mercury emissions.  However, this type of control is site specific based
on the available materials and the chemical composition of the
limestone.  The site specific factors preclude using this as a basis for
a national rule (70 FR 72334).

 See section c. below discussing operation of the in-line raw mill and
its implication for mercury control.

 EPA does not consider adopting an astronomically high mercury standard
(a standard so high as never to be exceeded) as being a productive
alternative.  70 FR 72334.

 As explained in the following section of the preamble, however, EPA has
determined that the floor for both existing and new sources involves the
removal from the kiln system of collected particulate under designated
circumstances.

 Though these are also raw materials inputs, the mass of clay or shale
is typically less than 15 percent of the mass input to the kiln.
Limestone makes up approximately 80 percent of the mass input.

 More specifically, when the mill is on-line, the kiln gas containing
volatilized mercury is used to sweep the mill of the finely ground raw
feed particles. Since the mill temperature is only about 90 to 120°C
during this operational mode, the fine PM can adsorb the mercury in the
gas stream, and the particles containing condensed mercury are stored in
the raw feed silos.  This stored raw mix then is fed to the kiln.  The
captured mercury is again volatilized and returned in the gas stream to
the raw mill, only to be captured again in the raw mill, as described
above. This process continues as long as the raw mill is on-line, and
the raw feed continues to adsorb additional mercury through this
process.

 Choosing the median source for assessing an existing source floor here
is a reasonable manner of determining “the average emission limitation
achieved by the best performing 12 per cent of existing sources”
(section 112 (d)(3)). Not only can the statutory term “average” be
reasonably interpreted to mean median, but it is appropriate to do so
here in order not to adopt a de facto beyond the floor standard.  If one
were simply to combine the mercury emission levels of the kilns equipped
with wet scrubbers with other kilns whose mercury levels reflect raw
material and fuel mercury levels at the time of the performance test,
the resulting limit would not be achievable over time by any source
other than one with a wet scrubber. Ostensible best performers would
consequently have to retrofit with back end control, since otherwise
they could not consistently achieve the results of their own performance
tests.

 That is, variability would no longer be purely a function of the
happenstance of the amount of mercury in raw materials (and fossil
fuels) used in the test condition.  As explained more fully below,
performance of wet scrubbers, however, is variable, based not only on
operation of the device but on mercury levels in input materials. Wet
scrubbers on utility boilers, for example, are documented to remove
between 0 to 72 per cent of incoming mercury.

 On the other hand, utility boilers do not have the significant levels
of alkaline materials that are present in cement kilns, which alkaline
materials would impede mercury oxidation and scrubber efficacy.  Thus,
we do not view utility boilers as a “similar source” for purposes of
section 112(d)(1).

hh

hÆ

í

\

@

f

m

”

—

˜

¿

À

Á

Å

ì

í

ï

'

(

C

I

Z

[

\

f

h

h

©

À

î

ï

c

c

c

kd

c

c

h

h

搒Ǡ摧屛

萏α搒Ǡ葞α摧墥

h

-

 h

 hj

 hj

 hj

 hj

h

 hj

”ÿ

”ÿ

S

h=

h=

*

+

*

-

_

`

¡

£

Ì

Ô

óéóÜÎÜÁé¶¨éž”éÜŠÜ€ÜvÜ€Ü€Ü€ÜžÜfÜvÜvÜ
ŠÜfŠÜ hm

h

h

h

_

_

hH

hB

`„Ðgd

h

h

h›

•

×

hÒ

hÒ

h_

h_

h_

 hÀ

h

p

q

Š

‹

h

Å

Ï

ú

h‘W

h(

h(

h

h

h

 h

h

h

h

h

ns.

 None of these five kilns burn hazardous waste.

 Indeed, the entire reason that hazardous waste burning cement kilns are
a different source category is the impact and potential controllability
of the hazardous waste inputs.  See 64 FR at 52871.

                            .

 As it happens, under this rule, new sources would have three years to
comply with new source standards because the standards adopted are more
stringent than those proposed on December 2, 2005.  See CAA section 112
(i) (2).  However, the same issue will arise should EPA adopt revised
standards as a result of the periodic review mandated by section 112
(d)(6).  There is no indication that Congress intended the draconian
result of sources constructed at the time of the initial MACT rule
(which could be decades in the past for a section 112 (d) (6) revised
standard) to be considered new sources.

 Greenfield cement kilns, for which EPA adopted a new source standard
for THC in 1999, are a separate type of source for purposes of this
analysis.

 EPA could subcategorize each source based on its raw material organic
content (each source being a different “type”), but rejects this
alternative as being a paper exercise not producing environmental
benefit.

 Fuel organics can be controlled because they are fed into the hot end
of the kiln.  Feed materials are fed into the other end of the kiln and
therefore have the opportunity to vaporize and leave with the exhaust
gas before they reach the portions of the kiln which are hot enough to
combust them.

 For the same reason, area source cement kilns are required to control
dioxin, another HAP enumerated in section 112 (c) (6).  See 40 CFR
63.1343.

 PAGE   2

 PAGE   179


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 50 (Tuesday, March 15, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14598-14603]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05373]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-94384; File No. SR-MIAX-2022-11]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend the MIAX Options Fee Schedule To Adopt
Fees for a New Data Product Called the Liquidity Taker Event Report--
Complex Orders

March 9, 2022.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on February 25, 2022, Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC
(``MIAX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``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 MIAX Options Fee
Schedule (the ``Fee Schedule'') to adopt fees for a new data product
known as the Liquidity Taker Event Report--Complex Orders.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See, generally, Exchange Rule 531(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings, 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
    The Exchange recently established a new data product known as the
Liquidity Taker Event Report--Complex Orders (the ``Complex Order
Report''),\4\ which will be available for purchase by Exchange Members
\5\ on a voluntary basis. The Exchange now proposes to adopt fees for
the Complex Order Report, which is described under Exchange Rule
531(b).\6\ The Complex Order Report is an optional product available to
Members. The Exchange notes that the proposed fees for the Complex
Order Report are identical to the fees the Exchange recently
established for subscribers to a similar report known as the Liquidity
Taker Event Report--Simple Orders (the ``Simple Order Report'').\7\ As
further described below, the Exchange proposes to also offer a
discounted combined fee for Members who purchase annual subscriptions
to both the Simple Order Report and Complex Order Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94135 (February 2,
2022), 87 FR 7217 (February 8, 2022) (SR-MIAX-2022-06).
    \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.
    \6\ See Exchange Rule 531(b).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 92081 (June 1,
2021), 86 FR 30344 (June 7, 2021) (SR-MIAX-2021-21) (Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Rule 531, Reports and Market Data Products, To Adopt the
Liquidity Taker Event Report); 92208 (June 17, 2021), 86 FR 33442
(June 24, 2021) (SR-MIAX-2021-25) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fee Schedule To
Adopt Fees for a New Data Product Known as the Liquidity Taker Event
Report). See Exchange Rule 531(a) for the rule text of the Simple
Order Report. See also Fee Schedule, Section 7), Reports, for the
fees for the Simple Order Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By way of background, the Complex Order Report is a daily report
that provides a Member (``Recipient Member'') with its liquidity
response time details for executions of a Complex Order resting on the
Strategy Book,\8\ where that Recipient Member attempted to execute
against such resting Complex Order \9\ within a certain timeframe. It
is important to note that the content of the Complex Order Report is
specific to the Recipient Member and the Complex Order Report will not
include any information related to any Member other than the Recipient
Member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The term ``Strategy Book'' means the Exchange's electronic
book of complex orders and complex quotes. See Exchange Rule
518(a)(17).
    \9\ Only displayed orders will be included in the Complex Order
Report. The Exchange notes that it does not currently offer any non-
displayed orders types on its options trading platform.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following information is included in the Complex Order Report
regarding the resting order: (A) The time the resting order was
received by the Exchange; (B) symbol; (C) order reference number, which
is a unique reference number assigned to a new Complex Order at the
time of receipt; (D) whether the Recipient Member is an Affiliate \10\
of the Member that entered the resting order; \11\ (E) origin type
(e.g., Priority Customer,\12\ Market Maker \13\); (F) side (buy or
sell); and (G) displayed price and size of the resting order.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The term ``affiliate'' of or person ``affiliated with''
another person means a person who, directly, or indirectly,
controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with, such
other person. See Exchange Rule 100.
    \11\ The Report will simply indicate whether the Recipient
Member is Affiliate of the Member that entered the resting order and
not include any other information that may indicate the identity of
the Member that entered the resting order.
    \12\ The term ``Priority Customer'' means a person or entity
that (i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) does not
place more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average
during a calendar month for its own beneficial account(s). The
number of orders shall be counted in accordance with Interpretation
and Policy .01 to Exchange Rule 100. See Exchange Rule 100.
    \13\ The term ``Market Maker'' refers to ``Lead Market Makers'',
``Primary Lead Market Makers'' and ``Registered Market Makers''
collectively. See Exchange Rule 100.
    \14\ This is the same type of information included in the Simple
Order Report, with the only difference being the information is for
Complex Orders on the Strategy Book. The Exchange notes that the
displayed price and size are also disseminated via the Exchange's
proprietary data feeds. The Exchange also notes that the displayed
price of the resting order may be different than the ultimate
execution price. This may occur when a resting order is displayed
and ranked at different prices upon entry to avoid a locked or
crossed market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following information is included in the Complex Order Report
regarding the execution of the resting order: (A) The Complex MBBO \15\
at the time of execution; \16\ (B) the Complex ABBO \17\ at the time of
execution; \18\ (C) the time first response that executes against the
resting order was received by the Exchange and the size of the
execution and type of the response; \19\ (D) the time difference
between the time the resting order was received by the Exchange and the
time the first response that executes against the resting order was
received by the Exchange; \20\ and (E) whether the response was entered
by the Recipient Member. If the resting order executes against multiple
contra-side responses,

only the Complex MBBO and Complex ABBO at the time of the execution
against the first response will be included.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The term ``MBBO'' means the Exchange's best bid or offer.
See Exchange Rule 100. The Complex MBBO for a particular Complex
Strategy is calculated using the Implied Complex MIAX Best Bid or
Offer (``icMBBO'') combined with the best price currently available
for that particular Complex Strategy on the Strategy Book to
establish the Exchange's best net bid or offer for that Complex
Strategy. The icMBBO is calculated using the best price from the
Simple Order Book for each component of a Complex Strategy including
displayed and non-displayed trading interest. For stock-option
orders, the icMBBO for a Complex Strategy is calculated using the
best price (whether displayed or non-displayed) on the Simple Order
Book in the individual option component(s), and the NBBO in the
stock component. See Exchange Rule 518(a)(11).
    \16\ Exchange Rule 531(b)(1)(ii)(A) provides that if the resting
order executes against multiple contra-side responses, only the
Complex MBBO at the time of the execution against the first response
will be included.
    \17\ The term ``ABBO'' or ``Away Best Bid or Offer'' means the
best bid(s) or offer(s) disseminated by other Eligible Exchanges
(defined in Exchange Rule 1400(g)) and calculated by the Exchange
based on market information received by the Exchange from the
Options Price Reporting Authority (``OPRA''). See Exchange Rule 100.
The Complex ABBO is calculated using the ABBO for each component of
a Complex Strategy to establish the away markets' best net bid or
offer for a Complex Strategy.
    \18\ Exchange Rule 531(b)(1)(ii)(B) further provides that if the
resting order executes against multiple contra-side responses, only
the Complex ABBO at the time of the execution against the first
response will be included.
    \19\ The time the Exchange received the response order would be
in nanoseconds and would be the time the response was received by
the Exchange's network, which is before the time the response would
be received by the System.
    \20\ The time difference would be provided in nanoseconds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following information is included in the Complex Order Report
regarding response(s) sent by the Recipient Member: (A) Recipient
Member identifier; (B) the time difference between the time the first
response that executes against the resting order was received by the
Exchange and the time of each Complex Order sent by the Recipient
Member, regardless of whether it executed or not; \21\ (C) size and
type of each Complex Order submitted by Recipient Member; and (D)
response reference number, which is a unique reference number attached
to the response by the Recipient Member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ For purposes of calculating this duration of time, the
Exchange will use the time the resting order and the Recipient
Member's response(s) is received by the Exchange's network, both of
which would be before the order and response(s) would be received by
the System. This time difference would be provided in nanoseconds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Complex Order Report includes the data set for executions and
contra-side responses that occurred within 200 microseconds of the time
the resting order was received by the Exchange. The Complex Order
Report contains historical data from the prior trading day and will be
available after the end of the trading day, generally on a T+1 basis.
The Complex Order Report does not include real-time data.
    The Exchange believes the additional data points from the matching
engine outlined above may help Members gain a better understanding
about their own interactions with the Exchange. The Exchange believes
the Complex Order Report will provide Members with an opportunity to
learn more about better opportunities to access liquidity and receive
better execution rates. The Complex Order Report will increase
transparency and democratize information so that all firms that
subscribe to the Complex Order Report have access to the same
information on an equal basis, even for firms that do not have the
appropriate resources to generate a similar report regarding
interactions with the Exchange.
    Members generally would use a liquidity accessing Complex Order if
there is a high probability that it will execute against an order
resting on the Exchange's Strategy Book. The Complex Order Report
identifies by how much time an order that may have been marketable
missed an execution. The Complex Order Report will provide greater
visibility into the missed trading execution, which will allow Members
to optimize their models and trading patterns to yield better execution
results.
    The Complex Order Report will be a Member-specific report and will
help Members to better understand by how much time a particular order
missed executing against a specific resting order, thus allowing that
Member to determine whether it wants to invest in the necessary
resources and technology to mitigate missed executions against certain
resting orders on the Exchange's Strategy Book.
    The Exchange proposes to provide the Complex Order Report in
response to Member demand for data concerning the timeliness of their
incoming Complex Orders and executions against resting Complex Orders.
Members have periodically requested from the Exchange's trading
operations personnel information concerning the timeliness of their
incoming orders and efficacy of their attempts to execute against
resting liquidity on the Exchange's Strategy Book. The purpose of the
Complex Order Report is to provide Members the necessary data in a
standardized format on a T+1 basis to those that subscribe to the
Complex Order Report on an equal basis.
    The product is offered to Members on a completely voluntary basis
in that the Exchange is not required by any rule or regulation to make
this data available and potential subscribers may purchase the Complex
Order Report only if they voluntarily choose to do so. It is a business
decision of each Member whether to subscribe to the Complex Order
Report or not.
    The Exchange proposes to assess the same fees that it currently
charges for Members that subscribe to the similar Simple Order Report.
As such, the Exchange proposes to amend Section 7), Reports, of the Fee
Schedule to provide that Members may purchase the Complex Order Report
on a monthly or annual (12 month) basis. In particular, the Exchange
proposes to assess Members a fee of $4,000 per month or $24,000 per
year for a 12 month subscription to the Complex Order Report. Members
may cancel their subscription at any time. Just as it does for the
Simple Order Report, the Exchange proposes to specify that for mid-
month subscriptions to the Complex Order Report, new subscribers will
be charged for the full calendar month for which they subscribe and
will be provided Complex Order Report data for each trading day of the
calendar month prior to the day on which they subscribed.
    The Exchange also proposes to provide a discounted rate of $40,000
per year to Members that purchase 12 month annual subscriptions to both
the Simple and Complex Order Reports (as compared to the 12 month
subscription rate of $24,000 for each report on an individual
subscription basis). The Exchange also proposes to pro-rate the
discounted 12 month subscription fee for Members that seek to add
either their Simple Order Report or the Complex Order Report to an
existing subscription. In particular, the Exchange proposes that for
those Members with an existing 12 month subscription to either the
Simple Order Report or Complex Order Report, but not both, may add a
subscription to the Simple Order Report or Complex Order Report during
their current 12 month subscription. In such case, the fee for the
added report will be pro-rated based on the $40,000 combined rate for
the 12 month subscription discount for the remainder of the
subscriber's current 12 month subscription, and the number of months
remaining in the existing subscription until the Member's renewal date.
Members would then receive the 12 month discount ($40,000 annually) for
subscribing to both reports on the renewal date of their original
subscription. For example, assume ``Member A'' previously subscribed to
the Simple Order Report on September 1, 2021 and paid $24,000 for a 12
month subscription to the Simple Order Report. ``Member A's'' current
subscription expires on August 31, 2022 for the Simple Order Report.
Before ``Member A's'' subscription to the Simple Order Report expires,
``Member A'' decides to subscribe to the Complex Order Report,
beginning March 1, 2022. Rather than being immediately charged $40,000
for the 12 month subscription discount for subscribing to both reports
(``Member A'' already paid $24,000 upfront for the Simple Order Report
12 month subscription), ``Member A'' would only be charged an
additional $8,000 to add the Complex Order Report for the remaining
months of ``Member A's'' current 12 month subscription to the Simple
Order Report. On September 1, 2022, assuming ``Member A'' decided to
keep both reports, ``Member A'' would then be charged the 12 month
discounted rate of $40,000 for both reports for the next year.
    The Exchange proposes to determine the pro-rated fee described
above as follows: On the date that ``Member A'' wanted to begin
subscribing to the Complex Order Report (March 1, 2022), there were six
months remaining on ``Member A's'' existing 12 month subscription to
the Simple Order Report (March, April, May, June, July and August). The
added cost would be

calculated as ((6 months remaining/12 months total) * ($40,000
discounted annual subscription for both reports-$24,000 for annual
subscription to each report individually) = $8,000 for remaining 6
months. Beginning September 1, 2022 (the original renewal date for the
Simple Order Report), ``Member A'' would then be charged the discounted
12 month subscription rate of $40,000, assuming ``Member A'' renews
their subscriptions to both the Simple Order Report and the Complex
Order Report.
    The Exchange intends to begin to offer the Complex Order Report and
charge the proposed fees on March 1, 2022.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\22\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\23\ in particular, in that it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
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 to protect investors and the public
interest, and that it is not designed to permit unfair discrimination
among customers, brokers, or dealers. The Exchange also believes that
its proposal to adopt fees for the Complex Order Report is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \24\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \25\ in particular, in that it
is an equitable allocation of dues, fees and other charges among its
Members and other recipients of Exchange data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted self-regulatory
organizations (``SROs'') and broker-dealers increased authority and
flexibility to offer new and unique market data to the public. It was
believed that this authority would expand the amount of data available
to consumers, and also spur innovation and competition for the
provision of market data. The Exchange believes that the Report further
broadens the availability of U.S. option market data to investors
consistent with the principles of Regulation NMS. The Complex Order
Report also promotes increased transparency through the dissemination
of the Complex Order Report. Particularly, the Complex Order Report
will benefit investors by facilitating their prompt access to the value
added information that is included in the Complex Order Report. The
Complex Order Report will allow Members to access information regarding
their trading activity that they may utilize to evaluate their own
trading behavior and order interactions.
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment. Indeed,
there are currently 16 registered options exchanges that trade options.
Based on publicly available information, no single options exchange has
more than 12-13% of the equity options market share and currently the
Exchange represents only approximately 5.90% of the market share.\26\
The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition
over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and
services in the securities markets. Particularly, in Regulation NMS,
the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \27\ Making similar data
products available to market participants fosters competition in the
marketplace, and constrains the ability of exchanges to charge supra-
competitive fees. In the event that a market participant views one
exchange's data product as more attractive than the competition, that
market participant can, and often does, switch between similar
products. The proposed fees are a result of the competitive environment
of the U.S. options industry as the Exchange seeks to adopt fees to
attract purchasers of the recently introduced Complex Order Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See ``The Market at a Glance,'' (last visited February 10,
2022), available at https://www.miaxoptions.com/.
    \27\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed fees are reasonable as the
proposed fees are both modest and identical to the fees assessed by the
Exchange for its substantially similar Simple Order Report.\28\ Indeed,
if the Exchange proposed fees that market participants viewed as
excessively high, then the proposed fees would simply serve to reduce
demand for the Exchange's data product, which as noted, is entirely
optional. Other options exchanges are also free to introduce their own
comparable data products with lower prices to better compete with the
Exchange's offering. As such, the Exchange believes that the proposed
fees are reasonable and set at a level to compete with other options
exchanges that may choose to offer similar reports. Moreover, if a
market participant views another exchange's potential report as more
attractive, then such market participant can merely choose not to
purchase the Exchange's Complex Order Report and instead purchase
another exchange's similar data product, which may offer similar data
points, albeit based on that other market's trading activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes providing an annual subscription for an
overall lower fee than a monthly subscription is equitable and
reasonable because it would enable the Exchange to gauge long-term
interest in the Complex Order Report. A lower annual subscription fee
would also incentivize Members to subscribe to the Complex Order Report
on a long-term basis, thereby improving the efficiency by which the
Exchange may deliver the Complex Order Report by doing so on a regular
basis over a prolonged and set period of time. The Exchange notes it
provides an identical annual subscription for its Simple Order Report
data and that other exchanges provide annual subscriptions for reports
concerning their data product offerings.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe'') assesses a $24,000 annual
fee for an intra-day subscription to Open-Close Data. See https://datashop.cboe.com/options-summary-subscription.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes the proposed fees are reasonable as they
would support the introduction of a new market data product to Members
that are interested in gaining insight into latency in connection with
Complex Orders that failed to execute against a Complex Order resting
on the Exchange's Strategy Book. The Complex Order Report accomplishes
this by providing those Members data to analyze by how much time their
order may have missed an execution against a contra-side order resting
on the Strategy Book. Members may use this data to optimize their
models and trading patterns in an effort to yield better execution
results by calculating by how much time their order may have missed an
execution.
    Selling market data, such as the Complex Order Report, is also a
means by which exchanges compete to attract business. To the extent
that the Exchange is successful in attracting subscribers for the
Complex Order Report, it may earn trading revenues and further enhance
the value of its data products. If the market deems the

proposed fees to be unfair or inequitable, firms can diminish or
discontinue their use of the data. The Exchange therefore believes that
the proposed fees for the Complex Order Report reflect the competitive
environment and would be properly assessed on Member users. The
Exchange also believes the proposed fees are equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory as the fees would apply equally to all users who choose
to purchase such data. It is a business decision of each Member that
chooses to purchase the Complex Order Report. The Exchange's proposed
fees would not differentiate between subscribers that purchase the
Complex Order Report and are set at a modest level that would allow any
interested Member to purchase such data based on their business needs.
    The Exchange reiterates that the decision as to whether or not to
purchase the Complex Order Report is entirely optional for all
potential subscribers. Indeed, no market participant is required to
purchase the Complex Order Report, and the Exchange is not required to
make the Complex Order Report available to all investors. It is
entirely a business decision of each Member to subscribe to the Complex
Order Report. The Exchange offers the Complex Order Report as a
convenience to Members to provide them with additional information
regarding trading activity on the Exchange on a delayed basis after the
close of regular trading hours. A Member that chooses to subscribe to
the Complex Order Report may discontinue receiving the Complex Order
Report at any time if that Member determines that the information
contained in the Complex Order Report is no longer useful.
    The Exchange also believes providing a 12 month discounted fee for
subscribers of both the Simple and Complex Order Reports is equitable
and reasonable because it would enable the Exchange to gauge long-term
interest in both reports. The Exchange believes that a lower annual
combined subscription fee may incentivize Members to subscribe to both
reports on a long-term basis, thereby allowing the Exchange to better
gauge demand for both reports over a longer period of time. Doing so
will enable the Exchange to better predict the future demand for both
reports. This will allow the Exchange to better prepare and adjust
resources for the production and delivery of both reports to Members,
improving the efficiency by which the Exchange may deliver both reports
over a prolonged and set period of time. The Exchange also believes
that it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to
offer a 12 month discounted fee for Members that subscribe to both
reports because all Members may subscribe to both reports and receive
the discounted rate.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange
made the Complex Order Report available in order to keep pace with
changes in the industry and evolving customer needs and demands, and
believes the data product will contribute to robust competition among
national securities exchanges. As a result, the Exchange believes this
proposed rule change permits fair competition among national securities
exchanges.
    The Exchange believes the proposed fees would not cause any
unnecessary or inappropriate burden on intermarket competition as other
exchanges are free to introduce their own comparable data product with
lower prices to better compete with the Exchange's offering. The
Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment, and its ability
to price the Complex Order Report is constrained by competition among
exchanges who choose to adopt a similar product. The Exchange must
consider this in its pricing discipline in order to compete for the
market data. For example, proposing fees that are excessively higher
than fees for potentially similar data products would simply serve to
reduce demand for the Exchange's data product, which as discussed,
market participants are under no obligation to utilize. In this
competitive environment, potential purchasers are free to choose which,
if any, similar product to purchase to satisfy their need for market
information. As a result, the Exchange believes this proposed rule
change permits fair competition among national securities exchanges.
    The Exchange also believes that the proposed fees do not cause any
unnecessary or inappropriate burden on intermarket competition because
the latency information that would be provided in the Complex Order
Report would enhance competition between exchanges that offer complex
order functionality. Members that subscribe to the Complex Order Report
could use the information in the report to recalibrate their models and
trading strategies to improve their overall trading experience on the
Exchange. This may improve the Exchange's overall trading environment
resulting in increased liquidity and order flow on the Exchange. In
response, other exchanges may similarly seek ways to provide latency
related data in an effort to improve their own market quality for
complex orders.
    The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change would cause
any unnecessary or inappropriate burden on intramarket competition.
Particularly, the proposed product and fees apply uniformly to any
purchaser in that the Exchange does not differentiate between
subscribers that purchase the Complex Order Report. The proposed fees
are set at a modest level that would allow any interested Member to
purchase such data based on their business needs.

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,\30\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \31\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \31\ 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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-MIAX-2022-11 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-MIAX-2022-11. 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-MIAX-2022-11, and should be submitted on
or before April 5, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\32\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-05373 Filed 3-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 October 24, 2002 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Propanil: HED Response to Data Waiver Requests and Comments to the Risk Assessment.

PC Code 028201 Case No. 0226 DP Barcodes D285043, D285044 FROM: Richard Griffin, Risk Assessor Reregistration Branch II Health Effects Division THROUGH: Alan Nielsen, Branch Senior Scientist Reregistration Branch II Health Effects Division ( 7509C)

TO: Carmen Rodia Reregistration Branch II Special Review and Reregistration Division ( 7508W)

This memo has been prepared in response to comments from the National Agricultural Aviation Association ( NAAA) and the Propanil Task Force ( PTF). Comments concern the Agency's risk assessment for propanil, toxicology data requirements, and residue chemistry data requirements. 2 NAAA Comment:

In brief, the NAAA contends that restrictive label language is not needed for propanil since current Agency risk assessment is based on the " overly conservative" and " antiquated" occupational exposure data of the Pesticide Handlers Exposure Database ( PHED). The NAAA comments that PHED data has not been updated subsequent to 1992 and does not reflect new safety regulations and technological advances ( namely GPS systems, personal protective equipment, and closed mixingloading Other new technologies are listed to demonstrate reduced worker exposure and reduced " bystander" exposure, as well as a higher level of efficacy associated with aerial application. The NAAA comment document also urges the Agency to consider the benefits of NAAA sponsored education and training programs ( such as PAASS), and concludes by pointing out the general advantages of aerial pesticide application.

Agency Response: The Agency acknowledges and supports the NAAA in their efforts to advance aerial pesticide application in the areas mentioned in their comment document. The Agency also acknowledges that there is a degree of uncertainty associated with the propanil occupational risk assessment, as with every occupational risk assessment. However, the Agency takes exception to the assertion that the uncertainty associated with PHED data always favors an overestimation of exposure. As noted by the NAAA, the PHED dataset is not adequately robust for all occupational scenarios, and this may in fact lead to the underestimation of ( unit) exposure for certain activities. It should also be noted that PHED exposure estimates for specific activities are pooled for a central tendency estimate, and may not be representative of a possible high end exposure.

However, occupational exposure estimates are not determined solely by the PHED estimates. Exposure estimates are also determined by other input parameters such as acres treated per day, application rates, and data concerning the seasonal duration of exposure. Uncertainty is also associated with each of these input paramenters and for this reason a range of exposure is estimated for the initial risk assessment. The range of the estimate intends to represent a typical, or average exposure, to a theoretical high end. The initial risk assessment is often refined based on comments received, new data, and refined analysis. The Agency's objective is to be adequately protective without overestimating exposure.

In the case of propanil the aerial application high end exposure estimate is based on an acres treated/ day estimate ( provided by the task force) of 3,200 acres ( on rice) and the maximum a. i./ acre rate of 6 lbs. The lower end of the exposure range is based on 350 acres/ day and a rate of 3 lbs a. i./ acre. This combination of high acres treatment/ day and a relatively high usage rate has resulted in risk issues for workers mixing/ loading for aerial treatment and for aerial applicators ( pilots). It should be noted that the mixing/ loading estimates for liquids and a dry flowable type formulation are 3 based on the engineering controls of a closed system or a water soluble packet.

The Agency welcomes any comments that may be made by NAAA members concerning propanil treatment on rice, especially comment concerning acres treated and the duration of exposure.

Task Force Comment Concerning Toxicology Data Requirements:

28 day inhalation toxicity study in rats Comment: The registrant argues that conducting a 28 day inhalation study with propanil is not warranted. It is proposed that a 30 day oral toxicity study with assessment of methemoglobinemia ( as requested by the HIARC) should be used for any inhalation risk assessment, assuming100% inhalation absorption. Further, it is suggested that this will provide a conservative estimate of inhalation exposure under the conditions of use.

EPA response: A direct assessment of inhalation toxicity is required in order to fully characterize the hazard and dose response for inhalation exposures. Arguments in support of this position follow. 1) It is known that, for some chemicals, inhalation exposure can result in remarkably different toxicological outcomes than oral exposures. In some situations, the respiratory tract is found to be an unexpected target. 2) Alveolar absorption often exceeds that of the gastrointestinal tract. It is also noted that no pharmacokinetic data are available with propanil to use in determining whether or not absorption is equivalent for oral and inhalation exposures. If absorption is less than 100% via the GI tract but is found to be 100% via inhalation, then the use of oral toxicity data will underestimate risk associated with inhalation exposures.

Comment: The registrant also states that propanil will be applied by both aerial and ground boom applications, and that under these conditions the particles produced are outside of the inhalable range. Therefore, it is the opinion of the registrant that the majority of the exposure under these conditions is expected to be incidental oral ( via the ingestion of respiratory mucus) rather than inhalation.

EPA response: The use of aerial and ground boom applications could result in inhalation exposure. The reason that HED requires particles with a Mass Median Atmospheric Diameter ( MMAD) of 1 3 µ m in rodent inhalation studies is so that a portion of the test article will reach the lungs. If rats were exposed to slightly larger particles, e. g., an MMAD of 10 µ m, the lungs would be virtually untouched. While it is important to expose the lungs, it is also recognized that inhalation exposure includes the entire respiratory tract, and it must be assumed that absorption can occur anywhere from the nose to the alveoli. It cannot be assumed that all particles deposited in the respiratory mucus are ultimately swallowed For some chemicals this is the case, but 4 for others it is not. This position is consistent with the HED Interim Policy for Particle Size and Limit Concentration, which was reviewed and endorsed by the FIFRA SAP in December, 1991.

In conclusion, EPA believes that a 28 day inhalation study with propanil is justified, based upon both the toxicological and exposure profiles.

Developmental Neurotoxicity Study Comment: The Registrant does not agree with the Agency's arguments for requiring the developmental neurotoxicity ( DNT) study for propanil. The registrant argues that the axonal degeneration of sciatic nerves observed in the chronic rat study was an age related finding, and that the increased incidence at the high dose was attributable to increased survival in female rats at that dose. Additionally, the registrant did not agree that there was any basis for the Agency's determination that alterations in delayed sexual development, decreased testicular sperm counts and production rates in the reproduction study, and treatment related Leydig cell tumors in the chronic rat study were indicative of effects on the neuroendocrine system, since there were no alterations in testosterone, luteinizing hormone or estradiol levels in P males in the reproduction study.

EPA response: The database for propanil was evaluated in accordance with procedures for determining the need for a developmental neurotoxicity study, which have been fully described in OPP guidance documents on the determination of the FQPA factor ( EPA, 1999; 2002). These documents specify the use of a weight of evidence evaluation of each chemical data base, considering factors that include presence of neuropathology in the database, hormonal alterations, and structure activity relationships, as indicative of the need for a DNT. First, in the chronic/ carcinogenicity study in rats with propanil, axonal degeneration of the sciatic nerve was observed in 21/ 50 ( 42%) of the high dose female rats, as compared to 13/ 50 ( 26%) of the control females. While this finding was observed primarily at terminal sacrifice, it is nevertheless indicative of an adverse effect of propanil on the nervous system. Although the axonal degeneration was expressed in aged animals, the initial insult to the nervous system might have occurred in the animals when they were young. Therefore this evidence of neuropathology cannot be discounted.

The second point raised by the registrant is that adult male hormone levels ( testosterone, luteinizing hormone, and estradiol) were not altered in adult P generation males in the two generation reproduction study with propanil. However, it is noted that with linuron, a structurally related antiandrogenic pesticide that has been examined extensively in the peer reviewed literature, exposure during the period of late gestation has been shown to alter sexual differentiation in the rat, and that the timing of exposure is crucial to the expression of this effect. Since the P generation rats of the propanil 5 reproduction study are not exposed to test substance during that critical late gestation time period, a lack of treatment related effect on these hormonal profiles would not be unexpected; hormonal measurements of the F1 adult males would have been more appropriate. Additionally, other aspects of propanil reproductive system toxicity are similar to linuron for rats exposed during sexual differentiation, i. e, delayed sexual maturation and alterations in spermatogenesis, or for male rats with lifetime exposures, i. e., a treatment related increase in the incidence of testicular interstitial ( Leydig) cell tumors. While the available data base for propanil does not provide a detailed evaluation of its endocrine disruptive potential, the evidence at hand is adequate to arrive at the conclusion that propanil likely has a similar mode of action as linuron. The neurodevelopmental literature support the Agency position that endocrine disruptions can profoundly effect the structural and functional organization of the nervous system during development. Consequently, there is sufficient overall evidence to justify requiring a developmental neurotoxicity study in rats, in order to examine the potential for structural and functional alterations in the nervous system that may result from exposures during critical stages of early nervous system development.


[Federal Register: May 11, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 89)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 21767-21768]
[DOCID:fr11my09-1]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

========================================================================

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Parts 510 and 520

[Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0665]

New Animal Drugs; Trilostane

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal
drug regulations to reflect the original approval of a new animal drug
application (NADA) filed by Dechra, Ltd. The NADA provides for the
veterinary prescription use of trilostane capsules in dogs for
treatment of pituitary-dependent hyperadrenocorticism and for treatment
of hyperadrenocorticism due to adrenocortical tumor.

DATES: This rule is effective May 11, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melanie R. Berson, Center for
Veterinary Medicine (HFV-110), Food and Drug Administration, 7500
Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Dechra, Ltd., Dechra House, Jamage
Industrial Estate, Talke Pits, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, ST7 1XW,
United Kingdom, filed NADA 141-291 that provides for veterinary
prescription use of VETORYL (trilostane) Capsules in dogs for treatment
of pituitary-dependent hyperadrenocorticism and for treatment of
hyperadrenocorticism due to adrenocortical tumor. The NADA is approved
as of December 5, 2008, and the regulations are amended in 21 CFR part
520 to reflect the approval.
    In addition, Dechra, Ltd. is not currently listed in the animal
drug regulations as a sponsor of an approved application. Accordingly,
21 CFR 510.600(c) is being amended to add entries for this sponsor.
    In accordance with the freedom of information provisions of 21 CFR
part 20 and 21 CFR 514.11(e)(2)(ii), a summary of safety and
effectiveness data and information submitted to support approval of
this application may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management
(HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
    Under section 512(c)(2)(F)(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 360b(c)(2)(F)(i)), this approval
qualifies for 5 years of marketing exclusivity beginning on the date of
approval.
    Under section 573(c) of the act (21 U.S.C. 360ccc-2), the approval
of trilostane capsules for treatment of hyperadrenocorticism due to
adrenocortical tumor in dogs qualifies for 7 years of exclusive
marketing rights beginning on the date of approval because the new
animal drug has been declared a designated new animal drug by FDA under
section 573(a) of the act.
    The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.33 that this action is of
a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental
assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
    This rule does not meet the definition of ``rule'' in 5 U.S.C.
804(3)(A) because it is a rule of ``particular applicability.''
Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements
in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.

List of Subjects

21 CFR Part 510

    Administrative practice and procedure, Animal drugs, Labeling,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

21 CFR Part 520

    Animal drugs.

0
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and
redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR parts 510 and
520 are amended as follows:

PART 510--NEW ANIMAL DRUGS

0
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 510 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 353, 360b, 371, 379e.

0
2. In Sec.  510.600, in the table in paragraph (c)(1), alphabetically
add an entry for ``Dechra, Ltd.''; and in the table in paragraph
(c)(2), numerically add an entry for ``043264'' to read as follows:

Sec.  510.600  Names, addresses, and drug labeler codes of sponsors of
approved applications.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Firm name and address                  Drug labeler code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                * * * * *
Dechra, Ltd., Dechra House, Jamage            043264
 Industrial Estate, Talke Pits, Stoke-on-
 Trent, Staffordshire, ST7 1XW, United
 Kingdom
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Drug labeler code                 Firm name and address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                * * * * *
043264                       Dechra, Ltd., Dechra House, Jamage
                              Industrial Estate, Talke Pits, Stoke-on-
                              Trent, Staffordshire, ST7 1XW, United
                              Kingdom
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 520--ORAL DOSAGE FORM NEW ANIMAL DRUGS

0
3. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 520 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b.

0
4. Add Sec.  520.2598 to read as follows:

Sec.  520.2598  Trilostane.

    (a) Specifications. Each capsule contains 30 or 60 milligrams (mg)
trilostane.
    (b) Sponsor. See No. 043264 in Sec.  510.600 of this chapter.
    (c) Conditions of use in dogs--(1) Amount. The starting dose is 1.0
to 3.0

milligrams per pound (2.2 to 6.7 milligrams per kilogram) once a day.
    (2) Indications for use. For treatment of pituitary-dependent
hyperadrenocorticism. For treatment of hyperadrenocorticism due to
adrenocortical tumor.
    (3) Limitations. Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on
the order of a licensed veterinarian.

    Dated: May 5, 2009.
Bernadette Dunham,
Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine.
[FR Doc. E9-10927 Filed 5-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 127 (Thursday, July 2, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37985-37988]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16080]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0247; FRL-9929-84-Region 4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Mississippi;
Memphis, TN-MS-AR Emissions Inventory for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone
Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to approve the portion of the state implementation plan
(SIP) revision submitted by the State of Mississippi, through the
Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) on January 14,
2015, that addresses the base year emissions inventory requirements for
the State's portion of the Memphis, Tennessee-Mississippi-Arkansas
(Memphis, TN-MS-AR) 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) nonattainment area (hereafter referred to as the
``Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area'' or ``Area''). A base year emissions
inventory is required for all ozone nonattainment areas. The Area is
comprised of Shelby County in Tennessee, Crittenden County in Arkansas,
and a portion of DeSoto County in Mississippi. EPA will take action on
the emissions inventories for the Tennessee and Arkansas portions of
the Area in separate actions.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective August 31, 2015 without
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by August 3, 2015.
If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of
the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that
this rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2015-0247, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0247,'' Air Regulatory Management
Section, (formerly the Regulatory Development Section), Air Planning
and Implementation Branch (formerly the Air Planning Branch), Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, 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. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional
Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2015-0247. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or
email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in 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: Tiereny Bell, 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. Ms. Bell can be reached at<PHONE_NUMBER> and via
electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On March 12, 2008, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS of
0.075 parts per million (ppm). See 73 FR 16436. Under EPA's regulations
at 40 CFR part 50, the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is attained when the 3-
year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average
ambient air quality ozone concentrations is less than or equal to 0.075
ppm. See 40 CFR 50.15. Ambient air quality monitoring data for the 3-
year period must meet a data completeness requirement. The ambient air
quality monitoring data completeness requirement is met when the
average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater
than 90 percent, and no single year has less than 75 percent data
completeness as determined in appendix I of part 50.
    Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the Clean Air Act (CAA
or Act) requires EPA to designate as nonattainment any area that is
violating the NAAQS, based on the three most recent years of ambient
air quality data at the conclusion of the designation process. The
Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area was designated nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS on May 21, 2012 (effective July 20, 2012), using 2008-2010
ambient air quality data. See 77 FR 30088. At the time of designation,
the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area was classified as a marginal nonattainment

area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On March 6, 2015, EPA finalized a
rule entitled ``Implementation of the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Ozone: State Implementation Plan Requirements'' (SIP
Requirements Rule) that establishes the requirements that state,
tribal, and local air quality management agencies must meet as they
develop implementation plans for areas where air quality exceeds the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\1\ See 80 FR 12264. This rule establishes
nonattainment area attainment dates based on Table 1 of section 181(a)
of the CAA, including an attainment date three years after the July 20,
2012, effective date, for areas classified as marginal for the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. Therefore, the attainment date for the Memphis, TN-
MS-AR Area is July 20, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The SIP Requirements Rule addresses a range of nonattainment
area SIP requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, including
requirements pertaining to attainment demonstrations, reasonable
further progress (RFP), reasonably available control technology,
reasonably available control measures, major new source review,
emission inventories, and the timing of SIP submissions and of
compliance with emission control measures in the SIP. The rule also
revokes the 1997 ozone NAAQS and establishes anti-backsliding
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the nonattainment designation, Mississippi was required to
develop a nonattainment SIP revision addressing certain CAA
requirements. Specifically, pursuant to CAA section 182(a)(1),
Mississippi was required to submit a SIP revision addressing emissions
inventory requirements.
    Ground level ozone is not emitted directly into the air, but is
created by chemical reactions between oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) in the presence
of sunlight. Emissions from industrial facilities and electric
utilities, motor vehicle exhaust, gasoline vapors, and chemical
solvents are some of the major sources of NOX and VOC.
Section 182(a)(1) of the CAA requires states with areas designated
nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS to submit a SIP revision providing a
comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions from
all sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in such area.
NOX and VOCs are the relevant pollutants because they are
the precursors of ozone.
    On January 14, 2015, Mississippi submitted a SIP revision
containing a base year emissions inventory for its portion of the
Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area. EPA is now taking action to approve the portion
of the SIP revision addressing the emissions inventory as meeting the
requirements of sections 110 and 182(a)(1) of the CAA. More information
on EPA's analysis of Mississippi's emissions inventory is provided
below.

II. Analysis of the State's Base Year Emissions Inventory

    As discussed above, section 182(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to
submit a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual
emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in
each ozone non-attainment area. The section 182(a)(1) base year
inventory is defined in the SIP Requirements Rule as ``a comprehensive,
accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from sources of VOC and
NOX emitted within the boundaries of the nonattainment area
as required by CAA section 182(a)(1).'' See 40 CFR 51.1100(bb). The
inventory year must be selected consistent with the baseline year for
the RFP plan as required by 40 CFR 51.1110(b),\2\ and the inventory
must include actual ozone season day emissions as defined in 40 CFR
51.1100(cc) \3\ and contain data elements consistent with the detail
required by 40 CFR part 51, subpart A. See 40 CFR 51.1115(a), (c), (e).
In addition, the point source emissions included in the inventory must
be reported according to the point source emissions thresholds of the
Air Emissions Reporting Requirements (AERR) in 40 CFR part 51, subpart
A. 40 CFR 51.1115(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 40 CFR 51.1110(b) states that at the time of designation for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS the baseline emissions inventory shall be the
emissions inventory for the most recent calendar year for which a
complete triennial inventory is required to be submitted to EPA
under the provisions of subpart A of the part. States may use an
alternative baseline emissions inventory provided the state
demonstrates why it is appropriate to use the alternative baseline
year, and provided that the year selected is between the years 2008
to 2012.
    \3\ ``Ozone season day emissions'' is defined as an average
day's emissions for a typical ozone season work weekday. The state
shall select, subject to EPA approval, the particular month(s) in
the ozone season and the day(s) in the work week to be represented,
considering the conditions assumed in the development of RFP plans
and/or emissions budgets for transportation conformity. See 40 CFR
51.1100(cc).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mississippi selected 2011 as the base year for the emissions
inventory which is the year corresponding with the first triennial
inventory under 40 CFR part 51, subpart A. This base year is one of the
three years of ambient data used to designate the Area as a
nonattainment area and therefore represents emissions associated with
nonattainment conditions. The emissions inventory is based on data
developed and submitted by MDEQ to EPA's 2011 National Emissions
Inventory (NEI), and it contains data elements consistent with the
detail required by 40 CFR part 51, subpart A.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Data downloaded from the EPA EIS from the 2011 NEI was
subjected to quality assurance procedures described under quality
assurance details under 2011 NEI Version 1 Documentation located at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2011inventory.html#inventorydoc.
The quality assurance and quality control procedures and measures
associated with this data are outlined in the State's EPA-approved
Emission Inventory Quality Assurance Project Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mississippi's emissions inventory for its portion of the Area
provides 2011 emissions data for NOX and VOCs for the
following general source categories: point, nonpoint (excluding
biogenic sources), nonroad mobile, and onroad mobile. A detailed
discussion of the inventory development is located in Appendix V to
Mississippi's January 14, 2015, submittal which is provided in the
docket for this action. The table below provides a summary of the
emissions inventory.

          Table 1--2011 Point, Nonpoint, Nonroad Mobile, and Onroad Mobile Emissions for the Mississippi Portion of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area
                                                                  [Tons per summer day]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Point           Nonpoint       Non-road mobile   On-road mobile         Total
                                                               ------------------    (excluding    -----------------------------------------------------
                                                                                biogenic
                            County                                                    sources)
                                                                  NOX      VOC   ------------------   NOX      VOC      NOX      VOC      NOX      VOC
                                                                                NOX      VOC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DeSoto *......................................................    1.533    0.817    1.267    7.062    2.054    1.658    8.969    5.178   13.847   14.734
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Emissions reported for the nonattainment portion of the county.

    The emissions reported for DeSoto County reflect the emissions for
only the nonattainment portion of the county. The inventory contains
point source emissions data for facilities located within the
Mississippi portion of the Area based on Geographic Information Systems
(GIS) mapping. For the remaining emissions categories, emissions for
the Mississippi portion of the Area were determined based on the
population of the nonattainment portion of DeSoto County. More details
on the emissions inventory for individual source categories is provided
below and in Appendix V to Mississippi's SIP submittal.
    Point sources are large, stationary, identifiable sources of
emissions that release pollutants into the atmosphere. The point source
emissions inventory for Mississippi's portion of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR
Area was reported from the 2011 NEI data. These sources are required to
submit inventory data according to the AERR. The point source emissions
data meets the point source emissions thresholds of 40 CFR part 51,
subpart A.
    Nonpoint sources are small emission stationary sources which, due
to their large number, collectively have significant emissions (e.g.,
dry cleaners, service stations). Emissions for these sources were
calculated using established factors provided by EPA. These emissions
were estimated at the county-level. Mississippi calculated average
summer day nonpoint source emissions by summing the nonpoint emissions
during the total five summer months (May, June, July, August and
September) in 2011 and dividing by the total by the number of 2011
summer days.
    On-road mobile sources include vehicles used on roads for
transportation of passengers or freight. For on-road mobile sources,
Mississippi used the 2011 emissions inventory developed by the Memphis
Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization with input from MDEQ and
others as part of the 2040 DeSoto County Nonattainment Area Moves Air
Quality Conformity Demonstration. The inventory was created using EPA's
Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES)-2010(b) mobile model to
estimate emissions.\5\ County level on-road modeling was conducted
using county-specific vehicle population, and other local data.
Mississippi developed its on-road emissions inventory using the State's
MOVES2010b modeling results for each ozone nonattainment county.
Mississippi developed its inventory according to the current EPA
emissions inventory guidance for on-road mobile sources.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Mississippi used EPA's Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator
(MOVES) version 2010b. According to the Emissions Inventory Guidance
for Ozone [& PM] NAAQS Implementation and Regional Haze Regulations,
all states but California, for on-road mobile emissions should be
estimated with the latest EPA on-road mobile model, MOVES, following
the latest guidance available at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/index.htm#sip.
    \6\ This guidance includes: Emissions Inventory Guidance for
Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations, EPA-454/R-
05-001 (August 2005, updated November 2005); Policy Guidance on the
Use of MOVES2010 for State Implementation Plan Development,
Transportation Conformity, and Other Purposes, EPA-420-B-09-046
(December 2009); and Technical Guidance on the Use of MOVES2010 for
Emission Inventory Preparation in State Implementation Plans and
Transportation Conformity, EPA-420-B-10-023 (April 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Non-road mobile sources include vehicles, engines, and equipment
used for construction, agriculture, recreation, and other purposes that
do not use roadways (e.g., lawn mowers, construction equipment,
railroad locomotives, and aircraft). The emissions from non-road mobile
sources other than rail yards and airports were derived from 2011 NEI.
EPA estimated non-road emissions for the 2011 NEI using the NONROAD
model. Mississippi developed its inventory according to the current EPA
emissions inventory guidance for non-road mobile sources.\7\ For the
reasons discussed above, EPA has determined that Mississippi's
emissions inventory meets the requirements under CAA section 182(a)(1)
and the SIP Requirements Rule for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ This guidance includes: Procedures for Emission Inventory
Preparation, Volume IV: Mobile Sources, EPA-450/4-81-026d (July
1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving the portion of the SIP revision submitted by
Mississippi on January 14, 2015, that addresses the base year emissions
inventory for the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area. EPA has concluded that this
portion of the State's submission meets the requirements of sections
110 and 182 of the CAA. EPA is publishing this rule without prior
proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal
and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules
section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a
separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP
revision should adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective
August 31, 2015 without further notice unless the Agency receives
adverse comments by August 3, 2015.
    If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document
withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will
not take effect. All adverse comments received will then be addressed
in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not
institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting
should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public
is advised that this rule will be effective on August 31, 2015 and no
further action will be taken on the proposed rule.
    Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, the Agency may adopt as final those
provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

IV. 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).
    In addition, 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 August 31, 2015. 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. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of this Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking. 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, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: June 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 Z--Mississippi

0
2. Section 52.1270(e) is amended by adding a new entry for ``2011 Base
Year Emissions Inventory for the Mississippi portion of the Memphis,
TN-MS-AR 2008 Ozone NAAQS Nonattainment Area'' at the end of the table
to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1270  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                               EPA-Approved Mississippi Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                State
    Name of non-regulatory SIP      Applicable geographic  submittal date/   EPA Approval date      Explanation
             provision              or nonattainment area  effective date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
2011 Base Year Emissions Inventory  DeSoto County portion       1/14/2015  7/02/2015 [Insert
 for the Mississippi portion of      of Memphis, TN-AR-MS                   citation of
 the Memphis, TN-MS-AR 2008 Ozone    2008 8-hour Ozone                      publication].
 NAAQS Nonattainment Area.           Nonattainment Area.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2015-16080 Filed 7-1-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P