[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 188 (Monday, September 29, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 58399]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23247]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

In the Matter of All Grade Mining, Inc., Bluforest, Inc., DHS
Holding Co., Essential Innovations, Technology Corp., Global Green
Inc., Inova Technology, Inc., mLight Tech, Inc., Solar Thin Films,
Inc., Xumanii International, Holdings Corp.; Order of Suspension of
Trading

September 25, 2014.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
the issuers listed below.
    1. All Grade Mining, Inc. is a Colorado corporation based in New
Jersey. Questions have arisen concerning the adequacy and accuracy of
press releases concerning the company's revenues. The company is quoted
on OTC Link operated by OTC Markets Group, Inc. (``OTC Link''), under
the ticker symbol HYII.
    2. Bluforest, Inc. is a Nevada corporation based in Quito, Ecuador.
Questions have arisen concerning the adequacy of publicly available
information about the company because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended September 30, 2013. The company is
quoted on OTC Link under the ticker symbol BLUF.
    3. DHS Holding Co. is a Nevada corporation based in Tennessee.
Questions have arisen concerning the adequacy and accuracy of press
releases concerning the company's revenues. The company is quoted on
OTC Link under the ticker symbol DHSM.
    4. Essential Innovations Technology Corp. is a Nevada corporation
based in Washington state and Hong Kong. Questions have arisen
concerning the adequacy and accuracy of press releases concerning the
company's operations. The company is quoted on OTC Link under the
ticker symbol ESIV.
    5. Global Green Inc. is a Florida corporation based in Florida.
Questions have arisen concerning the adequacy and accuracy of press
releases concerning the company's operations. The company is quoted on
OTC Link under the ticker symbol GOGC.
    6. Inova Technology, Inc. is a Nevada corporation based in Nevada.
Questions have arisen concerning the adequacy of publicly available
information about the company because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended July 31, 2013. The company is quoted on
OTC Link under the ticker symbol INVA.
    7. mLight Tech, Inc. is a Florida corporation based in California.
Questions have arisen concerning the adequacy and accuracy of press
releases concerning the company's operations. The company is quoted on
OTC Link under the ticker symbol MLGT.
    8. Solar Thin Films, Inc. is a New York corporation based in New
York. Questions have arisen concerning the adequacy and accuracy of
press releases concerning the company's operations. The company is
quoted on OTC Link under the ticker symbol SLTZ.
    9. Xumanii International Holdings Corp. is a Nevada corporation
based in Nevada. Questions have arisen concerning the adequacy and
accuracy of press releases concerning the company's operations. The
company is quoted on OTC Link under the ticker symbol XUII.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed companies.
    THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the
above-listed companies is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT,
on September 25, 2014 through 11:59 p.m. EDT, on October 8, 2014.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-23247 Filed 9-25-14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


                                    AGENDA
              Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
                       Scientific Advisory Panel Meeting
                          January 31-February 2, 2012

Scientific Issues Associated with Common Effects Methodology developed by the Office of Pesticide Programs and the Office of Water

Docket number:  EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0898			OPP Docket Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>

                  Please note that all times are approximate
                      (See note at the end of the Agenda)

Tuesday, January 31, 2012

9:00 A.M.	Opening of Meeting and Administrative Procedures  -  Sharlene Matten, Ph.D. Designated Federal Official, Office of Science Coordination and Policy, EPA

9:05 A.M. 	Introduction and Identification of Panel Members  -  Janice Chambers, Ph.D., DABT, FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel, Session Chair

9:15 A.M.	Opening Remarks  -  Donald Brady, Ph.D., Director, Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA and Elizabeth Behl, M.S., Director, Health and Ecological Criteria Division, Office of Science and Technology, Office of Water, EPA

9:30 A.M.	Introduction, Background, Status, and OPP and OW Data Requirements and Effects Characterizations  -  Kristina Garber, M.S., Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA and Joe Beaman, M.S., Health and Ecological Criteria Division, Office of Science and Technology, Office of Water, EPA

10:15 A.M.	Break

10:30 A.M.	Potential Use of Predictive Toxicology Tools in Characterizing Effects of Chemical Stressors to Aquatic Animals  -  Christine Russom, Mid-Continent Ecology Division, Office of Research and Development, EPA

11:15 A.M.	Analysis of Sensitivity Distributions for Estimation of Acute Hazard Concentrations to Aquatic Animals  -  Matthew Etterson, Ph.D., Mid-Continent Ecology Division, Office of Research and Development, EPA

12:15 P.M.		Lunch

1:15 P.M.	Extrapolation Factors for Derivation of Acute Aquatic Life HC5s:  Emphasis on Acetylcholinesterase Inhibitors  -  Russell Erickson, Ph.D., Mid-Continent Ecology Division, Office of Research and Development, EPA

2:15 P.M.	Analysis of Chronic Toxicity Data and Acute Chronic Ratios (ACRs) in Support of Deriving Chronic HC5s: Acetylcholinesterase Inhibitors  -  Russell Erickson, Ph.D., Mid-Continent Ecology Division, Office of Research and Development, EPA

3:00 P.M.	Break

3:15 P.M.	Estimating Aquatic Plant Community Hazard Concentrations for Pesticide Effects  -  Glen Thursby, Ph.D., Atlantic Ecology Division, Office of Research and Development, EPA

5:00 P.M.	Adjournment

Wednesday, February 1, 2012
9:00 A.M.	Opening of Meeting and Administrative Procedures  -  Sharlene Matten, Ph.D., Designated Federal Official, Office of Science Coordination and Policy, EPA

9:05 A.M.	Introduction and Identification of Panel Members  -  Janice Chambers, Ph.D., DABT, FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel, Session Chair

9:10 A.M.	Follow-up from Previous Day's Meeting  -  Kristina Garber, M.S., Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA

9:20 A.M.	Public Comments

10:30 A.M.	Break

10:45 A.M.	Charge Question 1: QSARs for Predicting Acute Toxicity for Aquatic Animals

Effect characterizations in both United States Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA) Office of Water (OW) and Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) rely on toxicity estimates for various taxa.  The USEPA investigated the use of some readily available Quantitative Structure Activity Relationship (QSAR) tools (described in Appendix A) to predict acute toxicity values to represent sensitive taxa which could potentially fill gaps in available empirical toxicity data.  Three publicly available QSAR models were examined, including: Ecological Structure Activity Relationships (ECOSAR), Toxicity Estimation Software Tool (TEST), and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) QSAR Toolbox.  These tools are increasingly used by USEPA risk assessors to determine the potential toxicity of various chemicals, including pesticide degradates. The white paper's analyses of ECOSAR, TEST and the OECD Toolbox suggest that, at this time, 1) the chemical domains for most models within these QSAR tools do not include sufficient data for  pesticide active ingredients and therefore these models are not currently robust estimators of  the toxicity for modes of action (MOAs) that are unique to pesticides (e.g., acetylcholinesterase (AChE) inhibitors), 2) current models are generally populated with data for species for which toxicity data are typically submitted under FIFRA, and generally, could not be used to fulfill other taxonomic data requirements defined in the 1985 guidelines, and 3) more toxicologically relevant molecular descriptors and structural alerts need to be identified for use in building models for MOAs associated with pesticide active ingredients.

   a) Appendix A of the white paper includes a review of the utility of ECOSAR, TEST and the OECD toolbox for quantifying sensitive acute toxicity values for aquatic animals exposed to pesticides.  Please comment on the strengths and weaknesses of the methods, results and conclusions associated with this review.

   b) The analysis discussed in Appendix A of the white paper used empirical toxicity data for AChE inhibitors to evaluate the predictions of specific QSAR tools. Please discuss the applicability of the conclusions based on AChE inhibitors to other pesticide MOAs. Although not part of the current analysis, please comment on the ability of SAR tools to quantitatively predict the toxicity of chemicals with non-specific MOAs for sensitive animals (e.g., pesticide degradates and some herbicide with a narcosis MOA), that may be within the domain of applicability of these tools.

   c) Please comment on potential modifications to the existing versions of ECOSAR, TEST and the OECD toolbox that could improve their quantitative capability relative to estimating acute toxicity values for aquatic animals exposed to specific pesticides.  For example, expansion of QSAR models within existing tools to better include pesticide active ingredients within their domain of applicability, expansion of the model training sets to cover taxa associated with data gaps, development of  models based on MOA, inclusion of parameters other than the logarithm of the octanol-water partition coefficient (i.e., log P)  to describe toxicity.

12:00 P.M.	Lunch

1:00 P.M.	Charge Question 2: Web-ICE for Predicting Acute Toxicity for Aquatic Animals

The white paper investigated the use of Web-based Interspecies Correlation Estimation models (Web-ICE) to predict acute toxicity values and potentially fill data gaps (described in Appendix B).  The review of the current version of Web-ICE suggests that, when using the minimum acute toxicity data for aquatic animals that are typically submitted to fulfill requirements under FIFRA (i.e., data for Daphnia magna, rainbow trout and bluegill sunfish), Web-ICE appears to generate the most precise predictions of toxicity for closely related fish species (e.g., within the same family). If toxicity data are available for either rainbow trout or bluegill sunfish, Web-ICE may be useful for predicting the toxicity of a chemical to some species of fish. The current review of this tool indicates that Web-ICE does not have sufficient data to fulfill the minimum data requirements across all taxa defined in the 1985 Guidelines when there are only acute surrogate data available for rainbow trout, bluegill and D. magna; however, this may change with future updates.

   a) Appendix B of the white paper includes a review of the utility of Web-ICE for quantifying sensitive acute toxicity values for aquatic animals exposed to pesticides.  Please comment on the strengths and weaknesses of the methods, results and conclusions associated with this review.

   b) Please comment on potential modifications to the existing version of Web ICE that could improve its ability to predict the acute toxicity values of pesticides to different species of aquatic animals.  For example, expansion of the tool to consider MOA, addition of data for infrequently tested species that may fulfill the data requirements defined in the 1985 guidelines.

2:00 P.M.	Charge Question 3:  Use of SSDs to estimate HC5 using varying amounts of data

As described in Appendix C, USEPA investigated the use of species sensitivity distributions (SSDs) with varying amounts of empirical data to estimate the fifth percentiles of sensitivity distributions of toxicity data (termed the "HC5"). Analyses performed by USEPA for this effort suggest that SSDs have limited utility when test data points are limited, specifically where biological diversity is not sufficient to represent the distribution of taxa sensitivity.  The analyses further suggest that SSDs applied to datasets that satisfy existing taxonomic requirements with extrapolation constants (as defined in Appendix C) would likely result in lower and yet reasonable approximations of the HC5.

   a) Appendix C of the white paper includes a description of the analyses of SSDs. Please comment on the strengths and weaknesses of the methods, results and conclusions associated with this analysis.

In Appendix C, several potential avenues for future work on SSDs were described, including i) extension of methods for ordered data to all continuous distributions ii) development of stepwise methods, including decision points, for data analysis to incorporate information on the relationship of MOA and taxa sensitivity, and iii) the use of random effects methods for handling cases in which more than one test result is available for a given taxon.

   b)  Please comment upon additional analyses relative to SSDs that could be considered by USEPA that may result in improved confidence in estimates of HC5 values using various amounts of data that are typically available for registered pesticides.

3:00 P.M.	Break

3:15 P.M.	Charge Question 4: Extrapolation Factors for Estimating Acute HC5s with a Specified Level of Confidence

The USEPA OW's aquatic life criteria (ALC) involve calculation of the "Final Acute Value" (FAV) as the fifth percentile of acute toxicity values for genera of aquatic animals, and impose certain minimum data requirements (MDRs) for such calculations.  To provide some assessment of effects when insufficient data are available for calculating an FAV, USEPA's Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance (GLWQG) specified extrapolation factors (EFs) by which the acute toxicity value for the most sensitive tested aquatic animal genus could be divided to provide a conservative estimate for what the FAV should be if sufficient data was available (U.S.EPA 1995).  In this case, conservative estimates of the FAV are generated by accounting for uncertainty in possible EF values, which generally results in an underestimate of the FAV that may be generated using a data set that would be considered complete according to the 1985 Guidelines. The EFs incorporated into the GLWQG were based on analyses by Host et al. (1995) of toxicity test datasets used in freshwater ALC that existed at that time; these analyses involved repeatedly subsampling (resampling) of these datasets to assess the relationship of the lowest toxicity values in datasets of a specified size and composition to FAVs based on larger datasets.

The analyses described in Appendix D of this white paper builds upon the analysis conducted by Host et al. (1995) by (a) utilizing more recent aquatic toxicity data and data for chemicals that do not have an ALC, (b) developing EFs for different MOAs to reduce uncertainty, (c) paying specific attention to EFs for OPP minimum data requirements for acute toxicity testing of aquatic animals, and (d) generating EFs using statistical distributions descriptive of acute toxicity values for different taxonomic groups and based on multiple chemicals, rather than resampling toxicity data for individual chemicals.  These analyses
established the feasibility of establishing EFs for certain MOAs, demonstrated how a distributional rather than a resampling approach can more effectively exploit data to develop MOA-specific EFs, and documented the relationship between OPP and OW benchmarks.  In addition, the current efforts considered how EF applicability and meaning might be affected, relative to the GLWQG, by different strategies for assigning reference HC5 and for summarizing EF distributions.

   a) Please comment on the extent to which consideration of MOA decreases uncertainty associated with HC5 values that are estimated using EFs.

   b) Please comment on the strengths and limitations of both the resampling and distributional methodologies for developing MOA-specific EFs, and provide suggestions on their further development and application to other MOAs.  Please provide suggestions for deriving EFs for chemicals with MOAs that have limited amounts of empirical toxicity data.

   c) Please comment on the strengths and limitations of the different approaches in the Host et al. (1995) and the current work for assigning reference HC5s and summarizing EF distributions.

4:30 P.M.	 Charge Question 5: Use of ACRs to estimate chronic toxicity endpoints or HC5 values for acutely sensitive species

Chronic toxicity data are generally available for fewer species than are tested to determine acute toxicity.  Acute-chronic ratios (ACRs) are a common tool used to estimate chronic effect thresholds for taxa lacking chronic toxicity data.  Both OPP and OW currently use ACRs developed for specific chemicals to estimate chronic effect levels.  ACR distributions have been developed for broad groups of chemicals without consideration of MOA or taxa (e.g., mixed pesticides by TenBrook et al. 2010; all chemicals by Host et al. 1995).  Appendix E of the white paper considers the application of ACRs developed for chemicals within the same MOA to estimate chronic effects for chemicals with the same MOA and lacking any chemical-specific ACRs.  Analysis of ACR data specifically for AChE inhibitors identified patterns in the ACR distributions. Most notably, ACRs for invertebrates were smaller than those for fish.  Although fish had larger ACRs, this did not translate to higher chronic sensitivity of fish to AChE inhibitors, because of their very low acute sensitivity.  In fact, analyses showed that concentrations protective of acute toxicity to invertebrates would simultaneously protect fish from chronic effects.  By extension, for AChE inhibitors, applying an invertebrate-based ACR to the acute HC5 (i.e., fifth percentile of a sensitivity distribution) should provide a chronic HC5 protective of both fish and invertebrates.  When comparing ACRs developed for broad groups of chemicals and taxa to ACRs for aquatic invertebrates exposed to AChE inhibitors, they were approximately 2 fold different.

   a) Please comment on the strengths and weaknesses of using chemical-specific ACRs to estimate chronic effect thresholds for other species and taxa.

   b) Please comment on the strengths and weakness of applying "default" ACRs derived from other chemicals to extrapolate from an acute HC5 to a chronic HC5, including the relative merits of values derived for MOA-specific (e.g., for AChE inhibitors) or more generalized (e.g., Host et al. 1995) distributions.

   c) Are there other methods for estimating a chronic HC5 that the panel believes would be technically superior to ACR-based approaches? For example, TCE models (described in USEPA 2010a), distributional approaches (e.g., de Zwart 2002, Douboudin et al. 2004; described in USEPA 2010b).

5:30 P.M. 	Adjournment

Thursday, February 2, 2012

9:00 A.M.	Opening of Meeting and Administrative Procedures  -  Sharlene Matten, Ph.D., Designated Federal Official, Office of Science Coordination and Policy, EPA

9:05 A.M.	Introduction and Identification of Panel Members  -  Janice Chambers, Ph.D., DABT, FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel, Session Chair

9:10 A.M.	Follow-up From Previous Day's Meeting  -  Kristina Garber, M.S., Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA

9:20 A.M.	Panel Discussion of Charge Question 5 cont'd

10:30 A.M.	Break

10:45 A.M.	Charge Question 6:  Estimating the HC5 for Aquatic Plants

As with animals, there has been uncertainty regarding the extent to which available data reflect the range of sensitivities that may be present for aquatic plants.  This effort focuses on the potential uses of EFs and SSDs to estimate the HC5 relevant to aquatic plants. As described in Appendix F, the primary analyses investigated the use of the standard aquatic plant species submitted to fulfill FIFRA data requirements in estimating the HC5. These species, which are referred to in the white paper as "the FIFRA-5" include: Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata (a freshwater green alga), Anabaena flos-aquae (a freshwater cyanobacterium), Navicula pelliculosa (a freshwater diatom), Skeletonema costatum (a saltwater diatom) and Lemna gibba (the aquatic vascular plant, duckweed).  The analysis described in Appendix F suggested that estimating the HC5 using the FIFRA-5 will result in a reasonable approximation of the HC5 of an aquatic plant community.

   a) Appendix F of the white paper includes an analysis of the use of EFs and SSDs combined with the FIFRA-5 to estimate the HC5 for aquatic plants.  Please comment on the strengths and weaknesses of the methods, results and conclusions associated with this analysis.

   b) Please comment on other aquatic plant species or test endpoints that may be considered in order to generate more certain estimates of the HC5 for aquatic plants.

   c) Please comment on the strengths and limitations of normalizing plant toxicity endpoints to a standard metric (i.e., EC50 for growth rate).

   a) Please comment on the extent to which consideration of MOA may decrease uncertainty associated with HC5 values for aquatic plants.

12:30 P.M.	Lunch

1:30 P.M.	Continued Panel Discussion (as necessary)

3:00 P.M.	Adjournment

Please be advised that agenda times are approximate; when the discussion for one topic is completed, discussions for the next topic will begin.  For further information, please contact the Designated Federal Official for this meeting, Dr. Sharlene Matten, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN01JN22.035

    The increase in the number of participants has manifested itself in
higher liquidity in the market. This is exhibited in the following
chart, which shows the daily aggregated dollar notional of the bid and
ask order books within the first 100 price levels across several of the
largest centralized crypto exchanges from October 2020 to April 2021.
Specifically, the dollar notional that is allocated closest to the mid
price has increased from around $230 million to $860 million over that
period, representing a 270% increase in half a year.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN01JN22.036

    An increased notional order book suggests that there is a higher
degree of consensus among investors regarding the price of Bitcoin.
Moreover, this market characteristic hampers any attempt of price
manipulation by any single large entity.
    As a robustness check, the Sponsor investigates whether the dollar
notional in the order book changes significantly prior to, and post an
extreme price event. Specifically, for events constituting large
increases in the price of Bitcoin, if the ask (or sell) side of the
order book experiences a significant shrinkage in the dollar notional
right before the event, then this may be an indication of market
manipulation whereby the ask-side of the order book becomes
sufficiently thin for a large order to move the price upward.
Similarly, for events constituting large decreases in the price of
Bitcoin, if the bid (or buy) side of the order book experiences a
significant shrinkage in the dollar notional prior to such events, then
this may be an indication of market manipulation whereby the thinner
bid-side of the order book may potentially lead to significant downward
price movements.
    Using the top and bottom 0.1% of hourly price changes from October
2020 to April 2021 as events of extreme upward and downward market
movements, respectively, the Sponsor plotted the bid (left charts) and
ask (right charts) dollar notional of the Bitcoin order book within a
six-hour window around these events in the chart below, which shows the
results for extreme upward price movements. The extreme price events
(indicated by the dashed green lines) perfectly coincide with the
decrease in dollar notional of the ask-side of the order book. This is
indicative of an efficient market, whereby large market movements are
quickly and dynamically absorbed by a thick orderbook. Moreover, the
dollar notional on the ask side after the event is replenished back to
its pre-event level, which implies that market participants' reactions
are quick to restore the market back to its equilibrium level.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN01JN22.037

    The same results and conclusions are found for extreme downward
price movements. The charts below show that such price events perfectly
coincide with shrinkages on the bid side of the order book (left
charts), indicating an efficient and dynamic Bitcoin market. Moreover,
the bid-side of the order book after the event is also restored back to
its pre-event level, which suggests that the market is symmetrically
efficient in moving back to equilibrium.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN01JN22.038

BILLING CODE 8011-01-C
    Finally, offering only in-kind creation and redemption will provide
unique protections against potential attempts to manipulate the Shares.
While the Sponsor believes that the Index which it uses to value the
Trust's bitcoin is itself resistant to manipulation based on the
methodology further described below, the fact that creations and
redemptions are only available in-kind makes the manipulability of the
Index significantly less important. Specifically, because the Trust
will not accept cash to buy bitcoin in order to create new shares or,
barring a forced redemption of the Trust or under other extraordinary
circumstances, be forced to sell bitcoin to pay cash for redeemed
shares, the price that the Sponsor uses to value the Trust's bitcoin is
not particularly important.\92\ When authorized participants are
creating with the Trust, they need to deliver a certain number of
bitcoin per share (regardless of the valuation used) and when they're
redeeming, they can similarly expect to receive a certain number of
bitcoin per share. As such, even if the price used to value the Trust's
bitcoin is manipulated (which the Sponsor believes that its methodology
is resistant to), the ratio of bitcoin per Share does not change and
the Trust will either accept (for creations) or distribute (for
redemptions) the same number of bitcoin regardless of the value. This
not only mitigates the risk associated with potential manipulation, but
also discourages and disincentivizes manipulation of the Index because
there is little financial incentive to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ While the Index will not be particularly important for the
creation and redemption process, it will be used for calculating
fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(ii) Designed To Protect Investors and the Public Interest
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is designed to protect
investors and the public interest. Over the past several years, U.S.
investor exposure to bitcoin through OTC Bitcoin Funds has grown into
the tens of billions of dollars and more than a billion dollars of
exposure through Bitcoin Futures ETFs. With that growth, so too has
grown the quantifiable investor protection issues to U.S. investors
through roll costs for Bitcoin Futures ETFs and premium/discount
volatility and management fees for OTC Bitcoin Funds. The Exchange
believes that the concerns related to the prevention of fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices have been sufficiently addressed to be
consistent with the Act and, to the extent that the Commission
disagrees with that assertion, also believes that such concerns are now
outweighed by these investor protection concerns. As such, the Exchange
believes that approving this proposal (and comparable proposals)
provides the Commission with the opportunity to allow U.S. investors
with access to bitcoin in a regulated and transparent exchange-traded
vehicle that would act to limit risk to U.S. investors by: (i) Reducing
premium and discount volatility; (ii) reducing management fees through
meaningful competition; (iii) reducing risks and costs associated with
investing in Bitcoin Futures ETFs and operating companies that are
imperfect proxies for bitcoin exposure; and (iv) providing an
alternative to custodying spot bitcoin.
Commodity-Based Trust Shares
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in that the
Shares will be listed on the Exchange pursuant to the initial and
continued listing criteria in Exchange Rule 14.11(e)(4). The Exchange
believes that its surveillance procedures are adequate to properly
monitor the trading of the Shares on the Exchange during all trading
sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and the
applicable federal securities laws. Trading of the Shares through the
Exchange will be subject to the Exchange's surveillance

procedures for derivative products, including Commodity-Based Trust
Shares. The issuer has represented to the Exchange that it will advise
the Exchange of any failure by the Trust or the Shares to comply with
the continued listing requirements, and, pursuant to its obligations
under Section 19(g)(1) of the Exchange Act, the Exchange will surveil
for compliance with the continued listing requirements. If the Trust or
the Shares are not in compliance with the applicable listing
requirements, the Exchange will commence delisting procedures under
Exchange Rule 14.12. The Exchange may obtain information regarding
trading in the Shares and listed bitcoin derivatives via the ISG, from
other exchanges who are members or affiliates of the ISG, or with which
the Exchange has entered into a comprehensive surveillance sharing
agreement.
Availability of Information
    The Exchange also believes that the proposal promotes market
transparency in that a large amount of information is currently
available about bitcoin and will be available regarding the Trust and
the Shares. In addition to the price transparency of the Index, the
Trust will provide information regarding the Trust's bitcoin holdings
as well as additional data regarding the Trust. The Trust will provide
an IIV per Share updated every 15 seconds, as calculated by the
Exchange or a third-party financial data provider during the Exchange's
Regular Trading Hours (9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. E.T.). The IIV will be
calculated by using the prior day's closing NAV per Share as a base and
updating that value during Regular Trading Hours to reflect changes in
the value of the Trust's bitcoin holdings during the trading day.
    The IIV disseminated during Regular Trading Hours should not be
viewed as an actual real-time update of the NAV, which will be
calculated only once at the end of each trading day. The IIV will be
widely disseminated on a per Share basis every 15 seconds during the
Exchange's Regular Trading Hours by one or more major market data
vendors. In addition, the IIV will be available through on-line
information services.
    The website for the Trust, which will be publicly accessible at no
charge, will contain the following information: (a) The current NAV per
Share daily and the prior business day's NAV and the reported closing
price; (b) the BZX Official Closing Price in relation to the NAV as of
the time the NAV is calculated and a calculation of the premium or
discount of such price against such NAV; (c) data in chart form
displaying the frequency distribution of discounts and premiums of the
Official Closing Price against the NAV, within appropriate ranges for
each of the four previous calendar quarters (or for the life of the
Trust, if shorter); (d) the prospectus; and (e) other applicable
quantitative information. The Trust will also disseminate the Trust's
holdings on a daily basis on the Trust's website. The price of bitcoin
will be made available by one or more major market data vendors,
updated at least every 15 seconds during Regular Trading Hours.
Information about the Index, including key elements of how the Index is
calculated, will be publicly available at https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/indices/digital-assets/sp-bitcoin-index/.
    The NAV for the Trust will be calculated by the Administrator once
a day and will be disseminated daily to all market participants at the
same time. Quotation and last-sale information regarding the Shares
will be disseminated through the facilities of the CTA.
    Quotation and last sale information for bitcoin is widely
disseminated through a variety of major market data vendors, including
Bloomberg and Reuters, as well as the Index. Information relating to
trading, including price and volume information, in bitcoin is
available from major market data vendors and from the exchanges on
which bitcoin are traded. Depth of book information is also available
from bitcoin exchanges. The normal trading hours for bitcoin exchanges
are 24 hours per day, 365 days per year
    For the above reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act.

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 purpose of the Act. The Exchange notes that the
proposed rule change, rather will facilitate the listing and trading of
an additional exchange-traded product that will enhance competition
among both market participants and listing venues, to the benefit of
investors and the marketplace.

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

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

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

    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 Exchange 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 email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CboeBZX-2022-031 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CboeBZX-2022-031. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for

inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting
comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal
identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CboeBZX-2022-031 and should
be submitted on or before June 22, 2022
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\93\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-11676 Filed 5-31-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 224 (Wednesday, November 22, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 55604]
[FR Doc No: 2017-25327]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER18-296-000]

Phibro Americas 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
Phibro Americas 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 December 6, 2017.
    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 protected]. or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 16, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-25327 Filed 11-21-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 57 (Friday, March 23, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16916-16917]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6952]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-1176; Directorate Identifier 2011-NE-35-AD;
Amendment 39-16995; AD 2012-06-14]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney (PW)Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for PW
JT9D-7R4G2 and -7R4H1 turbofan engines. This AD was prompted by the
determination that a new lower life limit for high-pressure turbine
(HPT) 1st stage air seals, part number (P/N) 735907, is necessary. This
AD establishes a new lower life limit for HPT 1st stage air seals, P/N
735907, and requires removing them from service using a drawdown
schedule. We are issuing this AD to prevent critical life-limited
rotating engine part failure and damage to the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective April 27, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may review copies of the referenced service information
at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive
Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Document Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ian Dargin, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
& Propeller Directorate, FAA, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM published in the Federal Register on November 23, 2011 (76 FR
72348). That NPRM proposed to require establishing a new lower life
limit for HPT 1st stage air seals, P/N 735907, from 15,000 cycles-
since-new (CSN) to 9,000 CSN and to require removing them from service
using a drawdown schedule.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal
and the FAA's response to each comment.

Support for the NPRM as Written

    The Boeing Company and an individual commenter support the NPRM (76
FR 72348, November 23, 2011) as written.

Request To Revise Applicability

    Commenter PW requested that we revise the applicability and summary
sections of the AD to limit applicability to only the PW JT9D-7R4G2 and
-7R4H1 turbofan engine models. We agree. In addition to the JT9D-7R4G2
and -7R4H1 engines, the NPRM (76 FR 72348, November 23, 2011)
incorrectly included JT9D-7R4D, -7R4D1, -7R4E, -7R4E1 and -7R4E4 engine
models. We changed the AD by limiting the applicability to only the PW
JT9D-7R4G2 and -7R4H1 turbofan engine models.

Request To Revise Removal Limits

    Commenter Federal Express requested that different removal
(drawdown) limits be specified for the JT9D-7R4E1 and -7R4E1H engine
models, based on the life limits listed in chapter 05 of the PW engine
manual.
    We do not agree. We removed the JT9D-7R4E1 and -7R4E1H engine
models from this AD in response to another comment. Therefore, the
JT9D-7R4E1 and -7R4E1H engine models are no longer affected by this AD.
However, as these air seals are installed on other engine models, we
modified the installation prohibition paragraph to indicate that an air
seal removed in accordance with this AD cannot be installed in any
other engine. Further, we noted that all air seals identified in this
AD, when used on the JT9D-7R4E1 and -7R4E1H engine models, have a 9,000
CSN life limit.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD with the changes described previously.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 28 Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7R4G2,
and -7R4H1 turbofan engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We
also estimate that it will take 28.8 work-hours per engine to perform
the actions required by this AD, and that the average labor rate is $85
per work-hour.

Required parts will cost about $37,200 per engine. Based on these
figures, we estimate the total cost of the AD to U.S. operators to be
$1,110,144.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2012-06-14 Pratt & Whitney: Amendment 39-16995; Docket No. FAA-2011-
1176; Directorate Identifier 2011-NE-35-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective April 27, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7R4G2 and -7R4H1
turbofan engines.

(d) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by the determination that a new lower life
limit of 9,000 cycles-since-new (CSN) for high-pressure turbine
(HPT) 1st stage air seals, part number (P/N) 735907, is necessary.
We are issuing this AD to prevent critical life-limited rotating
engine part failure, and damage to the airplane.

(e) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(f) Removal of HPT 1st Stage Air Seals, P/N 735907

    Remove HPT 1st stage air seals, P/N 735907, from service as
follows:
    (1) For air seals that have fewer than 6,500 CSN on the
effective date of this AD, remove the air seals from service before
exceeding 9,000 CSN.
    (2) For air seals that have 6,500 CSN or more on the effective
date of this AD, do the following:
    (i) If the engine has a shop visit before the air seal exceeds
9,000 CSN, remove the air seal from service before exceeding 9,000
CSN.
    (ii) If the engine does not have a shop visit before the air
seal exceeds 9,000 CSN, remove the air seal from service at the next
shop visit, not to exceed 2,500 cycles from the effective date of
this AD or 15,000 CSN, whichever occurs first.

(g) Installation Prohibition

    (1) After the effective date of this AD, do not install or
reinstall into any engine any HPT 1st stage air seal, P/N 735907,
removed from service in accordance with paragraph (f) of this AD.
    (2) After the effective date of this AD, do not install or
reinstall into any JT9D-7R4G2 or JT9D-7R4H1 engine any HPT 1st stage
air seal, P/N 735907, that exceeds the new life limit of 9,000 CSN.

(h) Engine Shop Visit Definition

    For the purposes of this AD, an engine shop visit is the
induction of an engine into the shop after the effective date of
this AD, where the separation of a major engine flange occurs,
except that the following maintenance actions, or any combination
thereof, are not considered engine shop visits:
    (1) Introduction of an engine into a shop solely for removal of
the compressor top or bottom case for airfoil maintenance or
variable stator vane bushing replacement.
    (2) Introduction of an engine into a shop solely for removal or
replacement of the stage 1 fan disk.
    (3) Introduction of an engine into a shop solely for replacement
of the turbine rear frame.
    (4) Introduction of an engine into a shop solely for replacement
of the accessory gearbox or transfer gearbox, or both.
    (5) Introduction of an engine into a shop solely for replacement
of the fan containment case.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, may approve AMOCs for
this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your
request.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Ian Dargin,
Aerospace Engineer, Engine & Propeller Directorate, FAA, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on March 16, 2012.
Peter A. White,
Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-6952 Filed 3-22-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 5 (Monday, January 9, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2425-2426]
[FR Doc No: 2017-00101]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79725; File No. SR-BatsBZX-2016-30]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proceedings to
Determine Whether to Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change, as
Modified by Amendment No. 1, to BZX Rule 14.11(e)(4), Commodity-Based
Trust Shares, to List and Trade Winklevoss Bitcoin Shares Issued by the
Winklevoss Bitcoin Trust

January 4, 2017.
    On June 30, 2016, Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to list and trade Winklevoss
Bitcoin Shares issued by the Winklevoss Bitcoin Trust under BZX Rule
14.11(e)(4). The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on July 14, 2016.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78262 (Jul. 8,
2016), 81 FR 45554.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 23, 2016, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\4\ the
Commission designated a longer period within which to approve the
proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule
change.\5\ On October 12, 2016, the Commission instituted proceedings
under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \6\ to determine whether to
approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.\7\ On October 20, 2016,
the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change, and
Amendment No. 1 was published for comment in the

Federal Register on November 3, 2016.\8\ The Commission has received 30
comment letters on the proposed rule change.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78653, 81 FR 59256
(Aug. 29, 2016). The Commission designated October 12, 2016, as the
date by which it should approve, disapprove, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule
change.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79084, 81 FR 71778
(Oct. 18, 2016). Specifically, the Commission instituted proceedings
to allow for additional analysis of the proposed rule change's
consistency with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires, among
other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be
``designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade,'' and
``to protect investors and the public interest.'' See id., 81 FR at
71781.
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79183 (Oct. 28,
2016), 81 FR 76650 (Nov. 3, 2016).
    \9\ See Letters from Robert D. Miller, VP Technical Services,
RKL eSolutions (July 11, 2016); Jorge Stolfi, Full Professor,
Institute of Computing UNICAMP (July 13, 2016); Guillaume
Lethuillier (July 26, 2016); Michael B. Casey (July 31, 2016); Erik
A. Aronesty, Sr. Software Engineer, Bloomberg LP (Aug. 2, 2016); Dan
Anderson (Aug. 27, 2016); Robert Miller (Oct. 12, 2016); Lysle Shaw-
McMinn, O.D. (Oct. 13, 2016); Nils Neidhardt (Oct. 13, 2016); Dana
K. Barish (2 letters; Oct. 13, 2016); Xin Lu (Oct. 13, 2016); Rodger
Delehanty CFA (Oct. 14, 2016); Dylan (Oct. 14, 2016); Dana K. Barish
(Oct. 14, 2016); Dana K. Barish (2 letters; Oct. 15, 2016); Jorge
Stolfi, Full Professor, Institute of Computing UNICAMP (Nov. 1,
2016); Michael B. Casey (Nov. 5, 2016); Anonymous (Nov. 8, 2016);
Chris Burniske, Blockchain Products Lead, ARK Investment Management
LLC (Nov. 8, 2016); Colin Keeler (Nov. 14, 2016); Robert S. Tull,
(Nov. 14, 2016); Mark T. Williams (Nov. 15, 2016); Anonymous (Nov.
21, 2016); XBT OPPS Team (Nov. 21, 2016); Anonymous (Nov. 22, 2016);
Ken Maher (Nov. 22, 2016); Kyle Murray, Assistant General Counsel,
Bats Global Markets, Inc. (Nov. 25, 2016); and Colin Baird (Nov. 26,
2016). All comments on the proposed rule change are available on the
Commission's Web site at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-batsbzx-2016-30/batsbzx201630.shtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \10\ provides that, after initiating
disapproval proceedings, the Commission shall issue an order approving
or disapproving the proposed rule change not later than 180 days after
the date of publication of notice of filing of the proposed rule
change. The Commission may extend the period for issuing an order
approving or disapproving the proposed rule change by not more than 60
days if the Commission determines that a longer period is appropriate
and publishes the reasons for such determination. The proposed rule
change was published for notice and comment in the Federal Register on
July 14, 2016. January 10, 2017 is 180 days from that date, and March
11, 2017 is 240 days from that date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the proposed
rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider this proposed
rule change. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)
of the Act,\11\ designates March 11, 2017 as the date by which the
Commission should either approve or disapprove the proposed rule change
(File No. SR-BatsBZX-2016-30), as modified by Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-00101 Filed 1-6-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P