[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 204 (Tuesday, October 22, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62766-62771]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24546]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70588; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2013-59]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Order Instituting
Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed
Rule Change Relating to NDX and RUT Combination Orders

October 1, 2013.

I. Introduction

    On June 21, 2013, NYSE MKT LLC (``NYSE MKT'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4

thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend NYSE MKT Rule 965NY to
revise the procedures governing the trading of NDX and RUT combination
orders. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on July 9, 2013.\3\ The Commission received two
comments regarding the proposal.\4\ NYSE MKT responded to the comments
on August 19, 2013.\5\ On August 20, 2013, the Commission extended to
October 7, 2013, the time within which the Commission must approve the
proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule
change.\6\ This order institutes proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
of the Act \7\ to determine whether to approve or disapprove the
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69919 (July 2,
2013), 78 FR 41168 (``Notice'').
    \4\ See letters to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
from Darren Story, CFA, Student Options, LLC, dated July 12, 2013
(``Story Letter''); and from David Spack, Chief Compliance Officer,
Casey Securities, LLC, dated August 2, 2013 (``Casey Letter'').
    \5\ See letter from Janet McGinness, Executive Vice President
and Corporate Secretary, NYSE Euronext, to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Commission, dated August 19, 2013 (``NYSE MKT
Response'').
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70235 (August 20,
2013), 78 FR 52818 (August 26, 2013).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    NYSE MKT Rule 965NY(b) provides procedures for trading Nasdaq 100
Index (``NDX'') and Russell 2000 Index (``RUT'') combination orders.\8\
Currently, NYSE MKT Rule 965NY(b) allows an ATP Holder holding an NDX
or RUT combination order to execute the order at the best net debit or
credit so long as (A) no leg of the order would trade at a price
outside the currently displayed bids or offers in the trading crowd or
bids or offers in the NDX or RUT Consolidated Book; and (B) at least
one leg of the order would trade at a price that is better than the
corresponding bid or offer in the NDX or RUT Consolidated Book.\9\ An
NDX or RUT combination order that is not executed immediately may be
executed and printed at the prices originally quoted for each of the
component option series within two hours after the time of the original
quotes, provided that, at the time of execution, no individual leg of
the NDX or RUT combination order may trade ahead of the corresponding
bid or offer in the NDX or RUT Consolidated Book.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See NYSE MKT Rule 965NY(b)(4)(iii). A ``NDX combination
order'' is an order to purchase or sell NDX options and the
offsetting number of NDX combinations defined by the delta. An ``NDX
Combination'' is a long (short) NDX call and a short (long) NDX put
having the same expiration date and strike price. A ``RUT
combination order'' is an order to purchase or sell RUT options and
the offsetting number of RUT combinations defined by the delta. An
``RUT Combination'' is a long (short) RUT call and a short (long)
RUT put having the same expiration date and strike price. A
``delta'' is the positive (negative) number of NDX or RUT
combinations that must be sold (bought) to establish a market
neutral hedge with the corresponding NDX or RUT option position. See
NYSE MKT Rule 965NY(b)(1)-(3).
    \9\ The ATP Holder holding the NDX or RUT combination order must
be bidding or offering in a multiple of the minimum price variation
on the basis of a total debit or credit for the order, and must
determine that the combination order may not be executed by a
combination of transactions with the bids and offers displayed in
the NDX or RUT Consolidated Book before executing the order at the
best net debit or credit. See NYSE MKT Rule 965NY(b)(4)(i).
    \10\ See NYSE MKT Rule 965NY(b)(4)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYSE MKT proposes to amend NYSE MKT Rule 965NY(b) to implement a
one-year pilot program that would revise the procedures for trading NDX
and RUT combination orders. NYSE MKT believes that the pilot program's
revised trading procedures would make the trading of NDX and RUT
combination orders more competitive with the trading of combinations in
Nasdaq 100 Index futures and Russell 2000 Index futures on the Chicago
Mercantile Exchange (``CME'') and the Intercontinental Exchange
(``ICE''), respectively.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Notice, 78 FR at 41169.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYSE MKT notes that its rules currently preclude trading the legs
of an NDX or RUT combination order outside of the prevailing market
quotes in the individual component series legs.\12\ Further, NYSE MKT
states that an NDX or RUT combination order must be executed at the
prices originally quoted, with no window to find liquidity.\13\
According to NYSE MKT, the rules of the CME and ICE allow spread and
combination executions to take place without regard to market prices,
and these executions are bound only by the daily price limit.\14\
Although NYSE MKT believes that traders prefer to use NDX or RUT
combinations, rather than futures, to hedge positions in NDX or RUT
options to avoid the execution risk and increased costs involved in
trading in the futures markets, NYSE MKT believes that the constraints
in NYSE MKT's rules can make it more difficult for an NYSE Amex Options
market participant to execute a complex NDX or RUT option trading
strategy than it is for a CME or ICE market participant to execute
substantially the same strategy using Nasdaq 100 Index futures or
Russell 2000 Index futures.\15\ NYSE MKT believes that the additional
burden associated with trading on the Exchange may discourage trading
on NYSE MKT in favor of trading on the CME and ICE.\16\ NYSE MKT
believes, further, that it may be at a competitive disadvantage because
market participants who frequently trade spreads or combinations, or
who trade spreads or combinations as a strategy for hedging risk, would
tend to utilize a market venue where they can more consistently depend
on achieving a net price execution.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See id. at 41170.
    \13\ See id.
    \14\ See id.
    \15\ See id.
    \16\ See id.
    \17\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To further level the field of competition between market
participants trading on NYSE Amex Options and on the CME and ICE, NYSE
MKT proposes to revise its NDX and RUT combination order trading
procedures.\18\ Specifically, NYSE MKT proposes to amend NYSE MKT Rule
965NY(b)(4) to implement a one-year pilot program that would allow an
ATP Holder to execute an NDX or RUT combination order at the best net
debit or credit price, which may be outside the current derived net
market,\19\ so long as: (a) The best net debit or credit price would
have been at or within the derived net market over the preceding two
hours of trading that day; (b) no leg of the order would trade at a
price outside the displayed bids or offers in the trading crowd or
customer interest in the NDX or RUT Consolidated Book at a point in
time over the preceding two-hour period; and (c) at least one leg of
the order would trade at a price that is better than the corresponding
customer bid or offer in the NDX or RUT Consolidated Book at the same
point in time over the preceding two-hour period.\20\ The ``derived net
market'' is NYSE MKT's best bids and offers displayed in the individual
option series for the strategy at any one point in time over the
previous two hours, not at separate points in time for each of the
series.\21\ For example, an ATP Holder could not use the price of the
April 2790 puts at 10:20 a.m. and the price of the April 2810 calls and
puts at 10:30 a.m. to calculate a derived net market.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Notice, 78 FR at 41171.
    \19\ The proposal defines the ``derived net market'' as NYSE
MKT's best bids and offers displayed in the individual option series
for the strategy at any one point in time. See NYSE MKT Rule
965NY(b)(4)(iii).
    \20\ See NYSE MKT Rule 965NY(b)(4)(iii).
    \21\ See NYSE MKT Rule 965NY(b)(4)(iii) and Notice, 78 FR at
41171.
    \22\ See Notice, 78 FR at 41171.

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

    NYSE MKT states that the proposed procedure is generally modeled
after CME Rule 542 and ICE Rule 27.11(a)(v), in that it would allow an
NDX or RUT combination order to be executed out-of-range from the
current market prices in the individual component option series legs,
provided that the reported net price and related component series
prices were in range within the preceding two hours.\23\ According to
NYSE MKT, the rules of the CME and ICE require only that the reported
price of each component futures contract leg be within the daily price
limit, a number that the Exchange believes is generally much wider than
the two-hour derived net market range proposed by the Exchange.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See id. To be ``in range,'' the net price of the NDX or RUT
combination order must have been at or within the derived net market
over the preceding two-hour period, each leg of the order must trade
at a price that would have been at or inside the best bids and
offers displayed in the individual option series legs at a single
point in time over the preceding two hours, and a least one leg of
the order must trade at a price that would have been better than the
corresponding customer orders in the NDX or RUT Consolidated Book at
the same point in time. See id.
    \24\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each component leg of an NDX or RUT combination order would
continue to be reported to the trading floor and the Options Price
Reporting Authority (``OPRA'') with a special indicator identifying the
reported price as part of a combination order trade.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYSE MKT states its belief that the proposed procedure would not
lessen the obligation of ATP Holders to obtain best execution of
options orders for their customers.\26\ If the Commission approves the
proposal, NYSE MKT will issue a regulatory bulletin to ATP Holders
explaining the operation of Rule 965NY, as amended, and reminding ATP
Holders that the new procedure does not lessen the obligation of ATP
Holders to obtain best execution of option orders for their
customers.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See id.
    \27\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYSE MKT characterizes the proposed pilot program as a narrowly
tailored trading process that does not go as far as existing CME and
ICE rules.\28\ NYSE MKT believes that its proposed procedure would
provide market participants with additional flexibility in achieving
desired combination order strategies in NDX and RUT and in determining
whether to execute their strategies using options traded on NYSE MKT or
with comparable products traded on CME or ICE, respectively.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Notice, 78 FR at 41172.
    \29\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYSE MKT believes that the proposed pilot program would facilitate
the orderly execution of combination orders in NDX and RUT at all
times, including during volatile markets, in a manner that is more
competitive with the existing CME and ICE trading procedures.\30\ In
addition, NYSE MKT believes that the proposal will address customers'
desire to show an order to other market participants to seek price
improvement or additional liquidity.\31\ NYSE MKT believes, further,
that the proposal would continue to provide an incentive for market
makers to reduce the width of their quotes for an options position that
is ``tied'' to a combination because, under the proposed procedure, a
market maker would know that its hedge price has been established and
that he or she would not have to trade in another market, which would
result in tighter and more liquid markets for customers who trade
options tied to combinations.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See id.
    \31\ See id.
    \32\ See id. As explained more fully in footnote 5 in the
Notice, a customer may request a market for the NDX puts that the
customer wishes to purchase based on a specified level of the Nasdaq
100 Index. Specifying the index level allows market participants to
determine the delta and a theoretical value of the puts. A market
participant will then give his or her market for the puts and for
the component NDX call and put options that would comprise the
combination portion of the order. The combination portion of the
order is equivalent to an order to trade futures at the underlying
value of the Nasdaq 100 Index that has been specified by the
parties. The prices quoted for the combination establish the hedge
price for the transaction. When this occurs, market participants say
that the puts have been ``tied'' to the combination. See Notice, 78
FR at 41169 at footnote 5 and accompanying text. (The Commission
notes that footnote 5 in the Notice refers to the position being
hedged by the offsetting NDX combination first as NDX calls, then as
NDX puts. Example 3 in the Notice, on which footnote 5 is based,
refers to a customer that wishes to trade the 35 delta NDX April
2790 puts tied to a combination. Accordingly, the Commission
believes that NYSE MKT intends to refer to NDX puts as the position
being hedged in footnote 5.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If NYSE MKT were to propose to extend the pilot program or to make
it permanent, NYSE MKT would provide the Commission with a pilot report
analyzing the pilot program.\33\ The pilot report, which NYSE MKT would
submit to the Commission on a confidential basis at least two months
prior to the expiration of the pilot program, would include information
on the number of combination trades in NDX and RUT and best bid or
offer trade through/trade at analysis of those trades.\34\ The pilot
report also would include information on the NDX and RUT options
classes and other broad-based index option products, including
information on average contract value, average daily volume, open
interest, average order size, percentage of complex orders, percentage
of volume from complex orders, and average daily notional value
traded.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See Notice, 78 FR at 41171-72.
    \34\ See Notice, 78 FR at 41172.
    \35\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Comments and NYSE MKT's Response

    The Commission received two comments regarding the proposal,\36\
and NYSE MKT responded to the comments.\37\ One commenter opposes the
proposal, stating its belief that it would cause ``irreparable harm''
to customers and prohibit competition that might provide improved
prices for marketable orders.\38\ The commenter believes that the
prohibition in the current rule against trading any leg of an NDX or
RUT combination order through a contemporaneous resting order for that
series does not impede the trading of NDX or RUT combination orders
because, in some circumstances, it would be possible to adjust the
component legs of an NDX or RUT combination order in response to a
change in the markets so that the combination order would achieve its
desired net price and each leg of the order would trade within the
range of the current quoted market for the series.\39\ The commenter
states that traders frequently make such adjustments, and that trades
should continue to be executed at or within current market prices
because current prices reflect available information and represent the
best estimate of the true value of an option at a given time.\40\ In
addition, the commenter states its view that executing a leg of a
combination order outside of the current market would result in a worse
price for the customer.\41\ The commenter also does

not believe that the two-hour look back window would mitigate the
potential impact of trade-throughs on market participants that provide
liquidity in the underlying leg options.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See Story Letter and Casey Letter.
    \37\ See NYSE MKT Response.
    \38\ See Story Letter at 1.
    \39\ See id. For example, the commenter states that if a
customer seeks to sell 100 RUT April 950 puts at 30.00 tied to a
combination based on a Russell 2000 Index level of 975 with a 20
delta, and the market moves so that the combination must be printed
at an index level of 980, rather than 975, the price of the April
950 puts can be lowered by a corresponding equivalent amount to
account for the increase in the index level. The 5.00-point change
in the index level would require a corresponding reduction of 1.00
for the April puts (5.00 x .20 (20 delta) = 1.00). Reducing the
April puts to 29.00 to account for the 5.00-point increase in the
index level results in a $10,000 reduction for the April puts (30.00
- 29.00 = 1.00 x 100 x 100 = $10,000) and a corresponding $10,000
increase for the hedging combination (975 - 980 = - 5.00 x 20 x 100
= $10,000), so that, after the adjustments, the net price for the
combination order remains the same. See id.
    \40\ See Story Letter at 1-2.
    \41\ See id.
    \42\ See Story Letter at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another commenter supports implementing the proposal on a pilot
basis.\43\ The commenter states that its customers consider NDX and RUT
spreads and combination orders to be equivalent to Nasdaq 100 Index and
Russell 2000 Index futures, respectively, and that its customers find
futures contracts to be more attractive than combination orders due to
ease of execution.\44\ The commenter believes that the restriction in
the current rule that prohibits the execution of NDX and RUT
combination orders at a price that would result in any underlying
option leg trading through a contemporaneous resting order for that
option impedes the trading of combinations. In particular, the
commenter noted that there are instances when, by the time a customer
has been found and both parties are ready to trade, the market has
moved in such a way that consummating the trade would create a trade-
through of a protected quote, requiring the trade to either be
cancelled, adjusted, or moved to the futures market.\45\ The commenter
believes that the proposed two-hour look back would mitigate an
impediment to trading combination orders by permitting an NDX or RUT
combination order to trade through resting interest in instances where
the combination order was at or within the quoted market at the time of
the initial quote, even though quotes for one of the legs may move such
that the leg is outside of the market by the time both parties are able
to consummate the transaction.\46\ Noting that options prices may move
quickly and that combination orders in active index derivatives are
difficult to complete, the commenter emphasizes that the ``important
aspect to consider is that these kinds of combination orders, if they
could be executable immediately (when the initial quote was received)
would be in line with all quotes, and no trade-through issues would
exist.'' \47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ This commenter recommends collecting data concerning the
volume of NDX and RUT combination order trades before and after the
implementation of the pilot, as well as data regarding the available
liquidity and spread sizes in the individual legs of the
combinations. See Casey Letter at 2.
    \44\ See Casey Letter at 3.
    \45\ See Casey Letter at 1.
    \46\ See id.
    \47\ Id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter believes, further, that because NDX and RUT
combination orders are difficult to complete, they require different
rules from options transactions that can be executed almost immediately
with the current quotes.\48\ In addition, the commenter believes that
the trade-throughs that would be permitted under the proposed rule
would have a negligible impact on market participants that provide
liquidity in the individual leg markets because there are comparable
trade-through exceptions in the equity markets for block and contingent
trades that do not have a negative impact on liquidity in the equity
market.\49\ Finally, the commenter believes that the proposed pilot
program could tighten spreads because it would lock in hedge prices and
eliminate the need for market participants to find their hedge in a
different market.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See id.
    \49\ According to the commenter, market participants ``generally
understand that these trade-throughs are not indicative of the real
market, and thus they do not have an adverse impact on quote size or
spread width.'' See Casey Letter at 2. The commenter believed,
further, that equity market participants have absorbed the
alternative rules for large and complex orders and continue to
interact in meaningful ways without disruption to the overall
market. See Casey Letter at 4.
    \50\ See Casey Letter at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the commenter that opposes the proposal
believes that market participants would be able, in some cases, to
adjust the prices of the individual legs of a combination order to
achieve the order's desired net price so that the order may be executed
within the range of the current markets.\51\ In addition, the commenter
expresses concern that the proposal potentially could result in harm to
customers.\52\ In its response, NYSE MKT disagrees with the assertion
that market participants could adjust the prices of the individual legs
of a combination order to achieve the order's desired net price
because, in some circumstances, such adjustments would not be feasible
or desirable.\53\ NYSE MKT also disagrees strongly with the assertion
that the proposal would result in harm to customers, and notes that the
commenter fails to specify whether the proposal would result in harm to
customer orders on the book or to a customer participating in the
combination order.\54\ NYSE MKT notes that both the proposal and the
adjustment process the commenter describes are designed to facilitate
the execution of a complex order as a clean cross, to the extent
consistent with market conditions and applicable priority rules.\55\
NYSE MKT states that, as a complex negotiated trade, participants to
combination orders agree on a net debit or credit for a transaction
based on current market conditions.\56\ In addition, NYSE MKT states
that similar practices exist in the equity market, and that its
proposed two-hour window is more restrictive than that of marketplaces
offering competing products, such as ICE and CME.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ See Story Letter at 1.
    \52\ See id. at 3.
    \53\ See NYSE MKT Response at 1.
    \54\ See NYSE MKT Response at 1-2.
    \55\ See NYSE MKT Response at 2.
    \56\ See id.
    \57\ See NYSE MKT Response at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYSE MKT believes that the proposal would provide for additional
flexibility in achieving desired combinations and hedging strategies,
and would create a transparent and more efficient process.\58\ NYSE MKT
believes, further, that its proposed two-hour window will enable the
completion of combination orders in a manner that provides a reasonable
degree of execution certainty, to the benefit of market participants
and customers participating in the combination order.\59\ NYSE MKT
notes that market participants would not be required to use the two-
hour look back window and that members may continue to use the current
``adjustment'' approach.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ See NYSE MKT Response at 2.
    \59\ See NYSE MKT Response at 1.
    \60\ See NYSE MKT Response at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove SR-
NYSEMKT-2013-59 and Grounds for Disapproval Under Consideration

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \61\ to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be approved or disapproved. Institution of such
proceedings is appropriate at this time in view of the significant
legal and policy issues raised by the proposed rule change, as
discussed below. Institution of proceedings does not indicate that the
Commission has reached any conclusions with respect to any of the
issues involved. Rather, as described in greater detail below, the
Commission seeks and encourages interested persons to provide
additional comment on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act, the Commission is
providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration.
The sections of the Act and the rules thereunder that are applicable to
the proposed rule change include Sections 3(a)(1), 6(b)(5), and

11A(a) of the Act.\62\ Section 3(a)(1) of the Act defines an exchange,
in part, as any organization, association, or group of persons which
constitutes, maintains, or provides a market place or facilities for
bringing together purchasers and sellers of securities. Section 6(b)(5)
of the Act 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,
to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. In Section 11A(a) of the Act,
Congress found, in part, that it is in the public interest and
appropriate for the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair
and orderly markets to assure the economically efficient execution of
securities transactions.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(1), 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5), and 15 U.S.C.
78k-1(a)(1)(C).
    \63\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1)(C)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that NYSE MKT's proposal raises questions
as to whether the proposed rule change is consistent with these
standards. As discussed above, NYSE MKT's proposed pilot program would
allow an ATP Holder to execute an NDX or RUT combination order outside
the current derived net market so long as: (a) The best net debit or
credit price would have been at or within the derived net market over
the preceding two hours of trading that day; (b) no leg of the order
would trade at a price outside the displayed bids or offers in the
trading crowd or customer interest in the NDX or RUT Consolidated Book
at a point in time over the preceding two-hour period; and (c) at least
one leg of the order would trade at a price that is better than the
corresponding customer bid or offer in the NDX or RUT Consolidated Book
at the same point in time over the preceding two-hour period.\64\ By
allowing NDX and RUT combination orders to be executed outside of the
current derived net market, the proposed rule change raises concerns
about the potential effect of the proposal on the markets for NDX and
RUT options, and, in particular, whether or how the potential for
trade-throughs of prices on NYSE MKT would impact the incentives of
market participants to provide liquidity in the individual series
comprising the legs of an NDX or RUT combination order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ See NYSE MKT Rule 965NY(b)(4)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYSE MKT states that practices similar to the trade-throughs that
would be permitted under the proposal already exist in the equity
markets.\65\ The Commission notes that the Qualified Contingent Trade
exemption (``QCT Exemption'') to Rule 611(a) of Regulation NMS,\66\
permits inter-market trade-throughs of quotations in NMS stocks for
qualified contingent trades, but does not provide for the intramarket
trade-throughs that the proposal would permit.\67\ Thus, the QCT
Exemption does not establish a precedent for an exchange seeking to
trade through its own market.\68\ NYSE MKT does not provide an analysis
of the potential impact of trade-throughs on the NYSE MKT NDX and RUT
limit order books, nor does it provide a detailed discussion of how it
would study the impact on the individual leg markets if the proposed
pilot were approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ See NYSE MKT Response at 2. As discussed above, one
commenter believed that the trade-throughs permitted in the equity
market have not had a negative impact on liquidity or disrupted the
overall market. See Casey Letter at 2 and 4. See also note 49,
supra, and accompanying text.
    \66\ 17 CFR 242.611(a).
    \67\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57620 (April 4,
2008), 73 FR 19271 (April 9, 2008), 73 FR 19271 (order modifying the
QCT Exemption); and 54389 (August 31, 2006), 71 FR 52829 (September
7, 2006) (order granting the QCT Exemption).
    \68\ The Commission also notes that under the Options Order
Protection and Locked/Crossed Market Plan, only an NDX or RUT
combination order that qualifies as a Complex Trade would be
permitted to trade through the quotes in the leg markets of another
exchange that trades NDX or RUT options. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 60405 (July 30, 2009), 74 FR 39632 (August 6, 2009). The
proposal does not address how NYSE MKT would treat an NDX or RUT
combination order that is not a Complex Trade and therefore not
permitted to trade through the NDX or RUT quotes of another options
exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of these issues and concerns, the Commission believes that
questions arise regarding whether the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Sections 3(a)(1), 6(b)(5), and 11A(a) of the Act. As
the Commission continues to evaluate the issues presented by the
proposal, the Commission solicits comment on whether the proposal is
consistent with the Act and whether the Exchange has met its burden in
presenting a statutory analysis of how its proposal is consistent with
the Act. In particular, the grounds for disapproval under consideration
include whether the Exchange's proposal is consistent 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.
In addition, under the Commission's rules of procedure, a self-
regulatory organization that proposes to amend its rules bears the
burden of demonstrating that its proposal is consistent with the
Act.\69\ In this regard:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ Rule 700(b)(3), 17 CFR 201.700(b)(3).

the description of the proposed rule change, its purpose and
operation, its effect, and a legal analysis of its consistency with
applicable requirements must all be sufficiently detailed and
specific to support an affirmative Commission finding. Any failure
of the self-regulatory organization to provide the information
elicited by Form 19b-4 may result in the Commission not having a
sufficient basis to make an affirmative finding that a proposed rule
change is consistent with the Exchange Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder that are applicable to the self-regulatory
organization.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ See id.

V. Procedure: Request for Written Comments

    The Commission requests that interested persons provide written
submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the
concerns identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have
with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written
views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is
consistent with Sections 3(a)(1), 6(b)(5), 11A(a), or any other
provision of the Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder. Although
there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or
disapproval which would be facilitated by an oral presentation of
views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to
Rule 19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral
presentation.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, as amended by the Securities
Act Amendments of 1975, Public Law 94-29 (June 4, 1975), grants the
Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding --either
oral or notice and opportunity for written comments--is appropriate
for consideration of a particular proposal by a self-regulatory
organization. See Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Senate Comm. on
Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th Cong., 1st
Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments regarding whether the proposal should be approved or
disapproved by November 12, 2013. Any person who wishes to file a
rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by
November 26, 2013.
    The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency and
merit of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, in
addition to any other comments they may wish to submit about the
proposed rule change. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on
the following:

    1. What, if any, effect do commenters believe the proposal may have
on the incentives of market participants to provide liquidity in the
series comprising an NDX or RUT combination order? Do commenters
believe that permitting NDX and RUT combination orders to trade through
interest in the leg market potentially could discourage market
participants from placing limit orders in the individual series on the
NDX and RUT limit order books? Why or why not?
    2. Do commenters believe that NYSE MKT has adequately analyzed the
potential effects of the proposal on the markets for NDX and RUT
options, including the potential impact on market participants
providing liquidity in the series comprising the legs of an NDX or RUT
combination order? Why or why not?
    3. As noted above, one commenter expresses concern that the
flexibility to trade outside of the current derived net market could
result in harm to customers.\72\ NYSE MKT disagrees, stating in its
response that participants to complex negotiated trades agree on a net
price for a transaction based on current market conditions.\73\ In
addition, NYSE MKT notes that market participants would not be required
to use the two-hour look back window.\74\ What, if any, impact do
commenters believe the ability to trade outside of the current derived
net market would have on the quality of executions for customers
trading NDX and RUT combination orders?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ See Story Letter at 3.
    \73\ See NYSE MKT Response at 2.
    \74\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. NYSE MKT believes that its current combination order rule ``does
not come close to leveling the field with the CME and ICE rules for
spread and combination trading,'' and that the rules of the CME and ICE
require only that the reported price of each component futures contract
be within the daily limit price.\75\ Do commenters believe that NYSE
MKT has fully identified the multi-legged futures strateg(ies) with
which it believes NDX and RUT combination orders compete?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ See Notice, 78 FR at 441170 and 41171.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Do commenters believe that there are characteristics associated
with the trading of NDX and RUT options that potentially could help the
Commission assess the concerns discussed above regarding the potential
to impact the quality of executions or the incentives of liquidity
providers in the individual series? If so, please explain. Do
commenters believe that these characteristics, if any, are unique to
NDX and RUT options, or are they also shared by other broad-based index
options? If so, the Commission is interested in statistics or other
data concerning the trading of NDX and RUT options that would help the
Commission to assess these characteristics.
    6. As discussed more fully above, one commenter believes that the
proposal is unnecessary because market participants would be able to
adjust the prices of the legs of an NDX or RUT combination order so
that they are at or within the current market. Another commenter states
that the proposal would remove an impediment to the trading of NDX and
RUT combination orders by allowing the orders to trade through the
current market, provided that the conditions in the rule are satisfied.
Do commenters agree or disagree with these views and why?
    Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2013-59 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2013-59. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of 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; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2013-59 and should
be submitted on or before November 12, 2013. Rebuttal comments should
be submitted by November 26, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\76\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-24546 Filed 10-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Factor 9: Level of control of emission sources EPA's decision to recommend Roane Count for nonattainment status is based on a 9 factor analysis that did not take into account that large sources in Roane County are well controlled. The largest source in the county, TVA's Kingston Fossil plant, is well controlled, having made significant emission reductions since 2001, the date of the emission inventory used in Factor 1 of EPA's 9 factor test. It makes little sense to place counties with monitored attainment and wellcontrolled coal fired plants into nonattainment status.

All 9 Kingston units have NOx controls. Units 1 8 have low NOx burners, and unit 9 has boiler optimization controls. Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 have selective catalytic reduction ( SCRs) systems in use. SCR construction on Units 5 and 6 is nearly complete, and the SCRs will be in operation for the 2005 ozone season. SCR construction on unit 9 will be complete for ozone season 2006. These SCRs represent state of the art NOx controls. For the 2004 ozone season, NOx emissions are down more than 50 percent, with annual reductions on track for a 30 percent reduction of emissions compared to those used in EPA's analysis. The SCRs represent an investment of more than a $ 250 million for NOxreduction control equipment.

SO2 emissions are on track to be around 13 percent lower this year than in 2001 through the use of lower sulfur coal. A planned switch to even lower sulfur coal should result in reductions of 36 percent below 2001 levels by next year. These fuel switches will put the plant near a 1.2 lbs/ mmBtu emission rate. These SO2 reductions will proceed in advance of flue gas desulfurization equipment slated for installation before the end of 2010.

EPA stated in its 8 hour ozone implementation rule of June 2, 2003, at Federal Register page 32839, that sources subject to the NOx SIP Call are deemed to meet RACT requirements with respect to ozone. By similar logic, sources proposed to be covered by the more stringent SO2 requirements of the Clean Air Interstate Rule should be RACT equivalent for SO2 with respect to PM 2.5. All of Kingston's units would be subject to the rule as proposed.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 129 (Monday, July 7, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38319-38320]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15801]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-D-0587]

Guidance for Industry on Neglected Tropical Diseases of the
Developing World: Developing Drugs for Treatment or Prevention;
Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of a guidance for industry entitled ``Neglected Tropical
Diseases of the Developing World: Developing Drugs for Treatment or
Prevention.'' The purpose of the guidance is to assist sponsors in the
development of drugs for the treatment or prevention of neglected
tropical diseases (NTDs). This guidance represents the FDA's current
thinking regarding drug development for the treatment or prevention of
NTDs, including clinical trial designs and internal review standards to
support approval of drugs. This guidance finalizes the draft guidance
issued August 24, 2011.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances
at any time.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance
to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
51, Rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed
adhesive label to assist that office in processing your

requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic
access to the guidance document.
    Submit electronic comments on the guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph G. Toerner, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 6244, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-1300.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry
entitled ``Neglected Tropical Diseases of the Developing World:
Developing Drugs for Treatment or Prevention.'' The purpose of this
guidance is to assist sponsors in the development of drugs for the
treatment or prevention of NTDs as defined in section 524(a)(3) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360n(a)(3)).
    NTDs are infectious diseases that are generally rare or absent in
developed countries, but are often widespread in developing countries.
The availability of new drugs that are safe and effective for treatment
or prevention of NTDs could provide public health benefit for overall
global health.
    This guidance addresses general issues in drug development and
implementation of clinical trials for NTDs. FDA will review and comment
on drug development plans and will review new drug applications or
biologics license applications for new drugs for NTDs, regardless of
where the clinical development program takes place. Specifically, the
guidance provides a general overview of nonclinical development
considerations, as well as clinical development considerations and
regulatory paradigms. Other activities in the Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research that pertain to NTDs are summarized in the
guidance. Listings of guidance documents that are most relevant to drug
development for NTDs are included in the guidance.
    This guidance finalizes the draft guidance issued August 24, 2011.
Comments on the draft guidance were considered while finalizing this
guidance. Specifically, changes from the draft guidance include
descriptions of new regulatory designations (Qualified Infectious
Disease Product; Breakthrough Therapy).
    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance
practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the
Agency's current thinking on developing drugs for the treatment or
prevention of neglected tropical diseases of the developing world. It
does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not
operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used
if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes
and regulations.

II. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information that are subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 312 and 21 CFR
part 314 have been approved under OMB control numbers 0910-0014 and
0910-0001.

III. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding
this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the
Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to
send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments
may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

IV. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at
either http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: July 1, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-15801 Filed 7-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: September 26, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 186)]
[Notices]
[Page 54662-54663]
[DOCID:fr26se07-66]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0986; FRL-8144-8]

The Allethrins Reregistration Eligibility Decision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's Reregistration
Eligibility Decision (RED) for the allethrin series of pesticides
(bioallethrin, esbiol, esbiothrin, and pynamin forte). The Agency's
risk assessments and other related documents also are available in the
allethrins docket. The allethrins are synthetic pyrethroids used as
insecticides on both indoor (residential and commercial) and outdoor
(residential, commercial, and recreational) use sites. EPA has reviewed
the allethrins through the public participation process that the Agency
uses to involve the public in developing pesticide reregistration and
tolerance reassessment decisions. Through these programs, EPA is
ensuring that all pesticides meet current health and safety standards.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Molly Clayton, Special Review and
Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide
users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution,
or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be
affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

    1. Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under
docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0986. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard

copy, at the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal
Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are

from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    2.  Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register
document electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal
Register'' listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr.

II. Background

A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    Under section 4 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is reevaluating existing pesticides to
ensure that they meet current scientific and regulatory standards. EPA
has completed a RED for the allethrins series of pesticides under
section 4(g)(2)(A) of FIFRA. The allethrins are synthetic pyrethroids
used as insecticides on both indoor (residential and commercial) and
outdoor (residential, commercial, and recreational) use sites. EPA has
determined that the database to support reregistration is substantially
complete and that products containing the allethrins are eligible for
reregistration, provided the risks are mitigated in the manner
described in the RED. Upon submission of any required product specific
data under section 4(g)(2)(B) of FIFRA and any necessary changes to the
registration and labeling (either to address concerns identified in the
RED or as a result of product specific data), EPA will make a final
reregistration decision under section 4(g)(2)(C) of FIFRA for products
containing the allethrins.
    Although the allethrins RED was signed on June 30, 2007, certain
components of the document, which did not affect the final regulatory
decision, were undergoing final editing at that time. These components,
including the table of contents and the summary of labeling changes,
have been added to the allethrins RED document. None of these additions
or changes alter the conclusions documented in the June 30, 2007
allethrins RED.
    EPA is applying the principles of public participation to all
pesticides undergoing reregistration and tolerance reassessment. The
Agency's Pesticide Tolerance Reassessment and Reregistration; Public
Participation Process, published in the Federal Register on May 14,
2004, (69 FR 26819) (FRL-7357-9) explains that in conducting these
programs, EPA is tailoring its public participation process to be
commensurate with the level of risk, extent of use, complexity of
issues, and degree of public concern associated with each pesticide.
Due to their uses, risk, and other factors, the allethrins were
reviewed through the modified 4-Phase public participation process.
Through this process, EPA worked extensively with stakeholders and the
public to reach the regulatory decisions for the allethrins.
    The reregistration program is being conducted under congressionally
mandated time frames, and EPA recognizes the need both to make timely
decisions and to involve the public. Few comments were received during
the earlier comment periods for this reregistration case, and the
issues related to this pesticide were resolved through consultations
with stakeholders. The Agency therefore is issuing the allethrins RED
without a comment period.

B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

    Section 4(g)(2) of FIFRA, as amended, directs that, after
submission of all data concerning a pesticide active ingredient, ``the
Administrator shall determine whether pesticides containing such active
ingredient are eligible for reregistration,'' before calling in product
specific data on individual end-use products and either reregistering
products or taking other ``appropriate regulatory action.''

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: August 21, 2007.
 Margaret J. Rice,
 Acting Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E7-18789 Filed 9-25-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 208 (Monday, November 1, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60322-60325]
[FR Doc No: 2021-23673]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-93424; File No. SR-MIAX-2021-49]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fee Schedule To Adopt an Incentive
Program for Market Makers in SPIKES[supreg] Options

October 26, 2021.
    Pursuant to the provisions of 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 October 12, 2021, Miami International
Securities Exchange LLC (``MIAX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule
change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have
been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Options Fee
Schedule (the ``Fee Schedule'') to adopt an incentive program for
Market Makers \3\ in SPIKES[supreg] options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Market Makers'' refers to ``Lead Market Makers'',
``Primary Lead Market Makers'' and ``Registered Market Makers''
collectively. See Exchange Rule 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to implement a
SPIKES Options Market Maker Incentive Program (the ``Incentive
Program'') for the period beginning October 1, 2021, and ending
December 31, 2021.\4\ The Incentive Program is designed to improve
liquidity, volume, and quote width spreads in SPIKES options. Technical
details regarding the Incentive Program were published in a Regulatory
Circular on September 30, 2021.\5\ The Exchange originally filed this
proposal on September 30, 2021, (SR-MIAX-2021-45). On October 12, 2021,
the Exchange withdrew SR-MIAX-2021-45 and refiled this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange notes that at the end of the period, the
Program will expire unless the Exchange files another 19b-4 Filing
to amend its fees.
    \5\ See MIAX Options Regulatory Circular 2021-56, SPIKES Options
Market Maker Incentive Program (September 30, 2021) available at
https://www.miaxoptions.com/sites/default/files/circular-files/MIAX_Options_RC_2021_56.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    On October 12, 2018, the Exchange received approval from the
Commission to list and trade options on the SPIKES[supreg] Index, which
measures expected 30-day volatility of the SPDR[supreg] S&P 500 ETF
Trust (commonly known and referred to by its ticker symbol,
``SPY'').\6\ The Exchange adopted its initial SPIKES transaction fees
on February 15, 2019.\7\ Options on the SPIKES Index began trading on
the Exchange on February 19, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84417 (October 12,
2018), 83 FR 52865 (October 18, 2018) (SR-MIAX-2018-14) (Order
Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change by Miami International
Securities Exchange, LLC to List and Trade on the Exchange Options
on the SPIKES[supreg] Index).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Release No. 85283 (March 11, 2019),
84 FR 9567 (March 15, 2019) (SR-MIAX-2019-11). On September 30,
2020, the Exchange filed its proposal to, among other things,
reorganize the Fee Schedule to adopt new Section 1(b), Proprietary
Products Exchange Fees, and moved the fees and rebates for SPIKES
options into new Section 1(b)(i). See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 90146 (October 9, 2020), 85 FR 65443 (October 15, 2020)
(SR-MIAX-2020-32).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SPIKES Options Market Maker Incentive Program
    The Exchange proposes to implement a SPIKES Options Market Maker
Incentive Program for SPIKES options to incentivize Market Makers to
improve liquidity, available volume, and the quote spread width of
SPIKES options. To be eligible to participate in the Incentive Program,
a Market Maker must meet certain minimum requirements related to quote
spread width in certain in-the-money (ITM) and out-of-the-money (OTM)
options as determined by the Exchange and communicated to Members via
Regulatory Circular.\8\ Market Makers must also satisfy a minimum time
in the market in the front 2 expiry months of 70%, and have an average
quote size of 25 contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to establish two separate incentive
compensation pools that will be used to compensate Market Makers that
satisfy the criteria pursuant to the proposed Incentive Program.
Incentive 1 Pool
    The first pool (Incentive 1) will be a total amount of $40,000 per
month, which will be allocated to Market Makers that meet the minimum
requirements of the Incentive Program. Market Makers will be required
to meet minimum spread width requirements in a select number of ITM and
OTM SPIKES option contracts as determined by the Exchange and
communicated to

Members \9\ via Regulatory Circular.\10\ A complete description of how
the Exchange calculates the minimum spread width requirements in ITM
and OTM SPIKES options can be found in the published Regulatory
Circular,\11\ additionally an example is provided below. Market Makers
will also be required to maintain the minimum spread width, described
above, for at least 70% of the time in the front two (2) SPIKES options
contract expiry months and maintain an average quote size of at least
25 SPIKES options contracts. The amount available to each individual
Market Maker will be capped at $10,000 per month for satisfying the
minimum requirements of the Incentive Program. In the event that more
than four Market Makers meet the requirements of the Incentive Program,
each qualifying Market Maker will be entitled to receive a pro-rated
share of the $40,000 monthly compensation pool dependent upon the
number of qualifying Market Makers in that particular month. For
example, if five Market Makers qualify for compensation under Incentive
1 of the Incentive Program, each Market Maker would receive a rebate of
$8,000 for that particular month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 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.
    \10\ Supra note 5.
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Incentive 2 Pool
    The second pool (Incentive 2 Pool) will be capped at a total amount
of $100,000 per month which will be used during the Incentive Program
to further incentivize Market Makers who meet or exceed the
requirements of Incentive 1 (``qualifying Market Makers'') to provide
tighter quote width spreads. The Exchange will rank each qualifying
Market Maker's quote width spread relative to each other qualifying
Market Maker's quote width spread. Market Makers with tighter spreads
in certain strikes, as determined by the Exchange and communicated to
Members via Regulatory Circular,\12\ will be eligible to receive a pro-
rated share of the compensation pool as calculated by the Exchange and
communicated to Members via Regulatory Circular,\13\ not to exceed
$25,000 per Member per month. Qualifying Market Makers will be ranked
relative to each other based on the quality of their spread width
(i.e., tighter spreads are ranked higher than wider spreads) and the
Market Maker with the best quality spread width will receive the
highest rebate, while other eligible qualifying Market Makers will
receive a rebate relative to their quality spread width.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id.
    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Incentive Pool 2 Example
    Each qualifying Market Maker's ITM/OTM market width for eligible
Incentive Program options will be calculated, weighted, and ranked. ITM
market width will be given a 25% weighting and OTM market width will be
given a 75% weighting. Eligible ITM options require a maximum quote
width spread of 150 basis points (``bps'') and each eligible OTM option
requires a maximum quote width of 100 bps (as calculated below).
    The formula employed by the Exchange to calculate the bps for an
individual strike is: {(Ask Quote-Bid Quote)/Futures price{time}  *
10,000, where the futures price is in the same expiry being measured.
For example, a SPIKE 19 Put expiring on 10/20/2021 has a bid quote of
$0.25 and an ask quote of $.45 and the October SPIKE Future is trading
at 20.30. Using the aforementioned formula the Exchange can calculate
the Member's bps on that strike as: {($0.45-$0.25)/20.30{time}  *
10,000; or ($0.20/20.30) * 10,000; or .009852 * 10,000 = 98.52217 bps.
To establish the market quality baseline bps the Exchange combines
target bps in ITM and OTM options (150 bps * 25% = 37.5 bps and 100 bps
* 75% = 75 bps; 37.5 bps + 75 bps = 112.50 bps).
    To determine the pool amount the Exchange will contribute $5,000
for each basis point improvement from the Exchange established baseline
of 112.50 bps. The Exchange will calculate a Member's Improvement Value
(``MIV'') by subtracting the Member's monthly average bps from the
Exchange established baseline of 112.50 bps. If for the month ``Market
Maker A'' has an average score of 109 and ``Market Maker B'' has an
average score of 107 the Exchange will calculate the amount of
Incentive Pool 2 based on the average total improvement of the
qualifying Market Makers from the baseline and for every bps of
improvement the Exchange will contribute $5,000 to Incentive Pool 2. In
this example, the average of ``Market Maker A'' (109) and ``Market
Maker B'' (107) is 108. The Exchange would therefore contribute $22,500
to Incentive Pool 2 (112.5-108 = 4.5 * $5,000).
    The Exchange will calculate a pro-rata distribution for each Market
Maker based upon their improvement value, which is the number of bps
improvement from the Exchange established baseline of 112.5. ``Market
Maker A'' has an MIV of 3.5 (112.5-109) and ``Market Maker B'' has an
MIV of 5.5 bps (112.5 = 107). To determine each Market Makers' pro-rata
share of the Incentive 2 Pool the Exchange sums the MIVs of each Market
Maker (3.5 + 5.5) = 9 and divides each Market Maker's MIV by that total
to establish their weighted percentage: 38.89% and 61.11% for ``Market
Maker A'' and ``Market Maker B,'' respectively. ``Market Maker A''
would then be entitled to 38.89% of the $22,500 Incentive 2 Pool or
$8,750. Whereas ``Market Maker B'' would be entitled to 61.11% of the
$22,500 Incentive 2 Pool or $13,750.
    The total amount in Incentive Pool 2 is capped at $100,000 per
month and the total amount allocated to any one Member is capped at
$25,000 per month.
    The details of the Incentive Program are contained in a Regulatory
Circular distributed to all Members.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \15\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \16\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees
and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons using
its facilities. The Exchange also believes the proposal furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public
interest and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers and dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable, equitable, and not
unfairly discriminatory to adopt an Incentive Program for Market Makers
in SPIKES options. The Incentive Program is reasonably designed because
it will incent Market Makers to provide quotes and increased liquidity
in select SPIKES options contracts. The proposed Incentive Program is
reasonable, equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because
all Market Makers in SPIKES options may qualify for Incentive 1 and
Incentive 2, dependent upon each Market Maker's quoting in SPIKES
options in a particular month. Additionally, if a

SPIKES Market Maker does not satisfy the requirements of Incentive Pool
1 or 2, then it simply will not receive the rebate offered by the
Incentive Program for that month.
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory to offer this financial incentive to SPIKES
Market Makers because it benefits all market participants trading in
SPIKES. SPIKES Options is a Proprietary Product \17\ on the Exchange
and this Incentive Program encourages SPIKES Market Makers to satisfy a
heightened quoting standard, average quote size, and time in market. An
increase in quoting activity and tighter quotes may yield a
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants,
which benefits all investors by deepening the Exchange's liquidity
pool, potentially providing greater execution incentives and
opportunities, while promoting market transparency and improving
investor protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The term ``Proprietary Product'' means a class of options
that is listed exclusively on the Exchange. See Exchange Rule 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the Incentive Program is equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory because it will promote an increase in
SPIKES options liquidity, which may facilitate tighter spreads and an
increase in trading opportunities to the benefit of all market
participants. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to operate the
Incentive Program for a limited period of time to strengthen market
quality for all market participants. The resulting increased volume and
liquidity will benefit those Members who are eligible to participate in
the Incentive Program and will also benefit those Members who are not
eligible to participate in the Incentive Program by providing more
trading opportunities and tighter spreads.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Intra-Market Competition
    The Exchange believes that the proposal to adopt an Incentive
Program does not impose any burden on intra-market competition that is
not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal would increase intra-market
competition by incentivizing Market Makers to quote SPIKES options,
which will enhance the quality of quoting and increase the volume of
contracts available to trade in SPIKES options. To the extent that this
purpose is achieved, all the Exchange's market participants should
benefit from the improved market liquidity for SPIKES options. Enhanced
market quality and increased transaction volume in SPIKES options that
results from the anticipated increase in Market Maker activity on the
Exchange will benefit all market participants and improve competition
on the Exchange.
Inter-Market Competition
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not impose any
burden on inter-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed changes in
connection with the Incentive Program are limited to SPIKES options
which are a proprietary product of the Exchange and as such are listed
and traded exclusively on the Exchange.
    Additionally, as noted above, the Incentive Program is designed to
improve volume and liquidity in SPIKES options. Greater volume and
liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more trading
opportunities, tighter spreads, and added market transparency and price
discovery. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the
Exchange is only one of 16 options venues to which market participants
may direct their order flow. Based on publicly available information,
no single options exchange has more than 13% of the market share.\18\
Thus, in such a low-concentrated and highly competitive market, no
single options exchange possess significant pricing power in the
execution of option order flow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See MIAX's ``The Market at a Glance'', available at https://www.miaxoptions.com/ (last visited September 28, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe its proposal to adopt an
Incentive Program imposes any burden on competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\19\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \20\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \20\ 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-2021-49 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-2021-49. 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-2021-49 and should be
submitted on or before November 22, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-23673 Filed 10-29-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 4, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 148)]
[Notices]
[Page 38682]
[DOCID:fr04au09-91]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2009-33]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to
improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of
FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the
inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to
affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number involved and must be received on or before August 24, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2009-
0598 using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenna Sinclair, ANM-113, (425) 227-
1556, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Ave., SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; or Ralen Gao, ARM-200,<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAA,
Office of Rulemaking, 800 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 30, 2009.
Pamela Hamilton-Powell,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2009-0598.
    Petitioner: Bombardier.
    Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR 26.
    Description of Relief Sought: The petitioner seeks relief from part
26 for its Bombardier CL-600-1A11, CL-600-2A12 and CL-600-2B16
airplanes. These airplanes' maximum payload capacities and passenger
capacities are below those specified for transport category airplanes.
However, since these models are on the same Type Certification Data
Sheet (TCDS) as the original Bombardier Model CL-600, they are subject
to the part 26 rule.

[FR Doc. E9-18600 Filed 8-3-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 180 (Wednesday, September 16, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57721-57723]
[FR Doc No: 2020-19418]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2020-0339; FRL-10014-32-Region 7]

Air Plan Approval; Missouri; Control of Emissions from Industrial
Surface Coating Operations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for
the State of Missouri. This final action will amend the SIP to revise a
Missouri regulation that restricts emissions of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) from industrial surface coating operations in St.
Louis City and Jefferson, St. Charles, Franklin, and St. Louis Counties
in Missouri.
    Specifically, the revisions to the rule add a new surface coating
category for the decorative coating of foam products, establish an
appropriate emission limit for this type of surface coating operation,
remove obsolete provisions that were applicable prior to March 1, 2012,
remove a reference to a rule that is being rescinded, remove
restrictive words, add definitions specific to this rule, change rule
language to be consistent with defined terms, and update incorporations
by reference. The new emission limit for decorative coating of foam
products is SIP strengthening and will not adversely impact the air
quality in the St. Louis area. The remaining revisions are
administrative in nature and do not impact the stringency of the SIP or
air quality. The EPA's approval of this rule revision is in accordance
with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This final rule is effective on October 16, 2020.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2020-0339. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. 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 through https://www.regulations.gov or please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Stone, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 7 Office, Air Quality Planning Branch, 11201
Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; telephone number: (913) 551-
7714; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What is Being Addressed in this Document?
II. Have the Requirements for Approval of a SIP Revision Been Met?
III. What Action is the EPA Taking?
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is being addressed in this document?

    The EPA is approving the revisions to 10 CSR 10-5.330 Control of
Emissions From Industrial Surface Coating Operations in the Missouri
SIP. The revisions to the rule add a new surface coating category for
the decorative coating of foam products, establish an appropriate
emission limit for this type of surface coating operation, remove
obsolete provisions that were applicable prior to March 1, 2012, remove
a reference to a rule that is being rescinded, remove restrictive
words, add definitions specific to this rule, change rule language to
be consistent with defined terms, and update incorporations by
reference. These revisions are described in detail in the technical
support document (TSD) included in the docket for this action. The EPA
solicited comments on the proposed revision to Missouri's SIP, and
received two comments unrelated to the proposed action.

II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?

    The State submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also
satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The
State provided public notice of the revisions from August 1, 2018, to
October 4, 2018, and held a public hearing on September 27, 2018. The
state received and addressed three comments. As explained in more
detail in the TSD which is part of this docket, the SIP revision
submission meets the substantive requirements of the CAA, including
section 110 and implementing regulations.

III. What action is the EPA taking?

    The EPA is taking final action to approve Missouri's request to
amend 10 CSR 10-5.330.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that
includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of
1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the
Missouri Regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set
forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the
EPA Region 7 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information).
    Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA for
inclusion in the State Implementation Plan, have been incorporated by
reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally

enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective
date of the final rulemaking of the EPA's approval, and will be
incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 62 FR 27968, May 22, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 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);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
     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 the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTA) because this rulemaking does not
involve technical standards; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    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 November 16, 2020. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: August 28, 2020.
James Gulliford,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part
52 as set forth below:

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 AA--Missouri

0
2. In Sec.  52.1320, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising
the entry ``10-5.330'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                       EPA--Approved Missouri Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          State
       Missouri citation                Title        effective date   EPA approval date        Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Missouri Department of Natural Resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Chapter 5--Air Quality Standards and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the St. Louis Metropolitan Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
10-5.330.......................  Control of               3/30/2019  9/16/2020, [insert  .......................
                                  Emissions from                      Federal Register
                                  Industrial                          citation].
                                  Surface Coating
                                  Operations.

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2020-19418 Filed 9-15-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P