[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 74 (Monday, April 18, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22656-22659]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08822]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77591; File No. SR-NYSE-2016-26]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Amending Its Price List To Adopt a Rebate Program for the NYSE BondsSM
System

April 12, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on March 29, 2016, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List, effective April 1,
2016, to adopt a rebate program for the NYSE BondsSM system. The
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List, effective April 1,
2016, to adopt a rebate program for the NYSE Bonds system.
    The Exchange currently charges an execution fee per bond for orders
that take liquidity from the NYSE Bonds Book. For executions of one to
10 bonds, the Exchange charges $0.50 per bond; for executions of 11 to
25 bonds, the Exchange charges $0.20 per bond; and for executions of 26
bonds or more, the Exchange charges $0.10 per bond. The execution fees
for bonds are subject to a $100.00 maximum fee per execution. The
Exchange currently does not provide any rebates for bond transactions,
other than rebates for bond liquidity providers that meet the
requirements of Rule 88.\4\ The Exchange is not proposing any change to
the bond liquidity provider rebate program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ There are currently no bond liquidity providers who meet the
requirements of Rule 88 and therefore no rebates are currently
provided under the program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to adopt the Liquidity Provider Incentive
Program, a voluntary rebate program relating to bonds pursuant to which
the Exchange would pay Users \5\ of NYSE Bonds a monthly rebate
provided Users who opt into the proposed rebate program meet specified
quoting requirements. Under the program, the rebate payable would be
based on the number of CUSIPs \6\ a User decides to quote. The more
CUSIPs quoted by a User, the higher the rebate that would be payable by
the Exchange to the User. The Exchange believes that the proposed
changes would encourage additional displayed liquidity in bonds on the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Rule 86(b)(2)(M) defines a User as any Member or Member
Organization, Sponsored Participant, or Authorized Trader that is
authorized to access NYSE Bonds.
    \6\ CUSIP stands for Committee on Uniform Securities
Identification Procedures. A CUSIP number identifies most financial
instruments, including: Stocks of all registered U.S. and Canadian
companies, commercial paper, and U.S. government and municipal
bonds. The CUSIP system--owned by the American Bankers Association
and managed by Standard & Poor's--facilitates the clearance and
settlement process of securities. See http://www.sec.gov/answers/cusip.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, the rebate amount would be tiered based on the number
of CUSIPs quoted by a User, as follows:

                  Liquidity Provider Incentive Program
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Monthly
                       Number of CUSIPs                          rebate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
400-599......................................................    $10,000
600-799......................................................     20,000
800 or more..................................................     30,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To qualify for a rebate, a User would have to provide continuous
two-sided quotes for at least eighty percent (80%) of the time during
the Core Bond Trading Session \7\ for an entire calendar month. The
Exchange would calculate each participating User's quoting performance
beginning each month on a daily basis, up to and including the last
trading day of a calendar month, to determine at the end of each month
each User's monthly average. The Exchange would provide Users a report
on a daily basis with quoting statistics so that Users can determine
whether or not they are meeting the Exchange's current stated criteria.
Under the program, Users must provide a two-sided quote for a minimum
of hundred (100) bonds per side of the market with an average spread of
half-point ($0.50) or less in CUSIPs whose average maturity is at least
five (5) years as of the date the User provides a quote. Average
maturity is calculated by determining the number of calendar days
between the quote date and the maturity date of a bond. The resulting
number (total days to maturity) is divided by 365 to derive the
maturity in years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Core Bond Trading Session commences with the Core Bond
Auction at 8:00 a.m. ET and concludes at 5:00 p.m. ET. See Rule
86(i)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an incentive for Users to opt in to the Liquidity Provider
Incentive Program, the Exchange proposes a lower quoting requirement of
50% that would be applicable for the first calendar month after a User
opts in. After the first calendar month, the User would be required to
meet the 80% quoting requirement to receive a rebate. A User who first
opts in, and who therefore would be subject to the 50% quoting
requirement for the first calendar month, and then opts out, would not
be entitled to the 50% quoting incentive if that User decides to opt in
to the program again at a later date. The 50% quoting incentive would
only be available to a User once for the first calendar month after the
User first opts in to the Liquidity Provider Incentive Program.
    Users that opt in to the Liquidity Provider Incentive Program would
be subject to a transaction fee for orders that provide liquidity to
the NYSE Bonds Book of $0.50 per bond, and for orders that take
liquidity from the NYSE Bonds Book, the current tiered fees would
apply, i.e., $0.50 per bond for executions of one to 10 bonds, $0.20
per bond for executions of 11 to 25 bonds and $0.10 per bond for
executions of 26 bonds or more, with a maximum fee of $100 per
execution. Users that do not opt in to the Liquidity Provider Incentive
Program would be subject to the Exchange's standard fees and rebates,
as currently provided on the Price List.
    The Liquidity Provider Incentive Program would be applicable on
trading days, as determined by Securities Industry and Financial
Markets Association (``SIFMA''),\8\ and not the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The SIFMA holiday schedule for 2016 is available at http://www.sifma.org/services/holiday-schedule/#us2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the Liquidity Provider Incentive Program would be
voluntary and Users that wish to participate would be required to opt
in by notifying the Exchange via electronic email. Users would be
required to communicate to the Exchange their intention to opt in, or
to opt out if they are already participating in the program, by the end
of the Core Bond Trading Session on the first trading day of a calendar
month.
    The Exchange proposes that if a User meets the quoting requirements
for a given month, that User would be entitled to a rebate that month.
As proposed, the amount of the rebate would be based on the number of
CUSIPs in which the User met the quoting requirement. For example, a
User who opts in to the Liquidity Provider Incentive Program on the
first trading day of the month and provides a two-sided quote in 500
CUSIPs, whose average maturity is at least five (5) years as of the
quote date, for at least 50% of the time during the Core Bond Trading
Session for that entire calendar month, would receive a rebate of
$10,000 for that month. For subsequent months, this User would be
required to provide a

two-sided quote for at least 80% of the time during the Core Bond
Trading Session in order for the User to continue to receive the
rebate.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\9\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ in
particular, because it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and
other persons using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate
between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers. The Exchange believes
that it is reasonable and equitable to adopt the Liquidity Provider
Incentive Program for the bonds trading platform, which would provide
rebates for member organizations that provide liquidity and meet
quoting volume requirements. The proposed rebate program would provide
incentives for additional liquidity at the Exchange. The Exchange
believes that the proposed quoting requirements to qualify for rebates,
which would be based on the size, spread and maturity dates, are
reasonable and would not unfairly discriminate between customers,
issuers, and brokers or dealers because all member organizations that
opt in to the Liquidity Provider Incentive Program would be subject to
the same requirements. The Exchange further believes that the proposed
quoting requirements are reasonable because they are designed to
provide an incentive for member organizations to increase displayed
liquidity at the Exchange, thereby increasing traded volume.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange also believes it is reasonable and equitable to charge
a fee to Users who opt in to the proposed rebate program when they
provide liquidity in bonds traded on the Exchange. The proposed maker
fee is intended to offset the significant rebates proposed by the
Exchange, which would increase as the number of CUSIPs quoted by a User
increases. The Exchange further believes the proposed fee change is not
unfairly discriminatory because all member organizations that opt in to
the Liquidity Provider Incentive Program would be subject to the same
fees.
    Finally, recognizing the statements of Commissioners who have
expressed concern about the state of the U.S. corporate and municipal
bond markets as well as recommendations outlined in the Commission's
release of its Report on the Municipal Securities Market (Report), the
Exchange believes that amending the Exchange's transaction fees for the
Bonds system would create an incentive for bonds traders to direct
their liquidity to the Exchange, and therefore would be an important
element in the democratization of the fixed income market.\11\ As
highlighted in SEC Chair White's statement during the SEC's 2013
Roundtable on Fixed Income Markets, the Report makes recommendations
that include (1) improving pre- and post-trade transparency; (2)
promoting the use of transparent and open trading venues; and (3)
requiring dealers to seek ``best execution'' for customers and to
provide customers with relevant pricing information in connection with
their transactions.\12\ Achieving these recommendations and applying
them to both the municipal and corporate bond markets would, in the
Exchange's view, assist in lowering the systemic risk that is
anticipated to increase as interest rates rise and the closed network
of bond trading comes under pressure as retirement and pension managers
seek to adjust their positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See SEC Report on the Municipal Securities Market, at
http://www.sec.gov/news/studies/2012/-munireport073112.pdf; ``SEC's
Gallagher Says Retail Bond Investors Fighting `Headwinds''', Jesse
Hamilton, Bloomberg News. Sep 20, 2012. See http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-19/sec-s-gallagher-says-retail-bond-investors-fighting-headwinds-.html.
    \12\ See Opening remarks of Chairman Mary Jo White at SEC
Roundtable on Fixed Income Markets. http://www.sec.gov/News/Speech/Detail/Speech/1365171515300.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed fee change is consistent with
these principles and the proposed Liquidity Provider Incentive Program
is intended to provide additional liquidity to the market and add
competition to the existing group of liquidity providers. The Exchange
believes that by requiring Users to quote within the prescribed
parameters for a percentage of the regular trading day, and by paying
them a rebate for providing liquidity in large number of bonds, the
Exchange is rewarding aggressive liquidity providers in the market, and
by doing so, the Exchange will encourage the additional utilization of,
and interaction with, the NYSE and provide customers with the premier
venue for price discovery, liquidity, and competitive quotes.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\13\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. Debt securities typically trade in a decentralized
OTC dealer market that is less liquid and transparent than the equities
markets. The Exchange believes that the proposed change would increase
competition with these OTC venues by creating incentives to engage in
bonds transactions on the Exchange and rewarding market participants
for actively quoting and providing liquidity in the only transparent
bond market, which the Exchange believes will enhance market quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market
in which market participants can readily favor competing venues that
are not transparent. In such an environment, the Exchange must
continually review, and consider adjusting its fees and rebates to
remain competitive with other exchanges as well as with alternative
trading systems and other venues that are not required to comply with
the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because competitors
are free to modify their own fees and credits in response, and because
market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices,
the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this
market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited. As a
result of all of these considerations, the Exchange does not believe
that the proposed change will impair the ability of member
organizations or competing order execution venues to maintain their
competitive standing in the financial markets.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \14\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \15\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may

temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) \16\
of the Act to determine whether the proposed rule change should be
approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2016-26 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2016-26. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2016-26, and should be
submitted on or before May 9, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-08822 Filed 4-15-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Revision and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Texas; Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan; Disapproval and Need for Error Correction; Denial of Reconsideration of Provisions Governing Alternative to Source-Specific Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinations      [EPA-R06-OAR-2016-0611; EPA - HQ - OAR - 2016 - 0598; FRL-9771-01-R6]

Parts of this action rely on documents that were previously submitted and claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI). As such, these documents have not been posted to Regulations.gov. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 2.


[Federal Register: December 29, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 249)]
[Notices]
[Page 77200-77201]
[DOCID:fr29de05-95]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon written request, copies available from: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC
20549.

Extension:
    Rule 2a-7, SEC File No. 270-258, OMB Control No. 3235-0268.

    Notice is hereby given that under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 [44 U.S.C. 3501], the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') is soliciting public comments on the collections of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit these
existing collections of information to the Office of Management and
Budget (``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    Rule 2a-7 [17 CFR 270.2a-7] under the Investment Company Act of
1940 [15 U.S.C. 80a] (the ``Act'') governs money market funds. Money
market funds are open-end management investment companies that differ
from other open-end management investment companies in that they seek
to maintain a stable price per share, usually $1.00. The rule exempts
money market funds from the valuation requirements of the Act, and,
subject to certain risk-limiting conditions, permits money market funds
to use the ``amortized cost method'' of asset valuation or the ``penny-
rounding method'' of share pricing.
    Rule 2a-7 imposes certain recordkeeping and reporting obligations
on money market funds. The board of directors of a money market fund,
in supervising the fund's operations, must establish written procedures
designed to stabilize the fund's net asset value (``NAV''). The board
also must adopt guidelines and procedures relating to certain
responsibilities it delegates to the fund's investment adviser. These
procedures typically address various aspects of the fund's operations.
The fund must maintain and preserve for six years a written copy of
both these procedures and guidelines. The fund also must maintain and
preserve for six years a written record of the board's considerations
and actions taken in connection with the discharge of its
responsibilities, to be included in the board's minutes. In addition,
the fund must maintain and preserve for three years written records of
certain credit risk analyses, evaluations with respect to securities
subject to demand features or guarantees, and determinations with
respect to adjustable rate securities and asset backed securities. If
the board takes action with respect to defaulted securities, events of
insolvency, or deviations in share price, the fund must file with the
Commission an exhibit to Form N-SAR describing the nature and
circumstances of the action. If any portfolio security fails to meet
certain eligibility standards under the rule, the fund also must
identify those securities in an exhibit to Form N-SAR. After certain
events of default or insolvency relating to a portfolio security, the
fund must notify the Commission of the event and the actions the fund
intends to take in response to the situation.
    The recordkeeping requirements in rule 2a-7 are designed to enable
Commission staff in its examinations of money market funds to determine
compliance with the rule, as well as to ensure that money market funds
have established procedures for collecting the information necessary to
make adequate credit reviews of securities in their portfolios. The
reporting requirements of rule 2a-7 are intended to assist Commission
staff in overseeing money market funds.
    Commission staff estimates that each of 847 \1\ money market funds
spends a total of approximately 1220 hours \2\ of professional time (at
$76 per hour) \3\ to record credit risk analyses and determinations
regarding adjustable rate securities, asset backed securities and
securities subject to a demand feature or guarantee, for a total of
approximately $79 million. The staff further estimates that each of 24
new money market funds spends a total of 21 hours of director, legal,
and support staff time at a total cost of approximately $126,216 to
adopt procedures designed to stabilize the fund's NAV and guidelines
regarding the delegation of certain responsibilities to the fund's
adviser.\4\ The staff further

estimates that on average each of 212 money market funds spends a total
of 4.5 hours of director and legal time at a total cost of
approximately $916,370 to review and amend written procedures and
guidelines each year.\5\ Finally, the staff estimates that one money
market fund that experiences a change in certain eligibility standards
for portfolio securities or an event of default or insolvency relating
to portfolio securities spends a total of one and a half hours of
professional legal time (at $109.97 per hour) documenting board
determinations and notifying the Commission regarding the event, for a
total of $165. Thus, the Commission estimates the total annual burden
of the rule's information collection requirements are 1,034,800 hours
at an annual cost of $80 million.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ These include registered money market funds and series of
registered funds. This estimate is based on information from Lipper
Inc.'s Lana database as of September 30, 2005.
    \2\ This average is based on discussions with individuals at
money market funds and their advisers. The actual number of burden
hours may vary significantly depending on the type and number of
portfolio securities held by individual funds.
    \3\ The estimated hourly cost of professional time was based on
the weighted average annual salaries reported for senior business
analysts, floor managers and portfolio managers in New York City in
Securities Industry Association, Management and Professional
Earnings in the Securities Industry (2003) and Securities Industry
Association, Office Salaries in the Securities Industry (2003)
(collectively, the ``SIA Salary Guides'').
    \4\ This estimate is based on information from iMoneyNet's
database. During the past three years, an average of 24 new money
market funds have been created annually. In calculating industry
costs for complying with the information collection requirements of
rule 2a-7, the Commission staff estimate that fund boards' hourly
rate is $2000 per hour. The estimated costs for professional and
support staff time were based on the average annual salaries
reported in the SIA Salary Guides. The estimated costs for legal
time was based on the weighted average of associate general counsel
salaries reported in the SIA Salary Guides and New York law firm
attorney salaries (outside counsel) based on a survey conducted by
the National Law Journal available at http://www.law.com/special/professionals/nlj/2002/firm_by_firm_
 sampling--of--billing--

rates--nationwide.shtml.
    \5\ For Paperwork Reduction Act (``PRA'') purposes we assumed
that on average 25% of money market funds would review and update
their procedures on an annual basis.
    \6\ A significant portion of the recordkeeping burden involves
organizing information that the funds already collect when initially
purchasing securities. In addition, when a money market fund
analyzes a security, the analysis need not be presented in any
particular format. Money market funds therefore have a choice of
methods for maintaining these records that vary in technical
sophistication and formality (e.g. handwritten notes, computer
disks, etc.). Accordingly, the cost of preparing these documents may
vary significantly among individual funds. The burden hours
associated with filing reports to the Commission as an exhibit to
Form N-SAR are included in the PRA burden estimate for that form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on these estimates, Commission staff estimates the total
burden of the rule's paperwork requirements for money market funds to
be 1,034,800 hours.\7\ This is an increase from the previous estimate
of 480,830 hours. The increase is attributable to updated information
from money market funds regarding hourly burdens and the significant
differences in burden hours reported by the funds selected at random to
be surveyed in different submission years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: ((847 x
1220) + (1 x 1.5) + (24 x 21) + (212 x 4.5) = 1,034,800.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These estimates of burden hours are made solely for the purposes of
the Paperwork Reduction Act. The estimates are not derived from a
comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of Commission
rules.
    In addition to the burden hours, Commission staff estimates that
money market funds will incur costs to preserve records required under
rule 2a-7. These costs will vary significantly for individual funds,
depending on the amount of assets under fund management and whether the
fund preserves its records in a storage facility in hard copy or has
developed and maintains a computer system to create and preserve
compliance records.\8\ Commission staff estimates that the amount an
individual fund may spend ranges from $100 per year to $300,000. Based
on a cost of $0.0000204 per dollar of assets under management for small
fund, $0.0000005 per dollar assets under management for medium funds,
and $0.0000046 per dollar of assets under management for large
funds,\9\ the staff estimates compliance with rule 2a-7 costs the fund
industry approximately $7.6 million per year.\10\ Based on responses
from individuals in the money market fund industry, the staff estimates
that some of the largest fund complexes have created computer programs
for maintaining and preserving compliance records for rule 2a-7. Based
on a cost of $0.0000231 per dollar of assets under management for large
funds, the staff estimates that total annualized capital/startup costs
range from $0 for small funds to $37.5 million for all large funds.
Commission staff further estimates that, even absent the requirements
of rule 2a-7, money market funds would spend at least half of the
amount for capital costs ($19 million) and for record preservation
($3.8 million) to establish and maintain these records and the systems
for preserving them as a part of sound business practices to ensure
diversification and minimal credit risk in a portfolio for a fund that
seeks to maintain a stable price per share.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The amount of assets under management in individual money
market funds ranges from approximately $400,000 to $109 billion.
    \9\ For purpose of this PRA submission, Commission staff used
the following categories for fund sizes: (i) Small--money market
funds with $50 million or less in assets under management, (ii)
medium--money market funds with more than $50 million up to and
including $1 billion in assets under management; and (iii) large--
money market funds with more than $1 billion in assets under
management.
    \10\ The staff estimated the annual cost of preserving the
required books and records by identifying the annual costs incurred
by several funds and then relating this total cost to the average
net assets of these funds during the year. With a total of $2.2
billion under management in small funds, $174.1 billion under
management in medium funds and $1623.8 billion under management in
large funds, the costs of preservation were estimated as follows:
((0.0000204 x $2.2 billion) + (0.0000005 x $174.1) + (0.0000046 x
$1623.8 billion) = $7.6 million. See supra note 9 regarding sizes of
large, medium, and small funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The collections of information required by rule 2a-7 are necessary
to obtain the benefits described above. Notices to the Commission will
not be kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a
person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid control number.
    Written comments are requested on: (a) Whether the collections of
information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions
of the Commission, including whether the information has practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burdens
of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques or other
forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to
comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this
publication.
    Please direct your written comments to R. Corey Booth, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Office of Information Technology, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F. Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549.

    Dated: December 20, 2005.
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-8065 Filed 12-28-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 227 (Monday, November 26, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60530-60533]
[FR Doc No: 2018-25734]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84632; File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2018-052]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
Relating To Amend Its Rules Regarding How the System Handles Market
Orders in Series With No Bid or No Offer

November 20, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on November 16, 2018, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange''
or ``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``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

    Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``EDGX Options'')
proposes to amend its Rules regarding how the System handles Market
Orders in series with no bid or no offer.
    (additions are italicized; deletions are [bracketed])
* * * * *
    Rules of Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.
* * * * *
    Rule 21.17. Additional Price Protection Mechanisms and Risk
Controls
    The System's acceptance and execution of orders and quotes are
subject to the price protection mechanisms and risk controls in Rule
21.16, this Rule 21.17 (related to all orders other than complex
orders), Rule 21.20 (related to complex orders) and as otherwise set
forth in the Rules. All numeric values established by the Exchange
pursuant to this Rule will be maintained by the Exchange in publicly
available specifications and/or published in a Regulatory Circular.
Unless otherwise specified the price protections set forth in this
Rule, including the numeric values established by the Exchange, may not
be disabled or adjusted. The Exchange may share any of a User's risk
settings with the Clearing Member that clears transactions on behalf of
the User.
    (a)-(d) No change.
    (e) Market Orders in No-Bid (Offer) Series.
    (1) If the System receives a sell Market Order in a series after it
is open for trading with an NBB of zero:
    (A) if the NBO in the series is less than or equal to $0.50, then
the System converts the Market Order to a Limit Order with a limit
price equal to the minimum trading increment applicable to the series
and enters the order into the EDGX Options Book with a timestamp based
on the time it enters the Book. If the order has a Time-in-Force of GTC
or GTD that expires on a subsequent day, the order remains on the Book
as a Limit Order until it executes, expires, or the User cancels it.
    (B) if the NBO in the series is greater than $0.50, then the System
cancels or rejects the market order.
    (2) If the System receives a buy market order in a series after it
is open for trading with an NBO of zero, the System cancels or rejects
the market order.
* * * * *
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    In 2016, the Exchange's parent company, Cboe Global Markets, Inc.
(formerly named CBOE Holdings, Inc.) (``Cboe Global''), which is the
parent company of Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe Options'') and Cboe C2
Exchange, Inc., acquired the Exchange, Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc.
(``EDGA''), Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX or BZX Options''), and Cboe
BYX Exchange, Inc. (``BYX'' and, together with C2, Cboe Options, EDGX,
EDGA, and BZX, the ``Cboe Affiliated Exchanges''). The Cboe Affiliated
Exchanges are working to align certain system functionality, retaining
only intended differences between the Cboe Affiliated Exchanges, in the
context of a technology migration. Thus, the proposals set forth below
are intended to add certain functionality to the Exchange's System that
is more similar to functionality offered by Cboe Options in order to
ultimately provide a consistent technology offering for market
participants who interact with the Cboe Affiliated Exchanges. Although
the Exchange intentionally offers certain features that differ from
those offered by its affiliates and will continue to do so, the
Exchange believes that offering similar functionality to the extent
practicable will reduce potential confusion for Users.
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Rules regarding how the System
handles a market order when there is no bid or offer, as applicable,
against which the order may execute. A market order is an order to buy
or sell at the best price available at the time of execution.\3\
Currently, based on this definition, if the System receives a sell
market order when there are no bids against which the order may
execute, the System cancels the order. Similarly, if the System
receives a buy market order when there are no offers against which the
order may execute, the System cancels the order. The proposed rule
change first codifies this handling of a buy market order when there
national best offer (``NBO'') is zero, which is consistent with current
functionality.\4\ As noted above, this handling is consistent with the
definition of a market order.\5\ It provides protection for these
orders to prevent execution at potentially erroneous prices when a buy
order is submitted in a series with no offer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Rule 21.1(d)(5).
    \4\ See proposed Rule 21.17(e)(2).
    \5\ The proposed rule change is also consistent with Cboe
Options functionality and C2 Rule 6.14(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to amend how the System handles sell
Market Orders submitted in a series with no bid. Currently, if the
System receives a Market Order to sell in a no-bid series, the System
cancels or rejects the order. Pursuant to the proposed rule change, if
the System receives a Market Order to sell in an option series with an
NBB of zero:
    (1) if the NBO in the series is less than or equal to $0.50, then
the System converts the Market Order to a limit order with a limit
price equal to the minimum trading increment applicable to the series
and enters the order into the EDGX Options Book with a timestamp based
on the time it enters the Book. If the order has a Time-in-Force of GTC
or GTD that expires on a subsequent day, the order remains on the Book
as a Limit Order until it executes, expires, or the User cancels it.
    (2) if the NBO in the series is greater than $0.50, then the System
cancels the Market Order.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See proposed Rule 21.17(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed handling of sell Market Orders in no-bid series when
the NBO in the series is greater than $0.50 is consistent with current
functionality.
    The proposed rule change serves as a protection feature for
investors in certain situations, such as when a series is no-bid
because the last bid traded just prior to entry of the sell Market
Order. The purpose of this threshold is to limit the automatic booking
of Market Orders to sell at minimum increments to only those for true
zero-bid options, as options in no-bid series with an offer of greater
than $0.50 are less likely to be worthless.
    For example, if the System receives a sell Market Order in a no-bid
series with a minimum increment of $0.01 and the NBO is $0.01, the
System will convert the order to a Limit Order with a price of $0.01
and enter it on the EDGX Options Book. Because the order will have a
timestamp based on that time of Book entry, it will have priority
behind any other Limit Orders to sell at $0.01 that were already
resting on the Book. At that point, even if the series is no-bid
because, for example, the last bid just traded and the limit order
trades at $0.01, the next bid entered after the trade would not be
higher than $0.01. If the order has a Time-in-Force of GTC or GTD that
expires on a subsequent day, the order remains on the Book until it
executes, expires, or the User cancels it.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ This functionality is consistent with the purpose of a GTC
or GTD that expires on a subsequent trading day, which is to remain
on the Book and available for execution until the User cancels it or
until the time specified by the User. The Exchange notes that market
orders with any other Time-in-Force would no longer be on the Book
if they did not execute during the trading day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, if the System receives a sell Market Order in a no-bid
series with a minimum increment of $0.01 and the NBO is $1.20 (because,
for example, the last bid of $1.00 just traded and a new bid has not
yet populated the disseminated quote), the System will cancel or reject
the order. Cancellation prevents an anomalous execution price, since
the next bid entered in that series is likely to be much higher than
$0.01. It would be unfair to the User to let is Market Order trade as a
limit order for $0.01 because, for example, the firm submitted the
order during the brief time when there were no disseminated bids in a
series trading significantly higher than the minimum increment.
    The Exchange believes the threshold of $0.50 is reasonable. The
Exchange notes that this threshold is the same as the threshold in the
Cboe Options rule,\8\ and is less than the current width for the Market
Order NBBO width protection, pursuant to which the System will reject
or cancel back to the User a Market Order submitted to the System when
the NBBO width is greater than 100% of the midpoint of the NBBO,
subject to a $5 minimum and $10 maximum.\9\ Notwithstanding this
provision, the proposed rule change would allow for the potential
execution

of sell Market Orders in no-bid series with offers less than or equal
to $0.50. If the threshold in the proposed rule change was higher,
there would be increased risk of having a Market Order trade a minimum
increment in a series that is not truly no-bid. The proposed rule
change is substantially the same as Cboe Options Rule 6.13(b)(vi).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Cboe Options Rule 6.13(b)(vi).
    \9\ See Rule 21.17(a); see also Exchange Notice, BZX and EDGX
Options Exchanges Feature Pack 2--Update (December 14, 2017),
available at http://markets.cboe.com/resources/release_notes/2017/Update-2-Cboe-BZX-and-EDGX-Options-Exchanges-Feature-Pack-2.pdf, for
current settings. Pursuant to this protection, if the NBBO for a
series was $0.00-$0.50, the width of the NBBO (0.50) is greater than
100% of the midpoint (0.25); however, pursuant to the minimum, a
market order would be accepted pursuant to this protection because
the width is less than the 5.00 minimum. The proposed rule change
provides additional price protection for market orders in no-bid
series.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\10\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \11\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \12\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change
regarding the handling of sell Market Orders in no-bid series assists
with the maintenance of fair and orderly markets and protects investors
and the public interest, because it provides for automated handling of
orders in series that are likely truly no-bid, ultimately resulting in
more efficient executions of these orders. Additionally, the proposed
rule change prevents executions of sell Market Orders in no-bid series
with higher offers at potentially extreme prices in series that are not
truly no-bid. The Exchange believes this threshold appropriately
reflects the interests of investors, as options in no-bid series with
offers higher than $0.50 are less likely to be worthless than no-bid
series with offers no higher than $0.50, and cancelling the orders will
prevent execution of these orders at unfavorable prices. The Exchange
also believes the $0.50 threshold promotes fair and orderly markets,
because sell Market Orders in no-bid series with offers of $0.50 or
less are likely to be individuals seeking to close out a worthless
position, for which the proposed automatic handling is appropriate. The
proposed change is also substantially the same as Cboe Options Rule
6.13(b)(vi).
    The proposed handling of buy Market Orders in no-offer series
benefits investors, because it codifies current order handling and thus
provides investors with more transparency in the Rules with respect to
how the System will handle these orders. The proposed change is also
substantially the same as C2 Rule 6.14(a)(1).
    When Cboe Options migrates to the same technology as that of the
Exchange and other Cboe Affiliated Exchanges, Users of the Exchange and
other Cboe Affiliated Exchanges will have access to similar
functionality on all Cboe Affiliated Exchanges and similar language can
be incorporated into the rules of all Cboe Affiliated Exchanges. As
such, the proposed rule change would foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities and would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of
a free and open market and a national market system.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not
believe the proposed rule changes will impose any burden on intramarket
competition, because it will apply in the same manner to all buy or
sell Market Orders submitted in no-offer or no-bid series,
respectively. Additionally, the proposed rule change has no impact on
sell Market Orders submitted in no-bid series with an offer of more
than $0.50 or on buy Market Orders submitted in no-offer series, which
orders will continue to be handled in the same manner as they are today
(i.e. they will be cancelled or rejected). The Exchange does not
believe the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket
competition, as it will provide sell Market Orders in true no-bid
series with additional execution opportunities (either on the Exchange
or at away markets pursuant to linkage rules) while providing an
additional protection measure for sell Market Orders in no-bid series
that may not be truly no-bid. As noted above, the proposed rule change
has no impact on the handling of all other sell Market Orders in no-bid
series or on buy Market Orders in no-offer series. The Exchange
believes this price protection will allow Members to sell Market Orders
with reduced fear of inadvertent exposure to excessive risk, which will
benefit investors through increased liquidity for the execution of
their orders.
    The proposed rule change related to the handling of buy Market
Orders is consistent with current Exchange functionality and will have
no impact on how those orders will handled, and it is substantially the
same as C2 Rule 6.14(a)(1). The proposed rule change related to the
handling of sell Market Orders is substantially the same as Cboe
Options Rule 6.13(b)(vi).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Exchange notes other options exchanges have similar
rules that convert sell market orders in no-bid series to limit
orders with a price of a minimum increment if the offer in the
series is below a certain threshold (the thresholds differ in those
rules). See, e.g., Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC
(``MIAX'') Rule 519(a)(1); and NASDAQ ISE, LLC (``ISE'') Rule
713(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Because the 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)(iii) of the Act \14\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give 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 satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)\16\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)\17\ 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 asked the Commission to waive the 30-day
operative delay so that the proposed rule change may become effective
and operative on November 29, 2018. The Exchange states that waiver of
the operative delay will provide Users with additional flexibility to
manage and display their orders and provide additional control over
their executions on the Exchange as soon as possible. The Exchange
further states that waiver of the operative delay will allow the
Exchange to continue to strive towards a complete technology
integration of the Cboe Affiliated Exchanges, with gradual roll-outs of
new functionality to ensure the stability of the System. The Exchange
notes that the proposed rule change is generally intended to codify and
to add certain system functionality to the Exchange's System in order
to provide a consistent technology offering for the Cboe Affiliated
Exchanges. The Exchange further notes that a consistent technology
offering will simplify the technology implementation changes and
maintenance by Trading Permit Holders of the Exchange that are also
participants on Cboe Affiliated Exchanges. The Commission believes that
waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection
of investors and the public interest. Therefore, the Commission hereby
waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the proposed rule
change as operative on November 29, 2018.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \18\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) 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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2018-052 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-CboeEDGX-2018-052. 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-CboeEDGX-2018-052 and should be
submitted on or before December 17, 2018.

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

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-25734 Filed 11-23-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 76 (Friday, April 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23556-23557]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09259]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[RM07-16-000; RM01-5-000; RM12-3-000]

Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Docket Nos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filing via the Internet.................................     RM07-16-000
Electronic Tariff Filings...............................      RM01-5-000
Revisions to Electric Quarterly Report Filing Process...      RM12-3-000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As announced in the Notice issued March 8, 2013,\1\ the staff of
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) will hold a
technical conference on April 16, 2013 from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
(EST) to demonstrate changes to the company registration process
applicable to filers of electronic tariffs (eTariff) and other filings,
such as Electric Quarterly Reports (EQRs), requiring the use of a
company registration account.\2\ Notice is hereby given that conference
materials have been posted to the Commission's Web site and that there
have been changes affecting the off-site broadcast of the technical
conference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Notice of Technical Conference, Docket Nos. RM01-5-000,
RM07-16-000, RM12-3-000 (March 8, 2013).
    \2\ The changes that will be demonstrated were directed by the
Commission in its February 7, 2013 order. See Revisions to Company
Registration and Establishing Technical Conference, 142 FERC ]
61,097 (2013). The Commission also has required the use of company
registration for filers of Electric Quarterly Reports. Revisions to
Electric Quarterly Report Filing Process, Order No. 770, 77 FR 71288
(Nov. 30, 2012), FERC Stats. & Regs. [Regulation Preambles] ] 31,338
(cross-referenced at 141 FERC ] 61,120) (Nov. 15, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The posted materials can be accessed by navigating to the Calendar
of Events on the Commission's Web site, www.ferc.gov, and locating the
technical conference on the Calendar.
    In addition, a free webcast of the conference will be offered in
lieu of WebEx and teleconferencing service. Anyone with internet access
who wants to view and listen to the conference can do so by navigating
to the Calendar of Events at www.ferc.gov and locating the technical
conference on the Calendar. An email account has been created for off-
site participants to submit questions for the question and answer
session at the technical conference. During the technical conference,
please email questions to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The Capitol Connection
provides technical support for the webcast. For webcast support please
visit www.CapitolConnection.org or call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Registration is not required for any technical conference
participants, whether attending on-site or viewing the webcast. Off-
site participants who have already registered for WebEx or
teleconferencing will receive an email with a link to the webcast.
    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please
send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free 1-866-208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a FAX

to<PHONE_NUMBER> with the required accommodations.
    For more information about the technical conference, please
contact: Nicholas Gladd, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: April 12, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-09259 Filed 4-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


Technical Document:  Sectors, Chemicals and Functions in the DSW
Re-Manufacturing Exclusion         June 16, 2011

Selection of Industry Sectors, Chemicals and Functions in the
Remanufacturing Exclusion:

Background Document in Support of the Definition of Solid Waste Rule

Prepared by:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Economic, Exposure and Technology Division

Pollution Prevention Division

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC  20460

June 16, 2011

Introduction

This background document provides the basis for the selection of
industries, chemicals, and functions in the Remanufacturing exclusion in
the definition of solid waste rule.  Companies within these sectors are
highly integrated.  These chemicals are used because of how they
function, and are used within these sectors in the same way – to
manufacture a specialty (organic) chemical product – such as a paint,
plastic or drug.

The Green Engineering Program within the Office of Chemical Safety and
Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) has for several years been studying
re-manufacturing scenarios for “once-used” solvents in the
pharmaceutical industry sector that use solvents as chemical
manufacturing and processing aids. By focusing on the life-cycle
(beginning and end of life) impact in their manufacture, and reviewing
Toxics Release Inventory Production Related Waste reporting, EPA has
found that a large, but often hidden footprint is from the disposal of
these solvents.  EPA has determined that the environmental impacts from
solvents used as manufacturing and processing aids could be
significantly reduced if the product life of solvents used for these
purposes were extended to more than a single use. (Extension of life)

Why these Sectors?

As stated in the Preamble, EPA selected these sectors as candidates for
the re-manufacturing exclusion because they are manufacturing sectors
not waste handling sectors, and because they use chemicals serving as
chemical manufacturing and processing aids.  Sectors that use chemicals
in this way are limited to those that make chemicals, and these sectors
are relatively few in number.  EPA has selected most of the sectors that
fall into this group and would welcome comment on its selections.  Since
readers may well be familiar with numerous additional sectors downstream
from chemical manufacturers which combine chemicals to make various
end-products, EPA would simply note that they do not share the function
of performing actual chemical manufacturing and processing, do not use
chemicals in their capacity as manufacturing and processing aids and,
thus, cannot be considered under the re-manufacturing exclusion as
proposed.

Regarding the sectors selected as candidates for the re-manufacturing
exclusion, EPA would like to note a few things.  The basic organic
chemicals sector makes both polymer resins and specialty chemicals.
Polymer resins are the backbone for paints, resins and plastics, whereas
specialty chemicals are used to make the complex molecules in the
pharmaceutical industry.   TRI reporting shows that the facilities
within and among each sector are co-located by each other and are
customers of one another.  Although there are many small facilities
within each of these sectors, the highest volumes of material are
reported by a few large parent companies that manage the entire supply
chain.  Also, film-forming agents are resins, but are reported in the
paint & coatings sector.  Makers of polymers report in both basic
organic and plastic & resin sectors.  Some makers of specialty chemicals
used in and sold to pharmaceutical companies actually report in the
pharmaceutical industry.

Why these Chemicals?

EPA has made its best estimate of those chemicals used as chemical
manufacturing and processing aides in significant volumes from the list
of all chemicals used by the four selected sectors.  As noted in the
Preamble to the Proposed Rule, “processing aid” solvents assist in
the reaction, extraction, purification, and blending of ingredients and
reactive products, but are not themselves reacted. These processing aid
solvents, once used, can then be re-manufactured to commercial grade
again. These higher-value solvents were selected because there are
existing markets for all these solvents to be re-manufactured to serve
similar purposes to those of the original commercial-grade materials.
All these chemicals are solvents (some watery, some oily, some a
specialty combination of the two), and TRI reporting indicates these
sectors use these solvents in large volumes.  EPA would welcome comments
on any additions or deletions that could be made to its list of
chemicals used as chemical manufacturing and processing aides in the
four selected sectors.

Why these Functions?

As noted in the Preamble, EPA has selected two chemical functions that a
sector would need to be engaged in to make its chemical(s) eligible for
re-manufacturing under the exclusion: (1) the chemical would need to be
serving as a chemical manufacturing aid (reacting, extracting, blending
and/or purifying chemicals); or, (2) the chemical would need to be
serving as a chemical processing aid (extracting, blending and purifying
chemicals).  EPA chose these functions because solvents used for these
functions, when chosen to, can be easily separated readily from the
other reaction components.  Easy separation can occur because these
solvents serve to dissolve other chemicals without bonding to them, in a
contaminant-free processing step, after which they are removed as
quickly and completely as possible.  This is in contrast to a solvent
serving in an alternate function as a cleaner or degreaser, where the
solvent gets contaminated, is more difficult to separate from grease or
other contaminants, and is more likely to be discarded.

EPA is able to discern the functional footprint of the selected solvents
in sector facility TRI reports.  Sectors that use a chemical in
significant volumes as a manufacturing and processing aid have a
significantly higher waste-to-release ratio for that chemical
(discernable even in aggregate chemical reporting) than sectors that use
a chemical for other functions. (See  Table 1)

Table 1.  2009 TRI Rank by Waste Reporting

A TRI-reporting facility has a high waste-to-release ratio when
relatively little is being released on site and relatively more of it is
being managed as a waste.  Its management as a waste could involve
disposal onsite (e.g., burning for energy recovery or flaring) or
offsite (e.g., incineration or burning at a cement kiln for energy
recovery).  By contrast, if a solvent were being used as a degreaser
onsite, there would be a higher proportion of releases, since a solvent
in use as a degreaser releases fugitive volatile emissions.

The primary reason for this footprint is clear in the analysis.  Of the
billion pounds reported of the 16 TRI chemicals by these 4 sectors, over
half is recycled onsite.   The largest ‘waste’ reporting submissions
are in the basic organic chemical industry.  When they choose to
recycle, virtually all of chemical is recovered.  (>99% of total
production related waste).  So there are no other releases or wastes
associated with over 500 million of the billion pounds reported.  TRI
Production Related Waste is reported as a transfer, such as to landfill,
underground injection, POTW, energy recovery, treatment and recycling.
Any onsite or offsite recycling is reported within the Total Production
Related Waste number.  So the footprint is clear to discern but not
clear in it’s meaning, as the top waste submitters are also the top
solvent recyclers.  A facility in Hopewell VA, (Map 1), has the 2nd and
3rd largest waste submissions in all of TRI reporting.  2008TRI
reporting shows that this facility recycles 99.38% of its methanol, over
56,000 tons.

As Map 1 illustrates, Hopewell also reports 168 tons of methanol being
transferred  to the local wastewater treatment facility.  The methanol
could be used as a wastewater facility treatment chemical.  The use of
methanol as a wastewater treatment chemical for reducing nitrate levels
in POTWs has been successfully applied.

Map 1.

Sectors

The following sections further provide the rationale for the selection
of the sectors and chemicals.

Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Sector (Pharma):  There are 208 submissions
of the 16 chemicals accounting for 10% of the billion pounds reported
for the 4 sectors.  As confirmed by this sector’s waste to release
ratio, this industry uses, conservatively, 100 kg solvents to make just
one kg of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient.  It appears that these
companies outsource their ‘waste’ management.  The highest
percentage of the waste reported, 35% is going to offsite energy
recovery.  In the current environment, nearly half of these cleanest
materials end up in a cement kiln or incinerator.  There is both on-site
recycling (29%) and off-site recycling (9%), with a combined total
recycling rate of 38%.  (See Table 2 below and Tables 1.1 and 1.2 in
Appendix 1)

		Table 2.  Pharmaceutical Sector Offsite and Onsite Recycling

Paint & Coating Manufacturing Sector (P&C):  There are 991 submissions
of the 16 chemicals accounting for 9% of the billion pounds reported for
the 4 sectors.  As confirmed by the high number of TRI submissions to a
relatively low volume, the Paint & Coatings industry has 1000’s of
products and must be able to turn around an order in a short period of
time.  As such, they keep a variety of monomers on hand.  These monomers
are stored in the processing aid solvents so they do not react before
their time.  The highest percentage of the waste reported, 62%, is
onsite recycling.  Off-site recycling account for 23% of the total
reported waste, and, when combined with onsite recycling, this industry
has the highest percentage of total waste that is recycled:  85%.
(See Table 3 below and Tables 2.1 and 2.2 in Appendix 1)

  		Table 3.  Paint & Coating Sector Offsite and Onsite Recycling

Plastic & Resin Manufacturing Sector (P&R):  There are 438 submissions
of the 16 chemicals accounting for 17% of the billion pounds reported
for the 4 sectors.  Petroleum refining and synthetic organic chemical
manufacturing facilities produce the raw materials used to make plastic
resin.  Because of integration between the industries, the development
of the petrochemical industry has contributed strongly to the growth of
the plastic resin industry.  The highest percentage of the waste
reported, 41%, is onsite recycling.  Off-site recycling accounts for
just 1% of the total reported waste.  When combined with onsite
recycling, this industry has a total recycling rate of 42%.    (See
Table 4 below and Tables 3.1 and 3.2 in Appendix 1)

Table 4.  Plastic & Resin Sector Offsite and Onsite Recycling

Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Sector (BOM):   There are 765
submissions of the 16 chemicals accounting for 63% of the billion pounds
reported for the 4 sectors.  The organic chemicals industry is broken
down into two categories:  bulk and specialty.  The final product for
this sector is an actual chemical so it is inherent within this industry
to more effectively manage their chemicals on site.  Organic Chemicals
facilities, large and small volumes, report over 99% of their total
production related waste being recycled on site.   These submissions are
of high enough volumes to be able to consume all pharmaceutical solvents
currently being disposed of in a cement kiln. The highest percentage of
the waste reported, 60%, is onsite recycling.  There is no off-site
recycling reported for this industry.    (See Table 5 below and Tables
4.1 and 4.2 in Appendix 1)

Table 5.  Basic Organic Sector Onsite Recycling

All Four Manufacturing Sectors Combined:  There are 2402 submissions of
the 16 chemicals accounting for the billion pounds reported for all 4
sectors.  Only 15% of this total mass is going to off-site Energy
Recovery (cement kiln) and off-site Thermal Treatment (incinerator).
The highest percentage of the waste reported, 53% is onsite recycling.
Off-site recycling account for 4% of the total reported waste.  When
combined with onsite recycling, all four sectors combined have a total
recycling rate of 57%.   On-site recycling and off-site energy recovery
seem to be an ‘all’ of ‘nothing’ choice.  Pharma facilities,
having the highest off-site energy recovery,  typically have 100% of
their total production related waste going to the cement kiln.  When BOM
chooses to recycle, it is typically at rates of 100% of their total
reported waste.  (See Table 6 below and Tables 5.1 and 5.2 in Appendix)

Table 6.  All Four Sectors Combined: Offsite and Onsite Recycling

Chemicals

Solvents can be broadly classified into two categories: polar and
non-polar, with polar being ‘water-loving’ and non-polar being
‘water-hating’.  Non-Polar Solvents facilitate in the addition and
removal of Hydrogen (+H) and / or a methyl group (-CH3).  Polar Protic
Solvents facilitate in the addition and removal of a Hydroxide group
(-OH) and / or the addition or removal of a methyl group (-CH3).   Polar
Aprotic Solvents facilitate the addition of substances other than the
carbon, hydrogen and oxygen.

The Polarity Index of the solvent provides a measure of a solvent's
polarity. Water has a Polarity Index of 10.  Solvents with a polarity
index of less than 3 are generally considered to be non-polar.  As a
rule of thumb, polar solvents dissolve polar compounds best and
non-polar solvents dissolve non-polar compounds best: "like dissolves
like". Strongly polar compounds like salt dissolve only in very polar
solvents like water, while strongly non-polar compounds like oil
dissolve only in very non-polar organic solvents like hexane. Similarly,
water and hexane (or vinegar and vegetable oil) do not mix with each
other and will quickly separate into two layers even after being shaken
well.

Non-Polar Solvents:  Non-polar chemicals are made of carbon and
hydrogen.  Hexane, derived directly from crude oil, has a polarity index
of 0.  Reactions using these solvents must be in water and oxygen free
environments as components from these materials interfere with the
chemical reaction.  Primary functions facilitate in the addition and
removal of Hydrogen (+H) (hydrogenation / dehydrogenation) and the
addition or removal of a methyl group (-CH3) (alkylation /
dealkylation).   There are 6 non-polar solvents:   hexane, (1, 2, 4)
trimethylbenzene, cyclohexane, ethylbenzene, toluene and xylene.

Polar Protic Solvents:  On the opposite scale of the non-polar solvents
are the polar protic solvents.  Water (H-O-H) is a polar protic solvent.
   Polar protic solvents contain carbon, hydrogen and oxygen.  They
differ from non-polar as their primary function is the addition and
removal of a hydroxide group, (–OH).  Similar to non-polar is the
addition and removal of the methyl group (-CH3).  Methanol is CH3-OH.
There are 3  polar protic solvents: methanol, ethanol and n-butyl
alcohol.

Polar Aprotic Solvents:   These solvents have a broad range of
polarities and are used in reactions with both polar protic and
non-polar solvents.  These are specialty chemicals made in batch
processes several stages downstream from the starting building blocks
and intermediate materials.  Polar aprotics involve addition of other
non-organic substances, such as ammonia / nitrogen and salt / chlorine
used to make acetonitrile and chloromethane.  Chemical formulations
contain carbons and hydrogen, often contains oxygen, and often contains
another element such as nitrogen or chlorine.  There are 9 polar protic
solvents: acetonitrile, chlorobenzene, chloroform, chloromethane,
dichloromethane, methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE), Methyl isobutyl ketone
(MIK), n,n- dimethylformamide, and tetrahydrofuran (THF).

Functions

Dow Chemical describes the function of these chemicals as. . “A
special task in that they merely provide assistance during the
processing of....[chemical] materials.  When this task is done, they
should be removed again as quickly and completely as possible.”
This is what allows these materials to be readily remanufactured.

Two primary categories are manufactured using processing aid solvents in
this function:

1 - Specialty Chemicals:  Multi–stage batch processing reactions where
a chemical is ‘built’ onto a backbone, and

2 – Resins: The monomer, polymers, and film forming agents that must
be dissolved before they can be reacted.

Used in making another Chemical:  High temperatures break or ‘crack’
the carbon double bond, allowing component, x---y to be reacted onto the
backbone.

Functions include enabling x-y to attach with the molecule, removing x
or y from the reacted molecule, and removing x or y from the solvent
itself so that it may be reused.  The more complex the chemical, such as
a specialty chemical or a pharmaceutical, the more steps it takes to get
there.  These solvents are used in each step.

Used in making a (polymer) Resin  Dow Chemicals terms the types of
monomers used in chemical reactions to make polymers as ‘functional
monomers’.  A functional monomer will continue to create its own
polymer chain, as aided by the solvent, by feeding in more of the
functional monomer.  Illustrated, again, with ethylene (C2H4) (
polyethylene (C2nH4n):

The studied solvents are universally used to control the reaction
conditions, i.e. – keep the chemical from reacting and controlling the
reaction of the chemical.  There are a relatively small subset of
solvents used for this function that correspond with a broad range of
double-carbon bonded functional groups and functional monomers.

Health Effects

Risk is a function of hazard and exposure, and, from a hazard
perspective, all of these chemicals have suspected or recognized
hazardous health effects associated with their manufacture, processing,
and use. (Table 7)  Although EPA and industry have been working to find
substitutes for the more hazardous of these solvents, or find ways to
use less of them, this has not yet been achieved.  In addition, some of
these solvents are building block and primary intermediate chemicals,
making them difficult to replace.  Until lower-risk substitutes for
these solvents are found, it is helpful from a health risk standpoint to
minimize the volume of solvents manufactured and to limit exposure to
those already manufactured.

The exclusion can help reduce exposure to these solvents in three ways.
First, the exclusion would extend the useful life of existing solvents,
which would reduce the health risks associated with their manufacture by
slowing the rate at which they are manufactured. Second, the exclusion
would reduce exposure to solvents already manufactured by reducing the
fuel blending of spent solvent.   Re-manufacturing a spent solvent will
eliminate the need for blending it with another spent solvent to satisfy
the fuel-ratio requirements of incinerators and cement kilns. This, in
turn, will reduce the fugitive emissions associated with unloading and
loading containers of volatile solvents at fuel-blending facilities. All
solvents are volatile, and virtually all spent solvents must go through
the fuel-blending process prior to disposal. Third and finally, the
exclusion can reduce the potential exposure from any transportation
incidents, since it is likely spent solvents can be transported shorter
distances for re-manufacturing purposes than they can for disposal
purposes.

.

Table 7: Solvents by Polarity Index with Health Effects

Solvent	  HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_formula" \o
"Chemical formula"  Chemical formula 	Polarity Index	Health Hazard –

-C≡N	5.8	Sus: BT, DT, GT, KT, HT, RepT, ResT

  HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethylformamide" \o
"Dimethylformamide"  Dimethylformamide  (DMF)	H-C(=O)N(CH3)2	6.4	Sus:
DT, GT, KT, NT, RepT, ResT, ST

Polar protic solvents

	Butyl Alcohol	CH3-CH2-CH2-CH2-OH	3.9	Sus: BT, GT, NT, ResT, ST

  HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol" \o "Methanol"
Methanol 	CH3-OH	5.1	Sus: DT, GT, KT, NT, ResT, ST

  HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol" \o "Ethanol"  Ethanol
	CH3-CH2-OH	5.2	Sus: CT, BT, DT, ET, GT, NT, RepT, ResT, ST

  HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_(molecule)" \o "Water
(molecule)"  Water 	H-O-H	10	Sus:  GT, NT

Carcinogen:				CT

Cardiovascular or blood Toxicant:     		BT

Developmental Toxicant:	 		DT

Endocrine Toxicant:			ET

Gastrointestinal or liver Toxicant:   		GT

Immunotoxicant:  				IT

Kidney Toxicant:				KT

Muscular Skeletal Toxicant:			MT

Neurotoxicant:  				NT

Reproductive Toxicant			RepT

Respiratory Toxicant			ResT

Skin or Sense Organ Toxicant		ST

MAP 2

APPENDIX 1:  Sector Characterization:  Each Sector and All 4 Sectors
Combined

Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Sector

Table 1.1    Production Related Waste (PRW) Offsite Reporting

Table 1.2    Production Related Waste (PRW) Onsite Reporting & Summary

Figure 1.1   US Sector Map

Paint & Coatings Manufacturing Sector

Table 2.1    Production Related Waste (PRW) Offsite Reporting

Table 2.2    Production Related Waste (PRW) Onsite Reporting & Summary

Figure 2.1   US Sector Map

Plastic & Resin Manufacturing Sector

Table 3.1    Production Related Waste (PRW) Offsite Reporting

Table 3.2    Production Related Waste (PRW) Onsite Reporting & Summary

Figure 3.1   US Sector Map

Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Sector

Table 4.1    Production Related Waste (PRW) Offsite Reporting

Table 4.2    Production Related Waste (PRW) Onsite Reporting & Summary

Figure 4.1   US Sector Map, Toluene Subset

Table 4.3    Top Waste Reporters / Top Recyclers  - By % of Total Waste

Table 4.4    Top Waste Reporters / Top Recyclers  - By Total Waste

Table 4.5    Top Waste Reporters / Top Recyclers  - By Chemical

Figure 4.2   Top Waste Reporter of Toluene:  Henry Map

Figure 4.3   Top Waste Reporter of Methanol:  Hopewell Map

   All 4 Sectors Combined

Table 5.1    All 4 sector summary w/ RTKNET.org and OECA Sector Profile
Notebook Links

Table 5.2    Production Related Waste (PRW) Offsite Reporting

Table 5.3    Production Related Waste (PRW) Onsite Reporting & Summary

Figure 5.1   US Sector Map:  All 4 sectors combined with cement kilns

APPENDIX 2:  Regional Maps: Transportation and co-located

Potential Remanufacturing Facilities

Figure 6.1   Pharmaceutical:  Elkton, VA

Figure 6.2   Pharmaceutical:  Florence, SC

Figure 6.3   Pharmaceutical:  Albany, OR

        	Figure 6.4   Basic Organic:  Willow Island, WV

Figure 6.5   Basic Organic:  Elgin SC

Figure 6.6   Basic Organic:    Georgetown, IL

	Figure 6.6   Basic Organic Willow Island  & Pharmaceutical Elkton

Figure 6.7   Basic Organic Elgin & Pharmaceutical Florence

Figure 6.8   Basic Organic Georgetown & Pharmaceutical Kalamazoo (Sector
Anlysis, Map 2)

APPENDIX 3:  New Chemicals Assessment:  Release and Exposure from

Toluene Fuel Blending

      	7.1   Premanufacture Notice (PMN) Process Flow Chart

7.2   New Chemical assessment as it relates to the Remanufacturing
Exclusion

7.3   ChemSTEER Worksheet:  Manufacture and use (destroyed) as an
intermediate

Figure 7.1   Puerto Rico Map:  Transport of Toluene from Pfizer to
disposal

7.5   ChemSTEER worksheet:  Fuel Blending (unload, blend, load) Activity

7.6   ChemSTEER:  Fuel Blending:  ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE
SUMMARY

7.7   ChemSTEER:  Fuel Blending:  OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE
SUMMARY

             Figure 7.2   Cement Kiln US Sector Map

APPENDIX 4:  Mass Balance Model and Embedded Emissions Modules

Table 8.1  Mass Balance Model

	Table 8.2  Modules Embedded in Mass Balance Model

 Mass Balance Model is available to estimate emissions reductions from a
process change of disposal to recycling.  See Tables 8.1 and 8.2,
Appendix 4

 See discussion and table on “Why these functions?” one page below
for TRI evidence of sector-function relationship.

 See Map 2, and Figures 6.1 – 6.8, Appendix 2.

 Adapted from RTKNET.org, 2009TRI Rank by Waste Reporting

 See Table 4.4, Appendix 1:  Top Waste Reporters / Top Recyclers  - By %
of Total Waste

 Id

 Nearly 200 wastewater treatment facilities across the US are currently
using methanol in their denitrification process.  Blue Plains Wastewater
Treatment Facility is the single largest point source of nitrogen for
the Bay, at 20 tons of nitrogen per day. Methanol denitrification helped
to reduce that number to 10 tons per day, half its original nitrogen
discharge. The use of methanol denitrification at Blue Plains has
resulted in a 30% drop in nitrogen levels in the Chesapeake Bay, from
just one treatment plant.   HYPERLINK
"http://www.methanol.ru/fotos/File/MethanolDenitrification.pdf"
www.methanol.ru/fotos/File/MethanolDenitrification.pdf

 Preamble footnote 21

 Goldschmidt, A., Streitberger, H., BASF handbook of Coating Technology,
Typical Composition of Coatings, Figure 2.1.1, pg 28, 2003.

 Dan Crowl, H. Dow Professor for Chemical Process Safety, Michigan
Technical University, email from 4/20 /11

 OECA sector profile notebook on Plastic and Manmade resins. EPA’s
OECA Sector Notebook:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/assistance/sectors
/notebooks/index.html"
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/assistance/sectors/
notebooks/index.html

 See  Table 4.4, Appendix 1:  Top Waste Reporters / Top Recyclers  - By
% of Total Waste

 See Table 7:  Solvent Polarity with Health Effects

 Yocum and Nyquist, (ed), Functional Monomers: Their Preparation,
Polymerization, and Application, 1973.

 The theory and application of breaking a double carbon bond of a
smaller molecule to make other chemicals is very broad.  A series of
books on chemistry edited by Patai include a double volume (1343 pgs) on
“The chemistry of double-bonded functional groups”, John Wiley &
Sons, 1978.

 Allen, D., Shonnard, D, Green Engineering:  Environmentally Conscious
Design of Chemical Processes, Risk Concepts, chapter 2, pgs 35-62,
Austin, S., US EPA Editor, Published by Prentice-Hall, 2001.

 See 7.6 & 7.7, Appendix 3: Environmental Release and Exposure from Fuel
Blending

 See Map 2 and Figures 6.1 – 6.8, Appendix 2, Regional Maps.

 A Charles M. Hansen   HYPERLINK
"http://books.google.com/books?id=gprF31cvT2oC&printsec=frontcover"
Hansen solubility parameters: a user's handbook  CRC Press, 2007,
HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0849372488"
ISBN<PHONE_NUMBER>

 Scorecard.org / chemical profiles / health hazards

 US Sector Maps:  Facilities in United States reporting Toluene > 25,000
lbs waste.

 Regional Maps:  Facilities in Region reporting toluene > 25,000 lbs
waste.  Includes current offsite disposal routes and locations of
potential remanufacturing facilities.

 PAGE

 PAGE   15


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 18, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 46240]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17698]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD21-8-00]

Technical Conference on Reassessment of the Electric Quarterly
Report Requirements; Notice of Technical Conference

    Take notice that on October 14, 2021, the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission) will convene a staff-led technical conference
via webcast as part of a reassessment of the Electric Quarterly Report
(EQR) requirements. A supplemental notice will be issued prior to the
conference with further details regarding the agenda, meeting
registration information, and electronic log-in information.
    The purpose of this technical conference is to provide a forum for
Commission staff, filers, and data users to discuss potential changes
to the current EQR data fields. This technical conference is the third
in a series of conferences related to a reassessment of the EQR
requirements.
    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please
send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free 1-866-208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a FAX to<PHONE_NUMBER> with
the required accommodations.
    For more information about the EQR technical conference, please
contact Jeff Sanders of the Commission's Office of Enforcement at (202)
502-6455, or send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Additional information will
also be provided on the EQR web page.

    Dated: August 12, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-17698 Filed 8-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 106 (Friday, June 2, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36353-36354]
[FR Doc No: 2023-11716]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 34931]

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

May 26, 2023.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'' or ``SEC'').

ACTION: Notice of applications for deregistration under section 8(f) of
the Investment Company Act of 1940.

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

    The following is a notice of applications for deregistration under
section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 for the month of May
2023. A copy of each application may be obtained via the Commission's
website by searching for the applicable file number listed below, or
for an applicant using the Company name search field, on the SEC's
EDGAR system. The SEC's EDGAR system may be searched at https://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/legacy/companysearch.html. You may also
call the SEC's Public Reference Room at<PHONE_NUMBER>. An order
granting each application will be issued unless the SEC orders a
hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by
emailing the SEC's Secretary at [email protected] and serving
the relevant applicant with a copy of the request by email, if an email
address is listed for the relevant applicant below, or personally or by
mail, if a physical address is listed for the relevant applicant below.
Hearing requests should be received by the SEC by 5:30 p.m. on June 20,
2023, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in
the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service.
Pursuant to Rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the
nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the
desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request,
and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing
may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary at
[email protected].

ADDRESSES: The Commission: [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shawn Davis, Assistant Director, at
(202) 551-6413 or Chief Counsel's Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>; SEC,
Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office, 100 F Street
NE, Washington, DC 20549-8010.

Clough Funds Trust [File No. 811-23059]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On April 24, 2023, applicant made a
liquidating distribution to its shareholders based on net asset value.
Expenses of $89,867.03 incurred in connection with the liquidation were
paid by the applicant's investment adviser. Applicant also has retained
$101,347.27 for the purpose of

paying outstanding legal, accounting, and administrative liabilities.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on April 28, 2023.
    Applicant's Address: 1290 Broadway, Suite 1000, Denver, Colorado
80203.

Evermore Funds Trust [File No. 811-22335]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. The applicant has transferred its assets to
Evermore Global Value Fund, a series of The RBB Fund Trust, and on
December 27, 2022 made a final distribution to its shareholders based
on net asset value. Expenses of $224,831 incurred in connection with
the reorganization were paid by the applicant and the applicant's
investment adviser.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on February 22, 2023, and
amended on April 26, 2023.
    Applicant's Address: 55 Union Place, Suite 277, Summit, New Jersey
07901.

Red Cedar Fund Trust [File No. 811-23459]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On September 27, 2022, applicant made a
liquidating distribution to its shareholders based on net asset value.
Expenses of $31,699.79 incurred in connection with the liquidation were
paid by the applicant and the applicant's investment adviser.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on April 12, 2023.
    Applicant's Address: 333 Bridge Street North West, Suite 601, Grand
Rapids, Michigan 49504.

Stone Ridge Residential Real Estate Income Fund I, Inc. [File No. 811-
23451]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On April 21,
2023, applicant made liquidating distributions to its shareholders
based on net asset value. Expenses of $12,500 incurred in connection
with the liquidation were paid by the applicant's investment adviser.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on April 24, 2023.
    Applicant's Address: One Vanderbilt Avenue, 65th Floor, New York,
New York 10017.

Thrivent Church Loan & Income Fund [File No. 811-23362]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On April 20,
2023, applicant made liquidating distributions to its shareholders
based on net asset value. Expenses of $46,272 incurred in connection
with the liquidation were paid by the applicant's investment adviser.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on April 24, 2023.
    Applicant's Address: 901 Marquette Avenue, Suite 2500, Minneapolis,
Minnesota 55402-3211.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
pursuant to delegated authority.
J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-11716 Filed 6-1-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P