange (and, if applicable, any subsequent
quote modification time and/or cancellation time when such modification
or cancellation is originated by the Options Market Maker).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Letter from Participants to Brent J. Fields, Secretary,
Commission, Request for Exemptive Relief from Certain Provisions of
SEC Rule 613 of Regulation NMS under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (January 31, 2015), available at https://www.catnmsplan.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/p602383.pdf. See also Letter from
Participants to Brent J. Fields, Commission, Supplement to Request
for Exemptive Relief from Certain Provisions of SEC Rule 613 of
Regulation NMS under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (April 3,
2015), available at https://www.catnmsplan.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/exemptivesupplement1-allocationsreports.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MIAX PEARL's Compliance Rule incorporates by reference Chapter XVII
of the rules if its affiliate, Miami International Securities Exchange,
LLC (``MIAX''), which is MIAX's Consolidated Audit Trail Compliance
Rule.\5\ Consistent with the above exemptive request, MIAX Rule
1703(a)(3) states that ``[e]ach Industry Member that is an Options
Market Maker is not required to report to the Central Repository the
Industry Member Data regarding the routing, modification or
cancellation of its quotes in Listed Options.'' MIAX Rule 1703(a)(3)
further provides that ``[e]ach Industry Member that is an Options
Market Maker shall report to the Exchange the time at which its quote
in a Listed Option is sent to the Exchange (and, if applicable, any
subsequent quote modification time and/or cancellation time when such
modification or cancellation is originated by the Options Market
Maker).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80256 (March 15,
2017), 82 FR 14526 (March 21, 2017) (SR-PEARL-2017-04) (Order
Approving Proposed Rule Changes To Adopt Consolidated Audit Trail
Compliance Rules).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MIAX Rule 1703(a)(3) relieves Options Market Makers from reporting
Industry Member Data to the Central Repository for quotes only and does
not apply to orders. While MIAX Rule 1703(a)(3) applies to MIAX PEARL
by virtue of being incorporated by reference, it does not relieve
Options Market Makers from reporting Industry Member Data to the
Central Repository because on MIAX PEARL, Options Market Makers submit
orders and not quotes for display on the MIAX PEARL Book. On MIAX
PEARL, orders submitted by Options Market Makers function like quotes
on other options exchanges, including MIAX. Like quotes on MIAX, order
submitted by Options Market Makers with a time-in-force of Day or GTC
that are not executed upon entry are posted to the MIAX PEARL Book.
    To implement the above exemption and avoid duplicative reporting,
MIAX PEARL proposes to amend its own compliance rule to state that
orders submitted by Options Market Makers that are posted to the MIAX
PEARL Book are considered quotes for purposes of the above exemption.
Specifically, the Compliance Rule would state that ``[f]or purposes of
MIAX Rule 1703(a)(3), orders that are posted to the MIAX PEARL Book are
considered quotes when submitted by an Options Market Maker in an
assigned symbol on MIAX PEARL.''
    The Exchange offers three time-in-force modifiers that Options
Market Makers may attach to their orders: Day, Immediate-Or-Cancel
(``IOC''), and Good-Till Cancel (``GTC'') and two interfaces of order
entry, FIX and the MIAX Express Order interface (``MEO'').\6\ An
Options Market Maker must include a time-in-force of Day or GTC on its
order for it to be posted on the MIAX PEARL Book and to meet its
continuous quoting obligations under Exchange Rule 605(d).\7\ The
Exchange does not propose to exempt orders submitted by an Options
Market Maker with a time-in-force of IOC because those orders do not
post to the PEARL Book and, therefore, do not count towards its
continuous quoting obligations.\8\ For the above reasons, the Exchange
believes it is appropriate to only include Options Market Maker

orders that are posted to the MIAX PEARL Book under this exemption
because they function like quotes as they post on the MIAX PEARL Book
and count towards an Options Market Maker's continuous quoting
obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Exchange Rule 516, Order Types. Not all order types and
modifiers are available for use on each of the MEO Interface and the
FIX Interface.
    \7\ Only the time-in-force modifiers of IOC and Day are
available on the MEO interface. See id. (noting that ``[n]ot all
order types and modifiers are available for use on each of the MEO
Interface and the FIX Interface). See also Section <IP_ADDRESS> of the
MEO Interface Specification, available at https://www.miaxoptions.com/sites/default/files/page-files/MIAX_Express_Orders_MEO_v2.0.pdf (indicating that the time--in-force
instructions of IOC and Day are available on the MEO interface).
    \8\ See Interpretation and Policies .01 to Exchange Rule 605
(stating that IOC orders from Market Makers will not be counted for
the continuous quoting obligations set forth in paragraph (d) of
this Rule 605).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Absent this proposed rule change, orders submitted to the Exchange
would not be eligible for the exemption afforded to quotes as Options
Market Makers would be required to report the details of their order
and each Reportable Event to the Central Repository. This would result
in the same duplicative reporting that the exemption prevents for
quotes to occur for orders because both Options Market Makers and MIAX
PEARL would submit virtually identical data to the Central Repository.
As a result of this filing, double reporting would be avoided as only
the Exchange will report all orders and Reportable Events to the
Central Repository, as described above and required by the CAT NMS
Plan. Options Market Makers on MIAX PEARL would be required to report
to the Exchange the time at which its order in a Listed Option is sent
to the Exchange and, if applicable, any subsequent order modification
time and/or cancellation time when such modification or cancellation is
originated by the Options Market Maker.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ which requires,
among other things, that the Exchange rules must be designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors
and the public interest, and Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\10\ which
requires that the Exchange rules not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(6).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The exemption for quotes described above would avoid the submission
to the Central Repository by exchange and Options Market Makers of
virtually identical details concerning the Options Market Maker quotes
to the Central Repository. This proposed rule change seeks to serve the
same purpose regarding orders submitted by Options Market Makers on
MIAX PEARL, dual reporting of information that will at least double the
size of the options quotation data reported to the CAT and create
extensive overlap in the data elements reported. As described above, on
MIAX PEARL orders posted to the MIAX PEARL Book operate in an identical
manner as quotes on other options exchanges.
    The Exchange believes it is appropriate to limit the proposal to
orders posted to the MIAX PEARL Book because those orders satisfy the
Options Market Maker's two-sided quoting obligation. IOC orders would
not be covered by the exemption because such orders do not post to the
MIAX PEARL Book and do not count towards the Options Market Maker
satisfying its two-sided quoting obligation.\11\ The Exchange believes
that this proposal is consistent with the Act because it would avoid
the same dual reporting that was the subject of the exemption for
orders and is currently covered by MIAX Rule 1703(a)(3). The proposal
is consistent with this exemption from the CAT NMS Plan and is designed
to assist the Exchange and its Industry Members in meeting regulatory
obligations pursuant to the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In approving the Plan, the SEC noted that the Plan ``is necessary
and appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors
and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets, to remove impediments
to, and perfect the mechanism of a national market system, or is
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.'' \12\ As it will
do for the quotes under the exemption, the Exchange will report all
orders posted to the MIAX PEARL Book and Reportable Events to the
Central Repository as required by the CAT NMS Plan. Options Market
Makers on MIAX PEARL would be required to report to the Exchange the
time at which its order in a Listed Option is sent to the Exchange and,
if applicable, any subsequent order modification time and/or
cancellation time when such modification or cancellation is originated
by the Options Market Maker. Therefore, the Exchange believes that this
proposal furthers the objectives of the Plan, as identified by the SEC,
and is therefore consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Adopting Release, supra note 3 at 84697.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange
notes that the proposed rule changes are consistent with the exemption
from the CAT NMS Plan to avoid duplicative reporting for quotes and is
designed to assist the Exchange and its Options Market Makers in
meeting their regulatory obligations pursuant to the Plan. The Exchange
also notes that this amendment to the Compliance Rule will apply
equally to all Industry Members that are Options Market Makers. In
addition, all options exchanges that accept orders and not quotes from
their market makers are proposing similar amendments to their
Compliance Rules. Therefore, this is not a competitive rule filing and
does not impose a burden on competition.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective
pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \13\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \14\
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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- PEARL-2020-04 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-PEARL-2020-04. 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-PEARL-2020-04 and should be submitted on
or before April 6, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-05238 Filed 3-13-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 159 (Wednesday, August 17, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51089-51092]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20954]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65113; File No. SR-BATS-2011-028]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend BATS Rule 11.17, Entitled
``Clearly Erroneous Executions''

August 11, 2011.
    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 August 8, 2011, BATS Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BATS'') 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 is proposing to amend BATS Rule 11.17, entitled
``Clearly Erroneous Executions,'' so that the rule will continue to
operate in the same manner after changes to the single stock trading
pause process are effective.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant 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
Background
    The Exchanges \3\ and FINRA, in consultation with the Commission,
have made changes to their respective rules in a concerted effort to
strengthen the markets after the severe market disruption that occurred
on May 6, 2010. One such effort by the Exchanges and FINRA was to adopt
a uniform trading pause process during periods of extraordinary market
volatility as a pilot in S&P 500[supreg] Index stocks (``Pause Pilot'')
\4\, approved by the Commission on June 10, 2010.\5\ On September 10,
2010, the Commission approved the Exchanges' and FINRA's proposals to
add the securities included in the Russell 1000[supreg] Index and
specified Exchange Traded Products (``ETPs'') to the Pause Pilot.\6\ On
September 10, 2010, the Commission also approved changes proposed by
the Exchanges to amend certain of their respective rules to set forth
clearer standards and curtail their discretion with respect to breaking

erroneous trades.\7\ The changes, among other things, provided uniform
treatment of clearly erroneous execution reviews in the event of
transactions that result in the issuance of an individual stock trading
pause pursuant to the Pause Pilot on the listing market and those that
occur up to the time the trading pause message is received by the other
markets from the single plan processor responsible for consolidation
and dissemination of information for the security (``Latency Trades'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For purposes of this filing, the term ``Exchanges'' refers
collectively to BATS Exchange, Inc., BATS Y-Exchange, Inc., NASDAQ
OMX BX, Inc., Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., Chicago Stock
Exchange, Inc., EDGA Exchange, Inc., EDGX Exchange, Inc.,
International Securities Exchange LLC, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC,
New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE Amex LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc.,
National Stock Exchange, Inc., and NASDAX [sic] OMX PHLX LLC.
    \4\ See Rule 11.18(d) and Interpretation and Policy .05 to Rule
11.18.
    \5\ Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 62252 (June 10, 2010),
75 FR 34186 (June 16, 2010) (File Nos. SR-BATS-2010-014; SR-EDGA-
2010-01; SR-EDGX-2010-01; SR-BX-2010-037; SR-ISE- 2010-48; SR-NYSE-
2010-39; SR-NYSEAmex- 2010-46; SR-NYSEArca-2010-41; SR-NASDAQ- 2010-
061; SR-CHX-2010-10; SR-NSX-2010-05; and SR-CBOE-2010-047); 62251
(June 10, 2010), 75 FR 34183 (June 16, 2010) (SR-FINRA-2010- 025).
    \6\ See e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 62884
(September 10, 2010), 75 FR 56618 (September 16, 2010) (File Nos.
SR-BATS-2010-018; SR-BX-2010-044; SR-CBOE-2010-065; SR-CHX-2010-14;
SR-EDGA-2010-05; SR-EDGX-2010-05; SR-ISE-2010-66; SR-NASDAQ-2010-
079; SR-NYSE-2010-49; SR-NYSEAmex-2010-63; SR-NYSEArca-2010-61; and
SR-NSX-2010-08); and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62883
(September 10, 2010), 75 FR 56608 (September 16, 2010) (SR-FINRA-
2010-033).
    \7\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62886 (September 16,
2010), 75 FR 56613 (September 16, 2010) (File Nos. SR-BATS-2010-016;
SR-BX-2010-040; SR-CBOE-2010-056; SR-CHX-2010-13; SR-EDGA-2010-03;
SR-EDGX-2010-03; SR-ISE-2010-62; SR-NASDAQ-2010-076; SR-NSX-2010-07;
SR-NYSE-2010-47; SR-NYSEAmex-2010-60; and SR-NYSEArca-2010-58).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the changes to the clearly erroneous process under Rule
11.17, the Exchange adopted new text to provide clarity in the clearly
erroneous process when a Pause Pilot trading pause is triggered.
Pursuant to Rule 11.17(c)(4), Latency Trades will be broken by the
Exchange if they exceed the applicable percentage from the Reference
Price, as noted in the table found under Rule 11.17(c)(1).\8\ The
Reference Price, for purposes of Rule 11.17(c)(4), is the price that
triggered a trading pause pursuant to the Pause Pilot (the ``Trading
Pause Trigger Price''). As such, Latency Trades that occur on the
Exchange would be broken by the Exchange pursuant to 11.17(c)(4) if the
transaction occurred at either three, five or ten percent above the
Trading Pause Trigger Price.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Pursuant to Rule 11.17(c)(1), a security with a Reference
Price of greater than zero and up to and including $25.00 is subject
to a 10% threshold; a security with a Reference Price of greater
than $25.00 and up to and including $50.00 is subject to a 5%
threshold; and a security with a Reference Price of greater than
$50.00 is subject to a 3% threshold.
    \9\ Rule 11.17(c)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 23, 2011, the Commission approved a joint proposal to
expand the respective Pause Pilot rules of the Exchanges and FINRA to
include all remaining NMS stocks (``Phase III Securities'').\10\ The
new pilot rules, which will be implemented on August 8, 2011, not only
expand the application of the Pause Pilot, but also apply larger
percentage moves that trigger a pause to the Phase III Securities. The
primary listing exchanges, which will continue to calculate trading
pauses under the Pause Pilot and disseminate messages when a trading
pause has been issued, amended their Pause Pilot rules by adding new
subparagraphs to address the treatment of the Phase III Securities in
different categories. The primary listing markets continue to treat the
original Pause Pilot securities, the S&P 500[supreg] Index, the Russell
1000[supreg] Index, as well as a pilot list of ETPs, as one category of
securities for purposes of imposing trading pauses. All remaining NMS
stocks have been categorized in two other groups, one for stocks that
had a closing price on the previous trading day of $1 or more and the
other for stocks that had a closing price on the previous trading day
of less than $1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64735 (June 23, 2011),
76 FR 38243 (June 29, 2011) (File Nos. SR-BATS-2011-016; SR-BYX-
2011-011; SR-BX-2011-025; SR-CBOE-2011-049; SR-CHX-2011-09; SR-EDGA-
2011-15; SR-EDGX-2011-14; SR-FINRA-2011-023; SR-ISE-2011-028; SR-
NASDAQ-2011-067; SR-NYSE-2011-21; SR-NYSEAmex-2011-32; SR-NYSEArca-
2011-26; SR-NSX-2011-06; SR-Phlx-2011-64).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Issue
    The recently-approved changes to the Pause Pilot will have the
unintended effect of removing the Phase III Securities from the normal
clearly erroneous process and potentially result in unfair outcomes in
the face of severe volatility in such securities. Phase III Securities
are currently subject to the clearly erroneous process under Rules
11.17(c)(1)-(3), which apply to all securities except the current Pause
Pilot securities subject to a pause. For purposes of transactions in
securities not involving Pause Pilot securities, or transactions
involving Pause Pilot securities that occur when there is not a pause
pursuant to the Pause Pilot, the Reference Price is the consolidated
last sale price immediately prior to the execution(s) under review,
subject to certain exceptions.\11\ As noted above, the Trading Pause
Trigger Price is used as the Reference Price when a Pause Pilot pause
is in effect. As a consequence, under the current rules a Latency Trade
is subject to the clearly erroneous thresholds based on the Trading
Pause Trigger Price, which represents a ten percent or greater move in
the transacted price of the security in a five minute period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the new Pause Pilot rules, a Latency Trade in a Phase III
Security occurs only after either a 30 or 50 percent (or greater) move
in the transacted price of the security in a five minute period. As a
result, an Exchange User that trades in a Phase III Security that
triggers a clearly erroneous threshold of three, five or ten percent
from the Reference Price, yet falls below the Pause Pilot trigger of
either 30 or 50 percent, would be able to avail themselves of a clearly
erroneous review. A similarly situated User that transacts in the same
security as a Latency Trade at a price equal to or greater than the
Phase III Security thresholds, yet less than the clearly erroneous
thresholds under Rule 11.17(c)(1), would not be able to avail
themselves of the clearly erroneous process. Another User that
transacts in the same security as a Latency Trade that exceeds three,
five or ten percent from the Trading Pause Trigger Price would
automatically receive clearly erroneous relief. The Exchange believes
that this would be an inequitable result and an arbitrary application
of the clearly erroneous process. Specifically, the Exchange believes
that, since the 30 and 50 percent triggers of the Pause Pilot are
substantially greater than the 10 percent threshold of the original
Pause Pilot, the Phase III Securities should remain under the current
clearly erroneous process of Rules 11.17(c)(1)-(3).
    Applying the clearly erroneous process under Rules 11.17(c)(1)-(3)
to the Phase III Securities would allow the Exchange to review all
transactions that exceed the normal clearly erroneous thresholds and
Reference Price, and, importantly, avoid arbitrary selection of
``winners'' and ``losers'' in the face of severe volatile moves in a
security of 30 or 50 percent over a five minute period. For example, a
User that trades in a security subject to Rule 11.18 that triggers a
clearly erroneous threshold of three, five or ten percent, yet falls
below the Pause Pilot trigger threshold trading at 29 percent from the
prior day's closing price, would be potentially entitled to a clearly
erroneous break pursuant Rule 11.17(c)(1). Should trading in that same
stock trigger a trading pause at a price of 30 or 50 percent greater
than the prior day's close, the User would not be entitled to a clearly
erroneous trade break unless that trade exceeded three, five or ten
percent beyond the price that triggered the pause. This scenario causes
an inequity among a group of Users that have transactions in the Phase
III Securities falling between the three, five and ten percent
thresholds from the Reference Price under the normal Rule 11.17(c)(1)
clearly erroneous process and the Pause Pilot clearly erroneous
triggers of three, five or ten percent away from the Trading Pause
Trigger Price. Such Users would not be provided relief under the
clearly erroneous rules merely due to the imposition of a Pause Pilot
halt, notwithstanding that other Users with transactions that occur at
the same rolling five minute percentage difference. The Exchange
believes a better outcome is to afford all Users transacting in Phase
III Securities the

opportunity of having such trades reviewed.
    When rule proposal to expand the Pause Pilot to the Phase III
Securities becomes operative, the Exchange will no longer defines [sic]
the original Pause Pilot securities within its rules. Accordingly, in
order to achieve the objectives of this proposal, the Exchange proposes
to adopt a definition of ``Subject Securities'', to be included in Rule
11.17(c)(4), which will mean the S&P 500[supreg] Index, the Russell
1000[supreg] Index, as well as a pilot list of ETPs.
Summary
    The expansion of the Pause Pilot to the Phase III Securities will
have the unintended consequence of setting the point at which a clearly
erroneous transaction occurs once a Pause Pilot pause is initiated far
beyond the triggers applied prior to the expansion, which will, in
turn, prevent certain market participants from availing themselves of
the clearly erroneous rules, notwithstanding that other similarly
situated participants are able to do so. The Exchange believes that
this would be an arbitrary application of the clearly erroneous process
in a manner that is unfair and not consistent with the spirit and
purpose of the rule. Accordingly, the Exchange is proposing to amend
Rules 11.17(c)(1)-(4) to specify that Rule 11.17(c)(4) applies only to
the current securities of Pause Pilot, or Subject Securities.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ BATS notes that the Exchanges are filing similar proposals
to make the changes proposed herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the rule change proposed in this
submission is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules
and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities
exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of
the Act.\13\ In particular, the proposed change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\14\ because it would promote just and
equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to, and perfect the
mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, protect investors and the public interest. The proposed
rule change is also designed to support the principles of Section
11A(a)(1) \15\ of the Act in that it seeks to assure fair competition
among brokers and dealers and among exchange markets. The Exchange
believes that the proposed rule meets these requirements in that it
promotes transparency and uniformity across markets concerning reviews
of potentially clearly erroneous executions in various contexts,
including reviews in the context of a Multi-Stock Event involving
twenty or more securities and reviews resulting from a Trigger Trade
and any executions occurring immediately after a Trigger Trade but
before a trading pause is in effect on the Exchange. Further, the
Exchange believes that the proposed changes enhance the objectivity of
decisions made by the Exchange with respect to clearly erroneous
executions. The Exchange notes that the changes proposed herein will in
no way interfere with the operation of the Pause Pilot process, as
amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes
any burden on competition.

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing 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, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \16\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\17\ The Exchange has asked the Commission to
waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become
operative immediately upon filing. The Commission believes that waiving
the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest because such waiver will allow the
clearly erroneous rules to continue to operate as they did prior to the
effectiveness of the Pause Pilot expansion to Phase III Securities so
that similarly situated market participants are provided the same
opportunity of a clearly erroneous review. Accordingly, the Commission
waives the 30-day operative delay requirement and designates the
proposed rule change as operative upon filing with the Commission.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) requires that a self-regulatory organization submit to
the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed
rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed
rule change, at least five business days prior to the filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Commission is waiving the five day written notice
requirement in this case. Therefore, the Commission notes that the
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
    \18\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has 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.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BATS-2011-028 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BATS-2011-028. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than

those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BATS-2011-028 and should be
submitted on or before September 7, 2011.

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

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

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-20954 Filed 8-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


                               Site Visit Report

	Lake Road Plant
	1413 Lower Lake Road
	St. Joseph, MO 64502
      March 3, 2009

1.0 Background and Objectives

      The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is in the process of developing 316(b) cooling water intake structure requirements that reflect the best technology available (BTA) for minimizing adverse environmental impact for all existing power plants and manufacturing facilities. As part of this process, EPA staff is visiting electric generators and manufacturers to better understand the cooling water intake structure (CWIS) technologies in use at facilities, including the site-specific characteristics of each facility and how these affect the selection and performance of CWIS technologies.  EPA is also visiting facilities to better understand cooling water use and specific issues or technologies that can affect 316(b) compliance.  Lake Road was selected for a site visit due to its location on a large freshwater river.

2.0 Facility Description

      Lake Road is owned and operated by the KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations Company (KCP&L GMO).  It is located in an industrial section of St. Joseph, Missouri along the Missouri River on a compact site of approximately 40 acres.  Lake Road employs approximately 85 people and began operation in 1934.

      Cooling and process water withdrawals from and wastewater discharges to the Missouri River are regulated under NPDES permit number MO0004898 which expired on June 12, 2008.  Lake Road submitted its NPDES permit application in a timely manner and is awaiting renewal of its permit by the state.

3.0 Electricity Generation and Transmission

      Lake Road has one coal-fired, steam-electric generating unit with a generating capacity of 99 MW.  It is a baseload unit with an overall capacity utilization rate (CUR) of 85%.  The fuel source is a combination (80%/20%) of low/high BTU, low sulfur coal from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Colorado.

      The facility typically has one routine maintenance outage during the spring and one in the fall that typically lasts 1-2 weeks.

      Lake Road also produces, for sale, steam in one coal/gas, one gas and four oil/gas fed industrial boilers that have a total generating capacity of 60.2 MW.

4.0 Cooling Water System and Intake Structure

      Lake Road has one CWIS that provides once-through cooling water for the baseload generating unit. The CWIS is fitted with a trash rack and two standard (i.e., coarse mesh 3/8") traveling screens. In addition, 2 circulating water pumps, each rated at 28,000 gpm (total 80.6 mgd), provide cooling water to the generating unit. The through-screen velocity is 2.8 feet per second (fps).  In 1989, Lake Road added an anti-vortex device allowing it to lower the intake.

      The CWIS has an adjustable bulkhead that can be raised or lowered to prevent debris from going over top of the screens and into the condenser.  The screens rotate when the pressure differential across the screen reaches 3 to 4 inches allowing for cleaning with a high pressure spray that flows into a debris trough and discharges to the Missouri River.  If this differential is not reached within a specified time limit, the screens automatically rotate for cleaning.

      In addition, as necessary, Lake Road introduces warm water prior to the CWIS which effectively prevents icing.  Facility representatives explained that they do not add biocides to prevent biofouling and that heavy scouring from debris helps keep the system clean.

      Lake Road inspects its traveling screens annually.  It also cleans and rebuilds each screen every two years (one each year) during its routine maintenance outage period.  Divers inspect the screens annually.  Approximately every 2 years (during a regularly scheduled outage), Lake Road will clean the silt out of the CWIS.

5.0 Impingement and Entrainment Information

      Lake Road has not completed any impingement, entrainment, or source water body characterization studies.  Following promulgation of the 2004 316(b) Phase II rule, Lake Road began an impingement study.  When EPA suspended that rule, Lake Road similarly suspended its impingement study.  Lake Road provided the results of its incomplete study as part of its response to EPRI's recent survey.  While Lake Road did not provide the results of its incomplete impingement study during this site visit, facility representatives commented that the number of fish impinged during the study was low (3-4 fish collected in a 24 hour period).

6.0 Cooling Tower Feasibility

      Lake Road has three closed-cycle cooling towers:  one for each of the three turbines that receive steam from the six industrial boilers.  These mechanical draft towers are small and have been in operation for a considerable time period, the oldest since 1957.  The towers are wooden with wide-spaced metal frame fill.  Water for the steam generating boilers is withdrawn from groundwater wells.

      Facility representatives noted that closed-cycle cooling for the generating units would be possible, but highly costly and problematic; across the KCP&L GMO portfolio, it is likely some generating units would be forced to close.

7.0 Debris Handling

      Debris at Lake Road typically consists of tree limbs and stumps.  While the incoming water does not contain a lot of rocks, it does contain sand/mud and grasses.  During high debris conditions, operators rotate the screens continuously so that debris does not negatively impact operations.  However, because of debris build-up in the condenser, Lake Road typically cleans some portion of the condenser each weekend.

8.0 Repowering/Future Uses

      Lake Road has no short term plans for re-powering or upgrading.

9.0 Cooling Ponds

      Lake Road does not have any cooling ponds.

10.0 Ownership

      Lake Road is owned by KCP&L GMO, a subsidiary of Great Plains Energy. Kansas City Power and Light Company is also a subsidiary of Great Plains Energy.  Both subsidiaries operate under the KCP&L brand name.

11.0 316(a)

      EPA did not collect any information on 316(a).

12.0 Ash Handling

      Lake Road beneficially uses all of its fly ash for fill and all of its slag for use in asphalt highways.

13.0 Air Emissions Controls

      EPA did not collect information on air controls at Lake Road during its visit.

14.0 Additional Information

      Lake Road explained that the river bed in the Kansas City metro area is dropping.  They referred to it as the "sinking river." In addition, Lake Road is limited by the Army Corps of Engineers in its ability to place structures that protrude into the river due to navigational requirements.

      Lake Road planned to rely on restoration for complying with the proposed 2004 Phase II rule.  Facility representatives commented that the State was also pushing them towards restoration.

      Facility representatives noted that KCPL GMO is a small company in the electricity producing arena that depends heavily on EPRI and UWAG for research and 316(b) representation.

Attachments

Attachment A		List of Attendees
Attachment B		Aerial Photo
Attachment C		Site Visit Photos

Attachment A--List of Attendees

Paul Shriner, EPA Headquarters
Jan Matuszko, EPA Headquarters
Jamie Hurley, EPA Headquarters
John Dunn, EPA Region VII
Mark Matthews, EPA Region VII
Kelly Meadows, Tetra Tech
Mark Howell, KCP&L
Steven Brooks, KCP&L
Paul Ling, KCP&L
Bob Beck, KCP&L

Attachment B--Aerial Photo

Please see DCN 10-6525A accompanying this document.

Attachment C -- Site Visit Photos

Please see DCN 10-6525B through G accompanying this document.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 140 (Thursday, July 21, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47397-47398]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17188]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2005-D-0155 (formerly 2005D-0219)]

General Principles for Evaluating the Human Food Safety of New
Animal Drugs Used in Food-Producing Animals; Draft Guidance for
Industry; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the availability of a draft revised guidance for industry #3 entitled
``General Principles for Evaluating the Human Food Safety of New Animal
Drugs Used in Food-Producing Animals.'' This draft revised guidance
describes the type of information that FDA's Center for Veterinary
Medicine (CVM) recommends sponsors provide to address the human food
safety of new animal drugs used in food-producing animals.

DATES: Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this
draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the
guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft
guidance by September 19, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of
Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2005-D-0155 for ``General Principles for Evaluating the Human Food
Safety of New Animal Drugs used in Food-Producing Animals.'' Received
comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted
as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets Management between 9
a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not
wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available,
you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body
of your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to
the Policy and Regulations Staff (HFV-6), Center for Veterinary
Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville,
MD 20855. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office
in processing your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
for electronic access to the draft guidance document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia Oriani, Center for Veterinary
Medicine (HFV-151), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl.,
Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft revised guidance for
industry #3 entitled ``General Principles for Evaluating the Human Food
Safety of New Animal Drugs used in Food-Producing Animals.'' This draft
revised guidance is intended to inform sponsors of the scientific data
and/or information that may provide an acceptable basis to determine
that the residue of a new animal drug in or on food, when consumed,
presents a reasonable certainty of no harm to humans. This guidance
describes a recommended approach for providing human food safety
scientific data and/or information. CVM acknowledges that alternate
approaches also may be appropriate and encourages sponsors to discuss
with CVM whether an alternate approach may be appropriate for specific
new animal drugs.

II. Significance of Guidance

    This level 1 draft revised guidance is being issued consistent with
FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft
revised guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking
of FDA on the type of information sponsors provide to address the human
food safety of new animal drugs used in food-producing animals. It does
not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or
the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the
requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information
are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The
collections of information in 21 CFR part 514 have been approved under
OMB control number 0910-0032.

IV. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft guidance
at either http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/GuidanceComplianceEnforcement/GuidanceforIndustry/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: July 14, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-17188 Filed 7-20-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


Appendix F Analysis Using HYSPLIT Trajectories for Days with Largest Contribution to Haze by Various Species of Particles

Contents of Appendix F Discussion of trajectories and results Summary of trajectories (Table 3-4 from the FIP) Maps of trajectories Procedure used for trajectories

Discussion of trajectories and results

	Where do the particles come from that affect visibility in the Virgin Islands National Park?  The HYSPLIT model plots paths taken by particles blown by the wind through the air. The HYSPLIT model has historical meteorological data, to see where the air traveled enroute to the IMPROVE monitor, located on St. John, near Cruz Bay, on days when visibility was worst as measured by the samples taken by the IMPROVE monitor.  Explorers traveling by balloon use trajectory models to find the most favorable winds to get them where they want to go.

	By calculating trajectories, we can test our suppositions about where the various kinds of particles come from.  For example, if the major cause of obstruction to visibility on a given day is due to sulfates or nitrates, and sulfates and nitrates are products of combustion, trajectories on those days would be likely to come through areas with lots of sources of combustion on the way to affecting visibility at the IMPROVE site.

	HYSPLIT model uses weather data measured every three hours at the surface and twice a day aloft.  These data are converted to a grid of values of wind direction and speed and other weather factors for each hour of the day.

	The user specifies the starting point (in our case, the IMPROVE monitoring site on St. John), how long to run the model (2 weeks) and the height above ground at the monitoring site. We used the model to go backwards from the IMPROVE site to see where the air came from.  We started at three different heights above the monitoring site within the well-mixed tropical surface layer, since tropical air is well mixed over land at these heights.  But wind can change direction at different altitudes and give different trajectories, even on the same day.   	Since the trade winds mostly blow from east to west across the Virgin Islands, it is not surprising that when the winds are traced backwards from the sampling site on the western end of St. John, the path that the air takes almost always passes eastward over the island of St. John. Many trajectories pass over neighboring islands like Antigua and St. Martin. Some trajectories pass over the British Virgin Islands, located to the northeast of St. John.

	However, as the summary of the paths of the air parcels show (see the enclosed table) there is not any particular pattern where days with the highest amounts of light-scattering particles have trajectories that commonly pass through one or more of these likely sources of human air pollution. For example, only one of the days with high levels of haze that may be from combustion has trajectories that pass over St. Croix, home to a major industrial center. These trajectories show that even on days when visibility is reduced due to sulfates, nitrates, and carbon (likely suspects from sources of combustion), the air affecting the park usually does not pass over St. Croix, St. Thomas, or Puerto Rico.

	More often, days with high concentrations of fine soil or coarse particulates in the atmosphere occur when air travels from Africa's Sahara Desert. For example, Figure 1 shows a set of backward trajectories originating at the Virgin Islands National park for 100 (red), 500 (blue), and 1,000 (green) meters above ground level for September 26, 2002, which is typical of days with high visibility impairment due to fine soils. This illustrates how a significant cause of reduced visibility in the Virgin Islands National Park is dust transported from the Sahara Desert, located over 5,000 miles away in Africa. The Virgin Islands can also be affected by other various natural sources, such as sulfate produced by plankton in the ocean, and ash from the Montserrat Volcano located over 200 miles away to the southeast. The effects of these natural sources on visibility can be very noticeable on some days, especially because there are not as many anthropogenic sources of pollution in the Islands in comparison with the more urban areas of the continental United States. .  Figure 1.   HYSPLIT trajectories for a low visibility day with high concentrations of fine soil.

References Draxler, R.R. and Rolph, G.D., 2012. HYSPLIT (HYbrid Single-Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory) Model access via NOAA ARL READY Website (http://ready.arl.noaa.gov/HYSPLIT.php). NOAA Air Resources Laboratory, Silver Spring, MD.

Rolph, G.D., 2012. Real-time Environmental Applications and Display sYstem (READY) Website (http://ready.arl.noaa.gov). NOAA Air Resources Laboratory, Silver Spring, MD.

We  gratefully acknowledge the NOAA Air Resources Laboratory (ARL) for the provision of the HYSPLIT transport and dispersion model via the READY website (http://ready.arl.noaa.gov)used in this analysis.  The trajectories were run by Edward Finfer of EPA Region 2, Air Programs Branch and reviewed by Henry Feingersh, also from EPA-R2-APB

Table 3-4: Summary of Trajectory Analyses for Top Four Days with the Highest Visibility Impairment for Each Species 2000  -  2004 Species Total Light Extinct-ion (bext) Date Source Region (Height of Trajectory in Meters Above Ground Level)

Local Regional Long-Distance All Aerosols Combined 79.5 06 23 2004 St. John (100, 500) Anguilla (100) NW Africa (500, 1000)

77.4 08 01 2004 St. John (100, 500, 1000) None NW Africa (1000)

71.8 07 08 2004 St. John (100, 500, 1000) Anguila (500) Central Africa (1000)

71.1 08 01 2003 St. John (100, 500) Anguila (100)  St. Martin (500) African Coast (1000) Fine Soil 19.9 09 26 2002 None None Central Africa (500, 1000)

17.9 08 01 2004 St. John (100, 500, 1000) None NW Africa (1000)

17.3 08 03 2002 None Guadeloupe (100) Central Africa (1000)

16.9 06 14 2004 St. John (1000) Guadeloupe (100, 500) Central Africa (1000) Sea Salt 24.2 03 07 2003 St. John (100, 500, 1000) None None

21.8 03 10 2003 St. John (100) Anguila (100) None

18.9 08 01 2003 St. John (100, 500) Anguila (100)  St. Martin (500) African Coast (1000)

17.9 02 12 2001 St. John (100, 500, 1000) None None Sulfate 42.0 04 24 2003 St. John (100) Puerto Rico (1000) None

34.9 11 21 2001 St. Thomas (100) Puerto Rico (100, 500) Dominican Rep. (1000) Florida (500)

26.8 08 03 2002 None Guadeloupe (100) Central Africa (1000)

26.6 02 27 2004 None Montserrat (500) Western U.S. (1000) Nitrate 5.2 05 09 2003 St. John (100, 500, 1000) Anguila (500) Barbuda (1000) None

4.8 11 15 2001 None St. Martin (100) Barbuda (500) Canada (100, 500, 1000)

4.52 08 01 2003 St. John (100, 500) Anguila (100)  St. Martin (500) African Coast (1000)

4.52 05 21 2003 Puerto Rico (500, 1000) Dominica (100) Guadeloupe (500) None Elemental Carbon 15.5 09 05 2002 St. John (500, 1000) BVI (100) None Central Africa (1000) African Coast (500)

14.0 01 08 2002 None St. Martin (100) Mideast U.S. (100) Mexico, Florida (500, 1000)

13.3 08 13 2004 None St. Martin (100, 500) None

10.3 11 20 2003 None BVI (100, 500) Canada, N.E. U.S. (100) Organic Carbon 18.4 01 08 2002 None St. Martin (100) Mideast U.S. (100) Mexico, Florida (500, 1000)

17.2 09 05 2002 St. John (500, 1000) BVI (100) None Central Africa (1000) African Coast (500)

7.09 10 26 2002 St. John (100, 500, 1000) None Central Africa (1000)

7.05 08 13 2004 None St. Martin (100, 500) None Coarse PM 34.4 09 26 2002 None None Central Africa (500, 1000)

33.4 06 23 2004 St. John (100, 500) Anguilla (100) NW Africa (500, 1000)

30.5 08 08 2001 St. John (100, 500, 1000) BVI (100, 500, 1000) W Africa (100, 500, 1000)

28.8 07 14 2003 St. John (500, 1000) BVI (100, 500) None Dates in italics are days when it was a top four date for more than one species of particles.

The following maps are HYSPLIT trajectories output as.kmz files and plotted on Google Earth.

Figure 2. Trajectories with time and dates for worst haze days 2000-2004 for all types of particles. See Table 3-4 for list of days and type of particle.

Figure 3 Same as Figure 2  -  trajectories for worst haze days for all types of particles - but a wider view, including Puerto Rico and other islands in the area of the Virgin Islands	 Figure 4.  Global view of trajectories in Figure 2 for worst haze days 2000-2004 for all types of particles.

Figure 5.  Trajectories for worst visibility days due to sulfate, 2000-2004 Figure 6. Global view of trajectories for worst visibility days due to sulfate, 2000-2004

Procedure Used for Trajectories Trajectories for VI haze plan for selected IMPROVE monitoring days 2001- 2004.  24 hour (midnight to midnight) particulate matter filter sampler using READY HySplit trajectories program, Internet version, click on : http://ready.arl.noaa.gov/hysplit-bin/trajtype.pl?runtype=archive . Instructions:   Click on the box under:  First, select the meteorologcal data:  Select: REANALYSIS met data; Enter latitude:   +18.336, and longitude: -64.796 Click:  Continue Select Select the reanalysis File For the month and year for the date of the trajectory we want,  e.g., RP200205 is year 2002, month 05 (May 2002). Click:  Next Trajectory direction:  backward  Vertical Motion:  model vertical velocity.   Start time (UTC):  Fill in year month and day from the data and hour = 18 (for 1800 UTC, which is 2pm time in the Virgin Islands). Total run time (hours):  515 Start a new trajectory every: should be 0 Start 1 latitude (degrees): should already be 18.336 Start 1 longitude (degrees): should already be -64.796 Leave Start 2 and 3 blank Level 1 height:  100 (meters) Level 2 height:  500 Level 3 height:  1000

Display options: Don't change any defaults, except for:  GIS output?  Click:  Google Earth (kmz)

Click:  Request trajectory Wait for graphics files.  When they are ready, they will look something like this:

HYSPLIT MODEL RESULTS FOR JOB NUMBER 33054                                 Model Status:  Top of Form

Bottom of Form

                                    RESULTS               Click on text link to view images in a new window.

                                   GIF Plots                               Google Earth Plots

                                 Trajectories GIF KMZ

Right click on gif and save in directory with time and date in file name Right click on kmz and save in directory with time and date in file name For example, this example can have a file name with the year, month, day, hour,  e.g., 2002 05 05 18.gif and 2002 05 05 18.kmz Save the trajectory plots. The gif version should look like this:

Additional runs can be made for multiple trajectories by following these directions:   Click on the box under:  First, select the meteorologcal data:  Select: REANALYSIS met data; Enter latitude:   +18.336, and longitude: -64.796 Click:  Continue Select Select the reanalysis File For the month and year for the date of the trajectory we want,  Click:  Next Trajectory direction:  backward  Vertical Motion:  model vertical velocity.   Start time (UTC):  Fill in year month and day from the data and hour = 18 (for 1800 UTC, which is 2pm time in the Virgin Islands).   But for the day, fill in the day *plus 1 day*, e.g., day in this case would be 06 instead of 05.  Enter a time of 03 . Start a new trajectory every:  3 hrs Maximum number of trajectories: 8 Total run time (hours):  515 Start a new trajectory every: should be 0 Start 1 latitude (degrees): should already be 18.336 Start 1 longitude (degrees): should already be -64.796 Leave Start 2 and 3 blank Level 1 height:  100 (meters) Level 2 height:  blank Level 3 height:  blank

Display options: Don't change any defaults, except for:  GIS output?  Click:  Google Earth (kmz)

Click:  Request trajectory Wait for graphics files.   This file should look like the graphic on the next page. Then save the file as year date height e.g., 2002 05 05 100m.gif and the kmz file as 2002 05 05 100m.kmz Then go back and run the same information, changing only the Level 1` height to 500 and after you get the maps for that run, change the Level 1 height to 1000 and get the maps for that run.


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-R04-OW-2007-1050; FRL-____-____]

Public Water System Supervision Program Revisions

for the State of Tennessee

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Notice of tentative approval.

SUMMARY:  Notice is hereby given that the State of Tennessee is in the
process of revising their approved Public Water System Supervision
(PWSS) program to meet the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA).  Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation has
adopted drinking water regulations for the Long Term 2 Surface Water
Treatment and the Stage 2 Disinfection By-Products Rules.  EPA has
determined that these revisions are no less stringent than the
corresponding federal regulations.  Therefore, EPA intends to approve
Tennessee’s PWSS revision for these rules.

DATES:  All interested parties may request a public hearing and/or
submit comments within thirty (30) days of the Federal Register
publication date to the Regional Administrator at the address shown
below.  Frivolous or insubstantial requests for a public hearing may be
denied by the Regional Administrator.  However, if a substantial request
for a public hearing is made within the 30 days, a public hearing will
be held.  If no timely and appropriate request is received, and the
Regional Administrator does not elect to hold a hearing on his/her own
motion, this determination shall become final and effective 30 days
after the publication of this notice.

ADDRESSES:  All documents relating to this determination are available
for inspection between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding federal holidays, at U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, Water Management Division, Ground Water and
Drinking Water Branch, Drinking Water Section, 61 Forsyth Street, SW,
Atlanta, GA 30303.  For documents specific to this State: Tennessee
Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Water Supply,
401 Church Street, 6th Floor L&C Tower, Nashville, TN 37243.  You may
also submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA-R04-OW-2007-1050, in one of the following methods:

	  HYPERLINK http://www.regulations.gov www.regulations.gov :  Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting comments

	E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
	Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Instructions:  Direct your comments to Docket ID No.
EPA-R04-OW-2007-1050.  EPA's policy is that all comments received will
be included in the public docket without change and may be made
available online at   HYPERLINK http://www.regulations.gov
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   HYPERLINK
http://www.regulations.gov www.regulations.gov  or e-mail, information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.  The   HYPERLINK
http://www.regulations.gov www.regulations.gov  website 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 e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through   HYPERLINK http://www.regulations.gov www.regulations.gov
, your e-mail 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   HYPERLINK http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm
http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm .

Docket:  All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
HYPERLINK http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/index.jsp 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   HYPERLINK http://www.regulations.gov
www.regulations.gov  or in hard copy at the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4 office.  FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Amy Newbold, Drinking Water Section at<PHONE_NUMBER> or   HYPERLINK
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>.

AUTHORITY:  Section 1442 of the Safe Drinking Water Act as amended in
1996 and the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations in 40 CFR Part
142.

Dated:

J. I. Palmer, Jr.

Regional Administrator

Region 4

Billing Code 6560-50P

 PAGE

 PAGE   3