[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 245 (Wednesday, December 21, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 93719-93720]
[FR Doc No: 2016-30814]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79586; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2013-107]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Granting an
Extension to Limited Exemption From Rule 612(c) of Regulation NMS in
Connection With the Exchange's Retail Liquidity Program Until June 30,
2017

December 16, 2016.
    On December 23, 2013, the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') issued an order pursuant to its authority under Rule
612(c) of Regulation NMS (``Sub-Penny Rule'') \1\ that granted NYSE
Arca, Inc. (``Exchange'') a limited exemption from the Sub-Penny Rule
in connection with the operation of the Exchange's Retail Liquidity
Program (``Program'').\2\ The limited exemption was granted
concurrently with the Commission's approval of the Exchange's proposal
to adopt the Program for a one-year pilot term.\3\ The exemption was
granted coterminous with the effectiveness of the pilot Program; both
the pilot Program and exemption are scheduled to expire on December 31,
2016.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 17 CFR 242.612(c).
    \2\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71176 (Dec. 23,
2013), 78 FR 79524 (Dec. 30, 2013) (SR-NYSEArca-2013-107)
(``Order'').
    \3\ See id.
    \4\ The pilot term of the Program was originally scheduled to
end on April 14, 2015, but the Exchange initially extended the term
through September 30, 2015, see Securities Exchange Act Release No.
74572 (Mar. 24, 2015), 80 FR 16705 (Mar. 30, 2015) (NYSEArca-2015-
22), and then, through various extensions, through December 31,
2016. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 75994 (Sept. 28,
2015), 80 FR 59834 (Oct. 2, 2015) (SR-NYSEArca-2015-84), 77236 (Feb.
25, 2016), 81 FR 10943 (Mar. 2, 2016) (SR-NYSEArca-2016-30), 77425
(Mar. 23, 2016), 81 FR 17523 (Mar. 29, 2016) (SR-NYSEArca-2016-47),
and 78601 (Aug. 17, 2016), 81 FR 57632 (Aug. 23, 2016) (SR-NYSEArca-
2016-113). Each time the pilot term of the Program was extended, the
Commission also granted the Exchange's request to extend the Sub-
Penny exemption. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 74609
(Mar. 30, 2015), 80 FR 18272 (Apr. 3, 2015); 76021 (Sept. 29, 2015),
80 FR 60207 (Oct. 5, 2015); 77437 (Mar. 24, 2016), 81 FR 17752 (Mar.
30, 2016); and 78677 (Aug. 25, 2016), 81 FR 60037 (Aug. 31, 2016).
The current exemption expires December 31, 2016.

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

    The Exchange now seeks to extend the exemption until June 30,
2017.\5\ The Exchange's request was made in conjunction with an
immediately effective filing that extends the operation of the Program
through the same date.\6\ In its request to extend the exemption, the
Exchange notes that the participation in the Program has increased more
recently. Accordingly, the Exchange has asked for additional time to
allow itself and the Commission to analyze more robust data concerning
the Program, which the Exchange committed to provide to the
Commission.\7\ For this reason and the reasons stated in the Order
originally granting the limited exemption, the Commission finds that
extending the exemption, pursuant to its authority under Rule 612(c) of
Regulation NMS, is appropriate in the public interest and consistent
with the protection of investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Letter from Martha Redding, Assistant Secretary, NYSE,
to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission,
dated November 28, 2016.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79495 (Dec. 7,
2016), 81 FR 90033 (Dec. 13, 2016) (SR-NYSEArca-2016-157).
    \7\ See Order, supra note 2, 78 FR at 79529.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, it is hereby ordered that, pursuant to Rule 612(c) of
Regulation NMS, the Exchange is granted a limited exemption from Rule
612 of Regulation NMS that allows it to accept and rank orders priced
equal to or greater than $1.00 per share in increments of $0.001, in
connection with the operation of its Retail Liquidity Program, until
June 30, 2017.
    The limited and temporary exemption extended by this Order is
subject to modification or revocation if at any time the Commission
determines that such action is necessary or appropriate in furtherance
of the purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Responsibility
for compliance with any applicable provisions of the Federal securities
laws must rest with the persons relying on the exemption that is the
subject of this Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(83).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-30814 Filed 12-20-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Avian Two Generation Toxicity Test Detailed Review Paper NACEPT Endocrine Disruptor Methods Validation Subcommittee August 2003 Leslie Touart Detailed Review Paper:

AVIAN TWO GENERATION TOXICITY TEST WORK PERFORMED BY On behalf of the United States Environmental Protection Agency EPA CONTRACT NUMBER 68 W 01 023 OVERVIEW AND SCIENTIFIC BASIS OF AVIAN TWO GENERATION TESTS ° Hormonal control of sexual differentiation in birds differs from that of mammals ° Birds lack fetoprotein ° Oviparity in birds allows retention of compounds ° Current protocols   are not sufficiently robust to differentiate endocrine disrupting chemicals from other reproductive or developmental toxins   are not designed to determine long term effects of in ovo exposure   Do not assess effects at the 4 critical life stages that could be sensitive to endocrine disruption Test Species ° Japanese Quail ( Coturnix japonica)

° Bobwhite ( Colinus virginianus)

  terrestrial habit   accepted model for toxicity tests   adaptable to laboratory conditions   indeterminate layer   precocial young Japanese Quail Family Phasianidae ( Pheasants/ Partridges)

° Old World quail ° Rapid incubation and maturation   Reproductively mature in 6 to 8 weeks ° Sexually dimorphic ° Can be kept in breeding condition all year ( optimal 5 to 6 months)

° High rate of egg production ( 300 eggs per year)

° Peak production within 2 3 weeks of onset of lay ° Highly adaptable to battery cages ° Endocrine and behavioral patterns are well characterized ° Large number of cultivated strains Bobwhite Family Odontophoridae ( New World Quails)

° Indigenous to North and South America ° Reproductively mature in 24 weeks ° sexually dimorphic ° Adapts well to laboratory ° Highly photsensitive ° females produce about 1 egg per day ° Peak egg production at 6 weeks after onset of lay ° Little deliberate selective breeding Advantages Japanese Quail ° Endocrine, behavior patterns known ° Small bird; occupies 230 cm2 per bird ° Reach sexual maturity by 6 weeks ° Prolific layer ° Early maturity ( 36 days male, 42 days female)

° Short incubation period ( 16 17 days)

° Males are aggressive breeders ° Males maintain high fertility ( 90%)

° Adapts well to breeder cages ° Produce large egg ( 8% of body wt)

° Naturally hardy in laboratory ° Highly photosensitive ° Dimorphism of plumage by 3 weeks ° Male cloacal gland ° History of toxicity testin ° Spermatogenesis is well characterized Bobwhite ° Less domesticated, wild type ° Small bird; occupies 400 900 cm2 per bird ° Prolific layer ( somewhat less than Japanese quail)

° Males are aggressive breeders ° Males maintain high fertility ( 95%)

° Adapts well to laboratory ° Produces large egg ( 8%  10.5% of body wt)

° Highly photosensitive ° Populations not prone to photperiodic drift ° Dimorphism of plumage color ° History of use in toxicity testing ° More yolk per egg ( 39.8%) by weight) compared with Japanese quail ( 31.9%) Disadvantages Japanese Quail ° Inbreeding not tolerated ( impaired fertility)

° Strains differ in body weight,

maturation rate, egg production,

lipid deposition in body and egg ° Populations can show marked photoperiodic drift with large variability in reproductive response ° Food wastage making food consumption measurement difficult ° Most strains have colored eggshells that are difficult to candle ( some white egg strains available)

° Less yolk per egg compared to bobwhite ° Little used in U. S. for toxicity tests Bobwhite ° Long incubation period ( 23 days)

° Long maturation period ( 24 months)

° Food wastage making food consumption measurement difficult ° Sex cannot be distinguished by plumage until 12 weeks of age ° Lack cloacal gland ° Spermatogenesis not characterized Exposure Considerations ° Exposure of parental ( P1) generation   Pre egg laying   Risk of loss of statistical power due to infertile pairs   Effects on sexual maturation possible   Bioaccumulation of test substance   post initiation of laying ( proven breeders)

  Statistical advantages   removing nonproductive birds before exposure   Use pretreatment measures as covariates   Reduction in cost from reduced exposure period   Rapidly of manifestation of reproductive effects observable Exposure Considerations ( cont.)

° Exposure of offspring ( F1) of parents   No exposure ( in ovo exposure only)

  Avoids masking of endocrine mediated effects by high mortality of chicks from direct toxicity   Exposure from hatch through egg laying   Worse case scenario   Allows observation of effects at all life stages   Mortality of chicks could mask endocrine mediated effects ° F2 chicks not exposed Exposure Considerations ( cont.)

° Combined exposure scenarios for P1 and F1   Maximize attributes, minimize disadvantages   Expose maximum number of reproductive processes   Expose the maximum number of life stages   Increase power of test   Not mask endocrine related effects/ not confound interpretation of results   Worst case environmental exposure   Time and cost effectiveness   Dosing Study Avian Dosing Study Schematic P F1 F2 Egg laying begins P1A P1B 9 weeks 12 weeks 4 weeks Treatment begins Egg laying begins Routes of Administration of Chemical ° Food   More natural exposure, but greater than in wild   Avoids intermittent high body loading   Detect food avoidance/ anorexia consequences   Low labor cost for administration   Dose estimation not precise   Costs verifying concentration and stability high   Effect of natural endocrine active substances in feed unknown ° Water   Ecologically relevant route   Dispersion of chemical more easily achieved than in diet   Not used for chemicals of low solubility in water   Evaporation may concentrate chemical   Water spillage more serious than feed spillage Route of Administration ( cont.)

° Bolus   Most accurate dose estimate   Best for unstable or volatile chemicals   Low analytical costs to verify dose   Handling stress   Greater absorption rate, saturation of hepatic enzymes   Can result in lower tolerated test concentrations   Intubation trauma   Regurgitation of emetic compounds   High labor cost of dosing Dosing Options ° Constant dietary concentration   More directly comparable to environmental concentrations   Young can receive higher doses than parents ° Constant daily dosage   Can compare effects between life stages and species of different body size ° Both methods are highly artificial   Determine by data needs of risk assessment process Statistical Approaches ° Multiple comparison methods NOAEC   Robust to non normal errors   Sensitive to loss of replicates   Requires greater number of test animals   NOEC/ LOEC limited to concentrations on test ° Regression methods ECx, BMD   Less affected by loss of replicates   Estimate a dose response curve   Estimation of ECx not limited to test concentraions   Assess time series, time lag between exposure and response Fitness Endpoints ° Growth Rate ° Food Consumption ° Measures of Reproductive Performance   Fecundity   maximum production period   Fertilization Success   Separation of gender specific effects   Fertility trials   Gamete Viability   Sperm motility and morphology   Sperm mobility   Interaction of sperm with egg perivitelline layers Fitness Endpoints ( cont.)

  Egg quality   Candling distribution of background cracking   Eggshell thickness   Eggshell Strength   Puncture test   Compression test   Eggshell matrix proteins as biomarkers   Hatching Success   F1 and F2 post hatch suvivorship   Primary, integrating production endpoint   High CVs Fitness Endpoints ( cont.)

° Changes in breeding behavior   Sensitive endpoint   Ecologically relevant ° Neurological/ CNS impairment tests   Integrated response to toxin   Open field tests Physiological Endpoints ° Organ growth and morphological changes   Gonadosomatic index   Organ: brain weight index( brain, thyroid, adrenal gland)

  Oocyte diameter   Oviduct differentiation   Developmental landmarks   Gross landmarks   Age at first egg   Cloacal gland size, age at foam production   Age of sexually dimorphic plumage development   Age at first crowing   Sternotracheal ( syringeal) muscles   Medualary bone   Histopathology of juvenile and adult tissues ° Sex Ratio Biochemical Measures ° Biomarkers of hepatic metabolic changes   Vitellogenin   Alkaline labile Phosphate Assay   RIA, ELISA   No universal VTG antibody available   Quail VTG ELISA assay recently developed   Circulating very low density lipoprotein   Enzymatic method in development   Cytochrome P450 1A induction   EROD activity   Aromatase immunocytochemical assay Biochemical Measures ( cont.)

° Plasma, egg and fecal/ urate hormone levels   Handling stress can alter circulating steroid levels   Fecal/ Urate sampling   Long history of use in conservation biology ( field samples) for steroid hormones   Recent application in avian studies   Rapid extraction methods available   May be useful for thyroid hormones, but not tested   RIA, ELISA assays   Commercial kits for steroid and thyroid hormones applicable to birds CANDIDATE PROTOCOLS Short Term Life Cycle Test ( Proven Breeders):

  Proposal for a New Avian Reproduction Toxicity Test in Japanese Quail or Northern Bobwhite ( OECD April 2000)

Life Cycle Tests:

  Standard Practice for Conducting Reproductive Studies with Avian Species ( ASTM E1062 86)

  OECD Test Guideline 206: Avian Reproduction Test( OECD 1993)

  EPA OPPTS 850.2300: Avian Reproductive Test ( USEPA 1996); suggested adaptations for two generation test added by EDSTAC ( EPA 1998)

Two Generation Test:

  Proposal for a Avian Two Generation Toxicity Test in Japanese Quail ( OECD 1999) Recommended Protocol ° Preferred species: Japanese quail ° Exposure protocol: TBD based on Avian Dosing Study ° Fitness Endpoints:

° Egg production ° Fertility ° Eggshell integrity ° Embryo viability ° Hatchability ° Sex ratio ° Chick health ° Signs of toxicity Recommended Protocol ( cont.)

° Endocrine Endpoints Gross morphology & histopathology   Organ/ gland weights/ bone length( chicks)

  Organ/ gland histology   Spermatid counts & morphology   Gross anomalies Developmental landmarks   Feather dimorphism   Cloacal gland size   Sexual maturation/ behavior Plasma and fecal/ urate hormones   Steroid hormones   Thyroid hormones Significant Data Gaps Lack of clear information on source of and metabolic fate of xenobiotics in ovo.

The effects of anti estrogens in juvenile and sexually mature test species.

The effects of anti androgens in the developing embryo or hatchling.

The effects of thyroid hormone agonists ( or thyroid stimulation) on reproduction.

Interactive effects of endocrine active substances,

especially natural phytosteroids in diets. Data Gaps ( cont.)

The effects of strain differences on test outcome and interpretation: what traits are co selected with high body weight or high fecundity; what qualities should be selected for toxicity testing in randombred lines.

A statistical approach for delayed effects.

Specific information on husbandry requirements of the Japanese quail that will result in consistent results in laboratory toxicity tests. Specifically information for dealing with fear, social stress, injurious pecking, etc. Implementation Considerations and Future Research ° Pre validation studies   To select appropriate exposure regimen, recommend a direct performance comparison of proven breeder and pre breeding exposure regimens combined with nontreatment and worst case hatch through egglaying F1 exposure scenarios   Do endocrine mediated effects occur during maturation that are overlooked when only in ovo exposure is considered?

  Do compounds that are directly toxic to chicks mask detection of endocrine mediated effects? Implementation/ Research ( cont.)

  Recommend verifying the relative sensitivity of the Japanese quail and Bobwhite in a side

byside comparison study   Recommend determining the effects of strain selection in Japanese quail on test outcome to minimize nontreatment variability across laboratories   If ANOVA methods are to be applied to the test, recommend investigation of statistical approach for delayed effects Implementation/ Research ( cont.)

  Recommend development of T4/ T3 assays in fecal/ urate samples for noninvasive monitoring of thyroid function   Recommend PCR methods for genetic sex determination be optimized for Japanese quail   Recommend determining the interactive effects of phytosteroids in feed on test outcome   Recommend evaluating/ standardizing husbandry practices   Recommend guidelines for histology preparation and examination of tissues ° Validation of the study design through interlaboratory comparisons Issues/ Concerns ° Animal usage ° Value added of 2 gen v. 1 gen ° Japanese quail sensitivity ° Lack of avian assay in Tier 1 ° Time delay in validation (& costs)

° Linkage with existing avian testing framework


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 148 (Tuesday, August 2, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50699-50700]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18286]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER16-2290-000]

Spartan Renewable Energy, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding
Spartan Renewable Energy, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard

to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part
34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is
August 16, 2016.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 27, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-18286 Filed 8-1-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 60 (Thursday, March 30, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15683-15684]
[FR Doc No: 2017-06311]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0067; FRL-9960-99-Region 10]

Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Attainment Plan for
the Idaho Portion of the Logan, Utah/Idaho PM2.5 Nonattainment Area;
Proposed Further Delay of Effective Date

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; further delay of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Presidential directive as expressed in
the memorandum of January 20, 2017, from the Assistant to the President
and Chief of Staff, entitled ``Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,'' and
the Federal Register document published by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA or Agency) on January 26, 2017, the EPA is proposing to
further delay the effective date for Partial Approval and Partial
Disapproval of Attainment Plan for the Idaho Portion of the Logan,
Utah/Idaho PM2.5 Nonattainment Area for up to 90 days.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed rule must be received by April
6, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID EPA-R10-OAR-
2015-0067, online at www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at
www.regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
www.regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Hunt, Air Planning Unit, Office
of Air and Waste (OAW-150), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10,
1200 Sixth Ave, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101; telephone number: (206)
553-0256; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 26, 2017, the EPA published a
document in the Federal Register entitled ``Delay of Effective Date for
30 Final Regulations Published by the Environmental Protection Agency
Between October 28, 2016 and January 17, 2017'' (82 FR 8499). In that
document, the EPA delayed the effective date of Partial Approval and
Partial Disapproval of Attainment Plan for the Idaho Portion of the
Logan, Utah/Idaho PM2.5 Nonattainment Area to March 21,
2017, as requested in the memorandum of January 20, 2017, from the
Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, entitled ``Regulatory
Freeze Pending Review'' (January 20 Memo). That memo directed the heads
of Executive Departments and Agencies to temporarily postpone for 60
days from the date of the January 20 Memo the effective dates of all
regulations that had been published in the Federal Register but had not
yet taken effect.
    The January 20 Memo also states: ``Where appropriate and as
permitted by applicable law, [agencies] should consider proposing for
notice and comment a rule to delay the effective date for regulations
beyond that 60-day period.'' The EPA subsequently proposed (82 FR
11517) and then finalized (82 FR 14463) an action on March 21, 2017 to
further delay the effective date for Partial Approval and Partial
Disapproval of Attainment Plan for the Idaho Portion of the Logan,
Utah/Idaho PM2.5 Nonattainment Area until April 20, 2017.
The EPA is proposing this additional delay of up to 90 days to give
Agency officials the opportunity to decide whether they would like to
conduct a substantive review of this rule. If Agency officials decide
to conduct a substantive review of Partial Approval and Partial
Disapproval of Attainment Plan for the Idaho Portion of the Logan,
Utah/Idaho PM2.5 Nonattainment Area, the EPA will take
appropriate actions to conduct such a review, including, but not
limited to, issuing a document in the Federal Register addressing any
further delays of the effective date of Partial Approval and Partial
Disapproval of Attainment Plan for the Idaho Portion of the Logan,
Utah/Idaho PM2.5 Nonattainment Area or extensions of
compliances dates in the rule. If Agency officials decide not to
conduct a substantive review of Partial Approval and Partial
Disapproval of Attainment Plan for the Idaho Portion of the Logan,
Utah/Idaho PM2.5 Nonattainment Area, it will become
effective no later than July 19, 2017.
    The EPA solicits comment only on its proposal to further delay the
effective date and the length of the delay of Partial Approval and
Partial Disapproval of Attainment Plan for the Idaho Portion of the
Logan, Utah/Idaho PM2.5 Nonattainment Area. The EPA is not
soliciting and will not consider comments on any other aspect of the
rule itself.

    Dated: March 24, 2017.
Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2017-06311 Filed 3-29-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 28, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 208)]
[Notices]
[Page 66407-66408]
[DOCID:fr28oc10-72]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63166; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2010-90]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 6.47 To Describe New Procedures
for Executing a Cross Transaction

October 22, 2010.
    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 October 21, 2010, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') 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 self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.47 to describe new procedures
for executing a cross transaction. The text of the proposed rule change
is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room,
and http://www.nyse.com.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, 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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    NYSE Arca proposes to modify Rule 6.47(a) to describe new
procedures for Floor Brokers wishing to execute a Non-Facilitation
cross transaction.\4\ Currently, after requesting a market, Floor
Brokers are required to disclose the terms of a cross, after which
Market Makers are allowed to revise their bids and offers to block the
cross.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Facilitation Crosses are governed by Rule 6.47(b), and are
not affected by this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYSE Arca proposes that Market Makers, after being informed of a
potential cross, should provide their best bid and best offer, but not
be allowed to step ahead of subsequently disclosed trading interest.
The Exchange intends for Market Makers to make markets and not prevent
better priced trading interests from interacting with each other.
    The proposed rule change would allow a Floor Broker to request,
after revealing the size of the orders, a final quote for a cross from
the Trading Crowd, and then to cross above the highest bid, or below
the lowest offer, and, if not on a price provided by the Crowd, to
execute the cross in its entirety. If the cross were to take place on
the price provided by the Crowd, the Floor Broker would be obligated to
trade with that interest prior to crossing the orders. The cross would
be required to be within the National Best Bid/Offer, and would also be
obligated to satisfy any bids or offers in the Consolidated Book equal
to or better than the crossing price.
    For example, if the prices of the orders to be crossed allowed for
a range of possible crossing prices, and the Trading Crowd provided a
final quote that was two or more Minimum Price Variations (``MPV'')
wide, the Floor Broker could bid above the Trading Crowd's bid and
consummate the cross without trading on a final quote price.
    If, alternatively, the final quote was only one MPV wide, (i.e.,
3.10 bid for 20 contracts at 3.20 offer for 50 contracts) the Floor
Broker could not meet the obligation to the orders without trading on a
final quote price. In this case, the Floor Broker would bid above the
final quote bid (i.e., bid 3.20) or offer below the final quote offer
(i.e., offer at 3.10), each instance of which is equal to a final quote
price. The Floor Broker would then be obligated to trade with the final
quote interest at that price (i.e., buy 50 at 3.20 or sell 20 at 3.10)
before crossing the balance of the orders.
    Additionally, if, because of movement in the markets while the
order was being brought to the crowd, the limit on one of the orders
only allowed for a cross to be effected at a final quote price,
regardless of the width of the final quote, the Floor Broker would be

required to bid above the final quote bid or offer below the final
quote offer yet still be at a final quote price. Again, the Floor
Broker would be obligated to trade with the final quote interest at
that price before crossing the balance of the orders. For instance, the
electronic market in the series is 3.00 bid offered at 3.30, and the
Floor Broker receives orders to cross at 3.10 or 3.20. When the Floor
Broker requests a Final Quote, the crowd responds with a market of 3.20
bid at 3.30. In order to meet the obligation to execute the order, the
Floor Broker would have to offer at 3.20, fill the bids in the crowd at
3.20, and then cross the balance of the orders.
    Additionally, the Exchange proposes to add two commentaries to Rule
6.47. Commentary .02 would allow an OTP Holder to submit an order that
has been solicited prior to transmittal to the Floor, but would not
allow the new procedures to be used to circumvent limitations on
principal transactions as described in Rule 6.47A, nor allow the OTP
Holder to solicit a contra order from an NYSE Arca Market Maker
assigned to the class of options to trade against an agency order.
    Commentary .03 would state it is a violation of a Floor Broker's
duty for best execution to cancel an agency order to avoid execution at
a better price.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, in that it
is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and
a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. The proposed rule change will provide encouragement
for Market Makers to provide their best prices earlier, upon the
initial presentation of trading interest to the crowd, and the broker
will be required to better the crowd's price in order to execute the
cross transaction. The proposed new process should thus increase the
possibility of price improvement for Customer orders.

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.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2010-90 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2010-90. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between
the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange.\5\ 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-
NYSEArca-2010-90 and should be submitted on or before November 18,
2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Commission's Web site at www.sec.gov.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-27266 Filed 10-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 6 (Monday, January 11, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1124-1127]
[FR Doc No: 2015-33197]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0079; FRL-9940-89-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; Alabama: Nonattainment New Source Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve portions of a revision to the Alabama State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Alabama Department of
Environmental Management (ADEM) to EPA on May 2, 2011. The SIP revision
modifies Alabama's nonattainment new source review (NNSR) regulations
in their entirety to be consistent with the federal new source review
(NSR) regulations for the implementation of the criteria pollutant
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). EPA is approving
portions of the NNSR rule changes in Alabama's May 2, 2011, SIP
revision because the Agency has determined that the changes are
consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and federal regulations
regarding NNSR permitting.

DATES: This rule will be effective February 10, 2016.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0079. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential
Business Information or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding the Alabama
SIP, contact Mr. D. Brad Akers, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air
Planning and Implementation Branch, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, Region 4, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 61 Forsyth
Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Akers can be reached by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For information regarding NSR, contact Ms. Yolanda
Adams, Air Permits Section, at the same address above. Telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    EPA is taking final action to approve the portion of Alabama's May
2, 2011, SIP revision that makes changes to Alabama's NNSR program, set
forth at ADEM Administrative Code, Division 3, Chapter 14, Subchapter
.05 (ADEM Rule 335-3-14-.05), which applies to the construction and
modification of any major stationary source in or near a nonattainment
area (NAA) as required by part D of title I of the CAA. Alabama's NNSR
regulations at ADEM Rule 335-3-14-.05 were originally approved into the
SIP on November 26, 1979 (see 44 FR 67375), with periodic revisions
approved through December 8, 2000 (see 65 FR 76938). Alabama's May 2,
2011, SIP revision modifies the State's NNSR regulations in their
entirety \1\ with a new version that reflects changes to the federal
NNSR regulations at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 51.165,\2\
including provisions promulgated in the following federal rules: (1)
``Requirements for Preparation, Adoption and Submittal of
Implementation Plans; Approval and Promulgation of Implementation
Plans; Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources,'' Final
Rule, 57 FR 32314 (July 21, 1992) (hereafter referred to as the
Wisconsin Electric Power Company (WEPCO) Rule); (2) ``Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review
(NSR): Baseline Emissions Determination, Actual-to-Future-Actual
Methodology, Plantwide Applicability Limitations, Clean Units,
Pollution Control Projects,'' Final Rule, 67 FR 80186 (December 31,
2002) (hereafter referred to as the NSR Reform Rule); (3) ``Prevention
of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Non-Attainment New Source Review
(NSR): Reconsideration,'' Final Rule, 68 FR 63021 (November 7, 2003)
(hereafter referred to as the Reconsideration Rule); (4) ``Prevention
of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Non-Attainment New Source Review
(NSR): Removal of Vacated Elements,'' Final Rule, 72 FR 32526 (June 13,
2007) (hereafter referred to as the Vacated Elements Rule); (4)
``Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment New Source
Review: Reasonable Possibility in Recordkeeping,'' Final Rule, 72 FR
72607 (December 21, 2007), (hereafter referred to as the Reasonable
Possibility Rule); (5) ``Final Rule To Implement the 8-Hour Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard--Phase 2; Final Rule To Implement
Certain Aspects of the 1990 Amendments Relating to New Source Review
and Prevention of Significant Deterioration as They Apply in Carbon
Monoxide, Particulate Matter and Ozone NAAQS; Final Rule for
Reformulated Gasoline,'' Final Rule, 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005)
(hereafter referred to as the Phase 2 Rule); (6) ``Implementation of
the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less Than
2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5),'' Final Rule, 73 FR 28321 (May 16,
2008) (hereafter referred to as the NSR PM2.5 Rule); (7)
``Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter
Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)--Increments, Significant
Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC),''
Final Rule, 75 FR 64864 (October 20, 2010) (hereafter referred to as
the PM2.5 PSD Increments-SILs-SMC Rule \3\); and (8)
``Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New
Source Review (NSR): Reconsideration of Inclusion of Fugitive
Emissions; Interim Rule; Stay and Revisions'', Interim Rule, 76 FR
17548 (March 30, 2011) (hereafter referred to as the Fugitive Emissions
Interim Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Some portions of the 2011 version of the regulations now
being approved were previously approved by EPA. These portions
remain the same in substance but may have undergone administrative
updates and renumbering in the 2011 version.
    \2\ EPA's regulations governing the implementation of NSR
permitting programs are contained in 40 CFR 51.160-51.166; 52.21,
52.24; and part 51, appendix S. The CAA NSR program is composed of
three separate programs: PSD, NNSR, and Minor NSR. PSD is
established in part C of title I of the CAA and applies in areas
that meet the NAAQS--``attainment areas''--as well as areas where
there is insufficient information to determine if the area meets the
NAAQS--``unclassifiable areas.'' The NNSR program is established in
part D of title I of the CAA and applies in areas that are not in
attainment of the NAAQS--``nonattainment areas.'' The Minor NSR
program addresses construction or modification activities that do
not qualify as ``major'' and applies regardless of the designation
of the area in which a source is located. Together, these programs
are referred to as the NSR programs.
    \3\ The D.C. Circuit vacated the portions of the
PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule addressing the SMC and
SILs (and remanded the SILs portion to EPA for further
consideration) for PSD, but left the PM2.5 SILs in place
for the NSR program in the table in Sec.  51.165(b)(2). See Sierra
Club v. EPA, 705 F.3d 458 (D.C. Cir. 2013).

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

    EPA is not, however, approving into the Alabama SIP the portion of
ADEM Rule 335-3-14-.05(1)(k) stating ``excluding ethanol production
facilities that produce ethanol by natural fermentation,'' which
Alabama promulgated pursuant to the federal rule entitled ``Prevention
of Significant Deterioration, Nonattainment New Source Review, and
Title V: Treatment of Certain Ethanol Production Facilities Under the
`Major Emitting Facility' Definition,'' Final Rule, 72 FR 24060 (May 1,
2007) (or the Ethanol Rule).\4\ EPA is also not acting on the provision
at Rule 335-3-14-.05(2)(c)3 that excludes fugitive emissions from the
determinion of creditable emission increases and decreases.\5\ Finally,
EPA is not acting on changes to ADEM's rules regarding the
PM2.5 significant impact levels (SILs) for PSD at Rule 335-
3-14-.04(8)(h)1., the NNSR interpollutant offset ratios at ADEM Rule
335-3-14-.05(3)(g)1-4 and the sentence including those ratios which
states ``Interpollutant offsets shall be determined based upon the
following ratios,'' or the ``actual-to-potential'' NNSR applicability
test at ADEM Rule 335-3-14-.05(1)(h), all of which ADEM withdrew from
EPA's consideration subsequent to the May 2, 2011 submittal.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Alabama's changes to its NNSR regulations (at 335-3-
14-.05(1)(k)) exclude ``chemical process plants'' that produce
ethanol through a natural fermentation process from the NSR major
source permitting requirement as promulgated in the Ethanol Rule (as
amended at 40 CFR 51.165). See 72 FR 24060 (May 1, 2007). However,
due to a petition by Natural Resources Defense Council to reconsider
the rule, EPA is not proposing to take action to approve this
provision into the Alabama SIP at this time. Pending final
resolution, EPA will make a final determination on action regarding
this portion of Alabama's SIP revision.
    \5\ The provision in question was originally approved into the
CFR in the December 19, 2008 (73 FR 77882) final rule concerning the
treatment of fugitive emissions for the purposes of NSR
applicability. On April 24, 2009, EPA agreed to reconsider the
approach to handling fugitive emissions and granted a 3-month
administrative stay of the December 19, 2008 rule. After several
stays, this provision was stayed indefinitely in the March 30, 2011
(76 FR 17548) Fugitive Emissions Interim Rule, pending a final
reconsideration from EPA. For more information on fugitive emissions
in NSR, see the September 1, 2015 proposed rulemaking (80 FR 52701)
or refer to the Docket for this rulemaking.
    \6\ For more information on the withdrawal of these elements
from the initial May 2, 2011, submittal, see the September 1, 2015,
proposed rulemaking (80 FR 52701) or refer to the Docket for this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 1, 2015, EPA published a proposed rulemaking to
approve the aforementioned changes to the Alabama NNSR program at ADEM
Rule 335-3-14-.05. See 80 FR 52701. Comments on the proposed rulemaking
were due on or before October 1, 2015. No comments, adverse or
otherwise, were received on EPA's September 1, 2015, proposed
rulemaking. Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, EPA is now taking final
action to approve the changes to Alabama's NNSR program as provided in
the September 1, 2015, proposed rulemaking. The proposed rulemaking
contains more detailed information regarding Alabama's SIP revision
being approved today, and the rationale for this final action. More
detailed information on the NNSR program can be found in the September
1, 2015, proposed rulemaking as well as the aforementioned final
rulemakings.

II. This Action

    Alabama currently has a SIP-approved NSR program for new and
modified stationary sources found in ADEM regulations at Chapter 335-3-
14. ADEM's NNSR preconstruction regulations are found at Chapter 335-3-
14-.05 and apply to major stationary sources or modifications
constructed in or impacting upon a nonattainment area as required under
part D of title I of the CAA with respect to the NAAQS. The changes to
Chapter 335-3-14-.05 that EPA is now approving into the SIP were
provided to update the existing provisions to be consistent with the
current federal NNSR rules, including the WEPCO Rule, 2002 NSR Reform
Rule (and associated Reconsideration Rule and Vacated Elements Rule),
Phase 2 Rule, NSR PM2.5 Rule, PM2.5 PSD-
Increment-SILs-SMC Rule, and Fugitive Emissions Interim Rule. These
changes to ADEM's regulations became state effective on May 23, 2011.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of portions of
ADEM Regulation Chapter 335-3-14-.05 entitled ``Air Permits Authorizing
Construction in or Near Non-Attainment Areas,'' effective May 23, 2011,
with revisions and additions to applicability, definitions, permitting
requirements, offset rules, area classifications, air quality models,
control technology review, air quality monitoring, source information,
source obligation, innovative control technology, and actuals plantwide
applicability limits, and with administrative changes throughout. EPA
has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally
available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard
copy at the EPA Region 4 office (see the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble for more information).

IV. Final Action

    EPA is taking final action to approve the portions of Alabama's May
2, 2011, submission that make changes to Alabama's SIP-approved NNSR
regulations set forth at ADEM Rule 335-3-14-.05, with the exceptions
noted above. ADEM submitted the proposed changes to its NNSR SIP to be
consistent with amendments to the federal regulations made by the WEPCO
Rule, the 2002 NSR Reform Rule (and associated Reconsideration Rule and
Vacated Elements Rule), Phase 2 Rule, NSR PM2.5 Rule,
PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule, and the Fugitive
Emissions Interim Rule. The Agency is approving these changes to the
Alabama SIP because they are consistent with section 110 of the CAA and
EPA regulations.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by March 11, 2016. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: December 18, 2015.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart B--Alabama

0
2. Section 52.50(c) is amended under Chapter 335-3-14 by revising the
entry for ``Section 335-3-14-.05'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.50  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA-Approved Alabama Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           State
          State citation               Title/subject     effective    EPA approval date        Explanation
                                                            date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Chapter No. 335-3-14 Air Permits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 335-3-14-.05..............  Air Permits           5/23/2011  1/11/2016 [Insert   With the exception of:
                                     Authorizing                      citation of         The portion of 335-3-
                                     Construction in                  publication].       14-.05(1)(k) stating
                                     or Near                                              ``excluding ethanol
                                     Nonattainment                                        production facilities
                                     Areas.                                               that produce ethanol
                                                                                by natural
                                                                                fermentation''; and
                                                                                335-3-14-.05(2)(c)3
                                                                                (addressing fugitive
                                                                                emission increases and
                                                                                decreases). Also with
                                                                                the exception of the
                                                                                state-withdrawn
                                                                                elements: 335-3-14-
                                                                                .05(1)(h) (the actual-
                                                                                to-potential test for
                                                                                projects that only
                                                                                involve existing
                                                                                emissions units); the
                                                                                last sentence at 335-3-
                                                                                14-.05(3)(g), stating
                                                                                ``Interpollutant
                                                                                offsets shall be
                                                                                determined based upon
                                                                                the following
                                                                                ratios''; and the NNSR
                                                                                interpollutant ratios
                                                                                at 335-3-14-.05(3)(g)1-
                                                                                4.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-33197 Filed 1-8-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 164 (Friday, August 27, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48268-48272]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18462]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-92726; File No. SR-EMERALD-2021-27]

Self-Regulatory Organizations: MIAX Emerald, LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Its Fee Schedule To Adjust the Options Regulatory Fee

August 23, 2021.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on August 12, 2021, MIAX Emerald, LLC (``MIAX Emerald'' or
``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 Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the Exchange's Fee
Schedule (``Fee Schedule'') to adjust the Options Regulatory Fee
(``ORF'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings/emerald, at MIAX's
principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    Currently, the Exchange assesses ORF in the amount of $0.00060 per
contract side. The Exchange proposes to increase the amount of ORF from
$0.00060 per contract side to $0.0016 per contract side. The Exchange
initially filed this proposal on July 30, 2021 (SR-EMERALD-2021-24) and
withdrew such filing on August 12, 2021. The Exchange proposes to
implement the fee change effective August 12, 2021.
    In light of historical and projected volume changes and shifts in
the industry and on the Exchange, as well as changes to the Exchange's
regulatory cost structure, the Exchange proposes to change the amount
of ORF that will be collected by the Exchange. The Exchange's proposed
change to the ORF should balance the Exchange's regulatory revenue
against the anticipated regulatory costs. The Exchange will continue to
monitor ORF to ensure that revenue collected from the ORF, in
combination with other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed the
Exchange's total regulatory costs.
    The Exchange notes it originally adopted the current ORF amount at
a significantly lower rate as the Exchange had just begun operations
and that the amount of ORF it collects has remain unchanged since it
was first adopted in 2019.\3\ When the Exchange set the amount of its
current ORF (almost 2\1/2\ years ago), it was a brand new marketplace,
and the amount was based on cost and revenue projections that were
applicable to a new market. As such, the Exchange's cost structure,
including regulatory costs and projections, were significantly lower.
The Exchange's regulatory cost structure has since significantly
increased since that time, as the Exchange has had to deploy
significant resources and capital as the Exchange's membership base,
volume, and market share have grown. The increase in cost structure has
outgrown any revenue increase as a result of higher volumes. Therefore,
the Exchange believes it is reasonable to increase the amount of ORF
assessed to Members, notwithstanding the fact that

ORF revenues have also grown as a result of increased volumes. To
illustrate, for the first six months of 2021, the Exchange had market
share of 3.50% in multi-listed options.\4\ The Exchange now proposes to
adjust the amount of its ORF to be in line with those of more mature,
established exchanges, as its regulatory cost structure has shifted
from that of a nascent exchange to a more mature exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85251 (March 6,
2019), 84 FR 8931 (March 12, 2019) (SR-EMERALD-2019-01).
    \4\ See https://www.miaxoptions.com/sites/default/files/press_release-files/MIAX_Press_Release_07132021.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Collection of ORF
    Currently, the Exchange assesses the per-contract ORF to each
Member \5\ for all options transactions, including Mini Options,
cleared or ultimately cleared by the Member, which are cleared by the
Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') in the ``customer'' range,\6\
regardless of the exchange on which the transaction occurs. The ORF is
collected by OCC on behalf of the Exchange from either: (1) A Member
that was the ultimate clearing firm for the transaction; or (2) a non-
Member that was the ultimate clearing firm where a Member was the
executing clearing firm for the transaction. The Exchange uses reports
from OCC to determine the identity of the executing clearing firm and
ultimate clearing firm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``Member'' means an individual or organization
approved to exercise the trading rights associated with a Trading
Permit. Members are deemed ``members'' under the Exchange Act. See
Exchange Rule 100. See the Definitions Section of the Fee Schedule
and Exchange Rule 100.
    \6\ Exchange participants must record the appropriate account
origin code on all orders at the time of entry in order. The
Exchange represents that it has surveillances in place to verify
that Members mark orders with the correct account origin code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To illustrate how the Exchange assesses and collects ORF, the
Exchange provides the following set of examples. For a transaction that
is executed on the Exchange and the ORF is assessed, if there is no
change to the clearing account of the original transaction, then the
ORF is collected from the Member that is the executing clearing firm
for the transaction (the Exchange notes that, for purposes of the Fee
Schedule, when there is no change to the clearing account of the
original transaction, the executing clearing firm is deemed to be the
ultimate clearing firm). If there is a change to the clearing account
of the original transaction (i.e., the executing clearing firm ``gives-
up'' or ``CMTAs'' \7\ the transaction to another clearing firm), then
the ORF is collected from the clearing firm that ultimately clears the
transaction--the ``ultimate clearing firm.'' The ultimate clearing firm
may be either a Member or non-Member of the Exchange. If the
transaction is executed on an away exchange and the ORF is assessed,
then the ORF is collected from the ultimate clearing firm for the
transaction. Again, the ultimate clearing firm may be either a Member
or non-Member of the Exchange. The Exchange notes, however, that when
the transaction is executed on an away exchange, the Exchange does not
assess the ORF when neither the executing clearing firm nor the
ultimate clearing firm is a Member (even if a Member is ``given-up'' or
``CMTAed'' and then such Member subsequently ``gives-up'' or ``CMTAs''
the transaction to another non-Member via a CMTA reversal). Finally,
the Exchange does not assess the ORF on outbound linkage trades,
whether executed at the Exchange or an away exchange. ``Linkage
trades'' are tagged in the Exchange's system, so the Exchange can
readily tell them apart from other trades. A customer order routed to
another exchange results in two customer trades, one from the
originating exchange and one from the recipient exchange. Charging ORF
on both trades could result in double-billing of ORF for a single
customer order; thus, the Exchange does not assess ORF on outbound
linkage trades in a linkage scenario. This assessment practice is
identical to the assessment practice currently utilized by the
Exchange's affiliates, MIAX PEARL, LLC (``MIAX Pearl'') and Miami
International Securities Exchange, LLC (``MIAX'').\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ ``CMTA'' or Clearing Member Trade Assignment is a form of
``give-up'' whereby the position will be assigned to a specific
clearing firm at OCC.
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 85163 (February 15,
2019), 84 FR 5798 (February 22, 2019) (SR-PEARL-2019-01); 85162
(February 15, 2019), 84 FR 5783 (February 22, 2019) (SR-MIAX-2019-
01).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a practical matter, when a transaction that is subject to the
ORF is not executed on the Exchange, the Exchange lacks the information
necessary to identify the order-entering member for that transaction.
There are a multitude of order-entering market participants throughout
the industry, and such participants can make changes to the market
centers to which they connect, including dropping their connection to
one market center and establishing themselves as participants on
another. For these reasons, it is not possible for the Exchange to
identify, and thus assess fees such as ORF, on order-entering
participants on away markets on a given trading day. Clearing members,
however, are distinguished from order-entering participants because
they remain identified to the Exchange on information the Exchange
receives from OCC regardless of the identity of the order-entering
participant, their location, and the market center on which they
execute transactions. Therefore, the Exchange believes it is more
efficient for the operation of the Exchange and for the marketplace as
a whole to collect the ORF from clearing members.
ORF Revenue and Monitoring of ORF
    The Exchange monitors the amount of revenue collected from the ORF
to ensure that it, in combination with other regulatory fees and fines,
does not exceed regulatory costs. In determining whether an expense is
considered a regulatory cost, the Exchange reviews all costs and makes
determinations if there is a nexus between the expense and a regulatory
function. The Exchange notes that fines collected by the Exchange in
connection with a disciplinary matter offset ORF.
    As discussed below, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to
charge the ORF only to transactions that clear as customer at the OCC.
The Exchange believes that its broad regulatory responsibilities with
respect to a Member's activities supports applying the ORF to
transactions cleared but not executed by a Member. The Exchange's
regulatory responsibilities are the same regardless of whether a Member
enters a transaction or clears a transaction executed on its behalf.
The Exchange regularly reviews all such activities, including
performing surveillance for position limit violations, manipulation,
front-running, contrary exercise advice violations and insider trading.
These activities span across multiple exchanges.
    Revenue generated from ORF, when combined with all of the
Exchange's other regulatory fees and fines, is designed to recover a
material portion of the regulatory costs to the Exchange of the
supervision and regulation of Members' customer options business
including performing routine surveillances, investigations,
examinations, financial monitoring, and policy, rulemaking,
interpretive, and enforcement activities. Regulatory costs include
direct regulatory expenses and certain indirect expenses in support of
the regulatory function. The direct expenses include in-house and third
party service provider costs to support the day-to-day regulatory work
such as surveillances, investigations and examinations. The indirect
expenses include support from such areas as the Office of the General
Counsel, technology, and internal audit. Indirect expenses are
estimated to be approximately 53% of the total

regulatory costs for 2021. Thus, direct expenses are estimated to be
approximately 47% of total regulatory costs for 2021. The Exchange
notes that its estimated direct and indirect expense percentages are in
the range and similar to those at other options exchanges.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 91418 (March 26,
2021), 86 FR 17254 (April 1, 2021) (SR-Phlx-2021-16) (reducing the
Nasdaq PHLX LLC ORF and estimating direct expenses at 58% and
indirect expenses at 42%); 91420 (March 26, 2021), 86 FR 17223
(April 1, 2021) (SR-ISE-2021-04) (reducing the Nasdaq ISE, LLC ORF
and estimating direct expenses at 58% and indirect expenses at 42%).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ORF is designed to recover a material portion of the costs to
the Exchange of the supervision and regulation of its members,
including performing routine surveillances, investigations,
examinations, financial monitoring, and policy, rulemaking,
interpretive, and enforcement activities.
Proposal
    Based on the Exchange's most recent review, the Exchange proposes
to increase the amount of ORF that will be collected by the Exchange
from $0.00060 per contract side to $0.0016 per contract side. The
Exchange issued an Options Regulatory Fee Announcement on July 2, 2021,
indicating the proposed rate change for August 1, 2021.\10\ As
described above, when the Exchange set the amount of its current ORF
(almost 2\1/2\ years ago), it was a brand new marketplace, and the
amount was based on cost and revenue projections that were applicable
to a new market. At that time, the Exchange's cost structure, including
regulatory costs and projections, were significantly lower. The
Exchange's regulatory cost structure has since significantly increased
since that time, as the Exchange has had to deploy significant
resources and capital as the Exchange's membership base, volume, and
market share have grown. The increase in cost structure has outgrown
any revenue increase as a result of higher volumes. The Exchange
believes the proposed adjustment will permit the Exchange to cover a
material portion of its regulatory costs, while not exceeding
regulatory costs; notwithstanding the fact that ORF revenues have also
grown as a result of increased volumes. As noted above, the Exchange
regularly reviews its ORF to ensure that the ORF, in combination with
its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed regulatory costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See https://www.miaxoptions.com/sites/default/files/circular-files/MIAX_Emerald_RC_2021_33.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There can be no assurance that the Exchange's final costs for 2021
will not differ materially from these expectations and prior practice,
nor can the Exchange predict with certainty whether options volume will
remain at the current level going forward. The Exchange notes however,
that when combined with regulatory fees and fines, the revenue being
generated utilizing the current ORF rate results in revenue that is
running below the Exchange's estimated regulatory costs for the year.
Particularly, as noted above, the Exchange initially set its ORF at a
substantially lower rate when the Exchange first launched
operations.\11\ The Exchange now believes that it is appropriate to
increase the amount of the ORF so that it is in line with the
Exchange's cost structure for operating a more established exchange, so
that when combined with all of the Exchange's other regulatory fees and
fines, it would allow the Exchange to recover a material portion of its
regulatory costs, while continuing to not generate excess revenue.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See supra note 3.
    \12\ The Exchange notes that its regulatory responsibilities
with respect to Member compliance with options sales practice rules
have been allocated to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority
(``FINRA'') under a 17d-2 Agreement. The ORF is not designed to
cover the cost of options sales practice regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange will continue to monitor the amount of revenue
collected from the ORF to ensure that it, in combination with its other
regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed the Exchange's total
regulatory costs. The Exchange will continue to monitor MIAX Emerald
regulatory costs and revenues at a minimum on a semi-annual basis. If
the Exchange determines regulatory revenues exceed or are insufficient
to cover a material portion of its regulatory costs, the Exchange will
adjust the ORF by submitting a fee change filing to the Commission. The
Exchange will notify Members of adjustments to the ORF via regulatory
circular at least 30 days prior to the effective date of the change.
    In connection with this filing, the Exchange notes that its
affiliates, MIAX Pearl and MIAX, will also be adjusting the ORF fees
that each of those exchanges charge.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \13\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \14\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons
using its facilities. The Exchange also believes the proposal furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \15\ in that it is
designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general to protect investors and the
public interest and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination
between customers, issuers, brokers and dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that increasing the ORF from $0.00060 to
$0.0016 per contract side is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because it is objectively allocated to Members in that it is charged to
all Members on all their transactions that clear as customer at the
OCC, with an exception.\16\ Moreover, the Exchange believes the ORF
ensures fairness by assessing fees to Members such that the ORF
assessment is directly based on the amount of customer options business
each Member conducts. Regulating customer trading activity is much more
labor intensive and requires greater expenditure of human and technical
resources than regulating non-customer trading activity, which tends to
be more automated and less labor-intensive. As a result, the costs
associated with administering the customer component of the Exchange's
overall regulatory program are materially higher than the costs
associated with administering the non-customer component (e.g., Member
proprietary transactions) of its regulatory program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ When a transaction is executed on an away exchange, the
Exchange does not assess the ORF when neither the executing clearing
firm nor the ultimate clearing firm is a Member (even if a Member is
``given-up'' or ``CMTAed'' and then such Member subsequently
``gives-up'' or ``CMTAs'' the transaction to another non-Member via
a CMTA reversal).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes it originally adopted the current ORF amount at
a significantly lower rate as the Exchange had just begun operations
and that the amount of ORF it collects has remain unchanged since it
was first adopted in 2019.\17\ When the Exchange set the amount of its
current ORF (almost 2\1/2\ years ago), it was a brand new marketplace,
and the amount was based on cost and revenue projections that were
applicable to a new market. As such, the Exchange's cost structure,
including regulatory costs and projections, were significantly lower.
The Exchange's regulatory cost structure has since significantly
increased since

that time, as the Exchange has had to deploy significant resources and
capital as the Exchange's membership base, volume, and market share
have grown. The increase in cost structure has outgrown any revenue
increase as a result of higher volumes. Therefore, the Exchange
believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to
increase the amount of ORF assessed to Members, notwithstanding the
fact that ORF revenues have also grown as a result of increased
volumes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ORF is designed to recover a material portion of the costs of
supervising and regulating Members' customer options business including
performing routine surveillances and investigations, as well as policy,
rulemaking, interpretive and enforcement activities. The Exchange will
monitor the amount of revenue collected from the ORF to ensure that it,
in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not
exceed the Exchange's total regulatory costs. The Exchange has designed
the ORF to generate revenues that, when combined with all of the
Exchange's other regulatory fees, will be less than or equal to the
Exchange's regulatory costs, which is consistent with the Commission's
view that regulatory fees be used for regulatory purposes and not to
support the Exchange's business side. In this regard, the Exchange
believes that the proposed increase to the fee is reasonable.
    The Exchange believes that continuing to limit changes to the ORF
to twice a year on specific dates with advance notice is reasonable
because it gives participants certainty on the timing of changes, if
any, and better enables them to properly account for ORF charges among
their customers. The Exchange believes that continuing to limit changes
to the ORF to twice a year on specific dates is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because it will apply in the same manner to all
Members that are subject to the ORF and provide them with additional
advance notice of changes to that fee.
    The Exchange believes that collecting the ORF from non-Members when
such non-Members ultimately clear the transaction (that is, when the
non-Member is the ``ultimate clearing firm'' for a transaction in which
a Member was assessed the ORF) is an equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees, and other charges among its members and issuers and other
persons using its facilities. The Exchange notes that there is a
material distinction between ``assessing'' the ORF and ``collecting''
the ORF. The ORF is only assessed to a Member with respect to a
particular transaction in which it is either the executing clearing
firm or ultimate clearing firm. The Exchange does not assess the ORF to
non-Members. Once, however, the ORF is assessed to a Member for a
particular transaction, the ORF may be collected from the Member or a
non-Member, depending on how the transaction is cleared at OCC. If
there was no change to the clearing account of the original
transaction, the ORF would be collected from the Member. If there was a
change to the clearing account of the original transaction and a non-
Member becomes the ultimate clearing firm for that transaction, then
the ORF will be collected from that non-Member. The Exchange believes
that this collection practice continues to be reasonable and
appropriate, and was originally instituted for the benefit of clearing
firms that desired to have the ORF be collected from the clearing firm
that ultimately clears the transaction.
    The Exchange designed the ORF so that revenue generated from the
ORF, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not
exceed regulatory costs, which is consistent with the view of the
Commission that regulatory fees be used for regulatory purposes and not
to support the Exchange's business operations.
    The Exchange also believes the proposed fee change is equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory in that it is charged to all Members on all
their transactions that clear in the customer range at the OCC,\18\
with an exception.\19\ The Exchange believes the ORF ensures fairness
by assessing higher fees to those members that require more Exchange
regulatory services based on the amount of customer options business
they conduct. Regulating customer trading activity is much more labor
intensive and requires greater expenditure of human and technical
resources than regulating non-customer trading activity, which tends to
be more automated and less labor-intensive. For example, there are
costs associated with main office and branch office examinations (e.g.,
staff expenses), as well as investigations into customer complaints and
the terminations of registered persons. As a result, the costs
associated with administering the customer component of the Exchange's
overall regulatory program are materially higher than the costs
associated with administering the non-customer component (e.g., member
proprietary transactions) of its regulatory program. Moreover, the
Exchange notes that it has broad regulatory responsibilities with
respect to activities of its Members, irrespective of where their
transactions take place. Many of the Exchange's surveillance programs
for customer trading activity may require the Exchange to look at
activity across all markets, such as reviews related to position limit
violations and manipulation. Indeed, the Exchange cannot effectively
review for such conduct without looking at and evaluating activity
regardless of where it transpires. In addition to its own surveillance
programs, the Exchange also works with other SROs and exchanges on
intermarket surveillance related issues. Through its participation in
the Intermarket Surveillance Group (``ISG'') \20\ the Exchange shares
information and coordinates inquiries and investigations with other
exchanges designed to address potential intermarket manipulation and
trading abuses. Accordingly, there is a strong nexus between the ORF
and the Exchange's regulatory activities with respect to customer
trading activity of its Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ If the OCC clearing member is an Exchange Member, ORF is
assessed and collected on all cleared customer contracts (after
adjustment for CMTA); and if the OCC clearing member is not an
Exchange Member, ORF is collected only on the cleared customer
contracts executed at the Exchange, taking into account any CMTA
instructions which may result in collecting the ORF from a non-
Member.
    \19\ See supra note 16.
    \20\ ISG is an industry organization formed in 1983 to
coordinate intermarket surveillance among the SROs by cooperatively
sharing regulatory information pursuant to a written agreement
between the parties. The goal of the ISG's information sharing is to
coordinate regulatory efforts to address potential intermarket
trading abuses and manipulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. This proposal does not create
an unnecessary or inappropriate intra-market burden on competition
because the ORF applies to all customer activity, thereby raising
regulatory revenue to offset regulatory expenses. It also supplements
the regulatory revenue derived from non-customer activity. The Exchange
notes, however, the proposed change is not designed to address any
competitive issues. Indeed, this proposal does not create an
unnecessary or inappropriate inter-market burden on competition because
it is a regulatory fee that supports regulation in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. The Exchange is

obligated to ensure that the amount of regulatory revenue collected
from the ORF, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines,
does not exceed regulatory costs.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\21\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \22\ thereunder.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change,
the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such
action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether
the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \22\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 No. SR-EMERALD-2021-27 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 No. SR-EMERALD-2021-27. 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 No. SR-EMERALD-2021-27, and should be submitted on
or before September 17, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-18462 Filed 8-26-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Nowatzki, T.J., N. Bradley, K.K. Warren, S. Putnam, L.J. Meinke, D.C. Gosselin, F.E. Harvey, T.E. Hunt, and B. Siegfried, 2003b. In-field labeling of western corn rootworm adults (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) with Rubidium. J. Econ. Entomol., 96 (6): 1750-1759.

Oleson, J.D., Y. Park, T.M. Nowatzki, and J.J. Tollefson, 2005. Node-injury scale to evaluate root injury by corn rootworms (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae).  J. Econ. Entomol., 98 (1): 1-8.

Oswald, K.J., B.W. French, C. Nielson, and M. Bagley, 2011.  Selection for Cry3Bb1 resistance in a genetically diverse population of nondiapausing western corn rootworm (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae).  J. Econ. Entomol., 104 (3): 1038-1044.

Roush R.T. and G.L. Miller, 1986. Considerations for design of insecticide resistance monitoring programs. J. Environ. Ent., 79(2): 293-298.

Spencer J.L., B.E. Hibbard, J. Moeser, and D.W. Onstad. 2009. Behaviour and ecology of the western corn rootworm (Diabrotica virgifera virgifera LeConte). Agricultural and Forest Entomology, 11: 9-27.

Tabashnik, B.E., 1994. Evolution of resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis. Annu. Rev. Entomol., 39: 47-79.

Tabashnik B.E., F. Gould, and Y. Carriere, 2004. Delaying evolution of insect resistance to transgenic crops by decreasing dominance and heritability. J. Evol. Biol., 17(4):  904-912; discussion 913-918.

USDA NAS, 2013. Agricultural Prices. ISSN:1937-4216. http://www.usda.gov/nass/PUBS/TODAYRPT/agpr0713.pdf

Zukoff, S.N. and B.E. Hibbard, 2012.  Evaluation of the potential development of cross resistance between eight transgenic corn types in western corn rootworm (Diabrotica virgifera virgifera).  Presentation at the Entomological Society of America Annual Meeting.  November 13, 2012.

EPA References:

BPPD, 2013a. Review of Corn Rootworm Resistance Monitoring Submissions and Data for Bt corn products containing Cry34/35Ab1. Memorandum from A. Reynolds to A. Sibold, dated March 20, 2013.

BPPD, 2013b. Review of Corn Rootworm Resistance Monitoring Submissions and Data for Bt corn products containing mCry3A.  Memorandum from A. Reynolds to A. Sibold, dated May 15, 2013.

BPPD, 2013c. BPPD IRM Team review of Monsanto's 2011 corn rootworm monitoring data and unexpected damage reports for Cry3Bb1 expressing Bt corn.  Memorandum from J.C. Martinez and A. Reynolds to A. Sibold, dated September 26, 2013.

BPPD, 2012. BPPD IRM Team review of Monsanto's 2010 corn rootworm monitoring data, unexpected damage reports for Cry3Bb1 expressing Bt Corn and academic reports of Cry3Bb1 field failures as well as corn rootworm resistance. Memorandum from J.C. Martinez and A. Reynolds to A. Sibold, dated October 11, 2012.

BPPD, 2011. BPPD Review of Reports of Unexpected Cry3Bb1 Damage, Monsanto's 2009 Corn Rootworm Monitoring Report, and Revised Corn Rootworm Resistance Monitoring Plan for MON 88017, MON 88017 x MON 810, MON 863, MON 863 x MON810, MON 89034 x TC1507 x MON 88017 x DAS-59122-7, and MON 89034 x MON 88017. Memorandum from J.C. Martinez to M. Mendelsohn, dated November 22, 2011.

BPPD, 2010a. Biopesticide Registration Action Document for Bacillus thuringiensis Cry3Bb1 Protein and the Genetic Material Necessary for Its Production (Vector PV-ZMIR13L) in MON 863 Corn (OECD Unique Identifier: MON-ØØ863-5). http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/pips/cry3bb1-brad.pdf

BPPD, 2010b.  Bacillus thuringiensis Cry34Ab1 and Cry35Ab1 Proteins and the Genetic Material Necessary for their Production in Event DAS-59122-7 Corn Biopesticide Registration Action Document (BRAD).  Revised September, 2010.  Available at http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/ingredients/tech_docs/brad_006490.pdf.

BPPD, 2010c.  Biopesticide Registration Action Document:  Modified Cry3A Protein and the Genetic Material Necessary for their Production (Via Elements of pZM26) in Event MIR604 Corn SYN-IR604-8.  Revised September, 2010.  Available at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/pips/mcry3a-brad.pdf.

BPPD, 2010d. Terms and Conditions for Bt Corn Registrations.  Available at http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/pips/bt-corn-terms-conditions.pdf.

BPPD, 2010e. Biopesticide Registration Action Document:  Cry1Ab and Cry1F Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) Corn Plant-Incorporated Protectants.  Updated September, 2010.  Available at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/pips/cry1f-cry1ab-brad.pdf.

BPPD, 2010f. Science Assessment of Pioneer's modeling addenda in support of their application of registration for Optimum AcreMax1 Insect Protection. Memorandum from J.C. Martinez to M. Mendelsohn, dated February 4, 2010.

EPA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP), 1998.  Transmittal of the final report of the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Subpanel on Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) Plant-Pesticides and Resistance Management, Meeting held on February 9-10, 1998.   Report dated, April 28, 1998.  (Docket Number:  OPPTS-00231).

EPA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP), 2002. Transmittal of meeting minutes of the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Meeting held August 27-29, 2002 on corn rootworm Plant-incorporated Protectant non-target insects and insect resistance management issues. Memorandum from Paul I. Lewis (DFO) to Marcia E. Mulkey (Director of OPP) on November 6, 2002.