[Federal Register: December 17, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 243)]
[Notices]
[Page 76686]
[DOCID:fr17de08-118]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

National Lampoon, Inc., and Advatech Corporation; Order of
Suspension of Trading

December 15, 2008.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
the issuers listed below.
    National Lampoon, Inc. is incorporated in Delaware and
headquartered in Los Angeles, California. The company's common stock is
listed on the NYSE Alternext under the ticker symbol ``NLN.''
    Advatech Corporation is incorporated in Florida and headquartered
in West Palm Beach, Florida. The company's common stock trades on the
grey market under the symbol ``ADVA.''
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed companies.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the above-listed
companies is suspended for the period commencing at 9:30 a.m. EST,
December 15, 2008, and terminating at 11:59 p.m. EST, on December 29,
2008.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-30082 Filed 12-15-08; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 137 (Friday, July 17, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42501-42502]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17557]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2015-D-2306]

Testicular Toxicity: Evaluation During Drug Development; Draft
Guidance for Industry; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled ``Testicular
Toxicity: Evaluation During Drug Development.'' The draft guidance
addresses nonclinical findings that may raise concerns of a drug-
related adverse effect on the testes, clinical monitoring of adverse
testicular effects early in clinical development, and the design and
conduct of a safety clinical trial assessing drug-related testicular
toxicity. The draft guidance is intended

to assist sponsors developing drugs to identify nonclinical signals of
testicular toxicity and to evaluate the potential for such toxicity in
humans.

DATES: Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this
draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the
guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft
guidance by October 15, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the draft
guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New
Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, 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 draft guidance document.
    Submit electronic comments on the draft 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: Eufrecina Deguia, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 5348, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-0881.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry
entitled ``Testicular Toxicity: Evaluation During Drug Development.''
This draft guidance is intended to help sponsors identify nonclinical
signals that raise concern regarding the potential for human testicular
toxicity and to evaluate those signals appropriately in human studies.
    The draft guidance describes the standard battery of nonclinical
studies that are used to assess the effects of pharmaceuticals on the
male reproductive system. The draft guidance discusses findings in
nonclinical studies that may increase the level of concern for drug-
related testicular toxicity. Examples of nonclinical studies that could
be used to further evaluate initial signals of testicular toxicity are
also described. The draft guidance then provides a general approach on
how to weigh the relevance of nonclinical findings, taking into account
factors that can confound the interpretation of these findings.
    If a concerning nonclinical signal is identified, the draft
guidance presents suggestions for clinical monitoring when the drug is
initially administered to humans. These suggestions aim to minimize the
hazards to men while making possible the collection of data that will
assist in evaluating the potential toxicity of the drug in the target
population. These early studies, however, are not intended to be a
definitive evaluation of the potential for testicular toxicity of the
drug. Rather, they can provide clinical information that, together with
the nonclinical information, will support a judgment as to whether the
testicular toxicity signal warrants indepth evaluation in a dedicated
safety study.
    If a reasonable basis for concern of human testicular toxicity
exists, a dedicated clinical safety trial with a primary objective of
evaluating drug-related testicular toxicity may be warranted. The draft
guidance provides recommendations for the design of such a trial,
including conduct, endpoints, and presentation of results. These are
general recommendations for the purpose of defining the role of drugs
in testicular injury; however, the specific details of an individual
trial may vary depending on the context of use of the drug product.
    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good
guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when
finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on the evaluation
of testicular toxicity during drug development. It does not establish
rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can
use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the
applicable statutes and regulations.

II. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information
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 have been approved under
OMB control number 0910-0014.

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 13, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-17557 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 152 (Monday, August 8, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52503-52504]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18699]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78456; File No. SR-BatsBYX-2016-19]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BYX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Reflect
the Dissolution of One of the Exchange's Intermediate Holding
Companies, Direct Edge Holdings LLC

August 2, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on July 25, 2016, Bats BYX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BYX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Exchange has designated this proposal as a ``non-controversial''
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon
filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to reflect the dissolution of one of
the Exchange's intermediate holding companies, Direct Edge Holdings LLC
(``DEH''), on December 31, 2015, by amending the bylaws of the
Exchange's ultimate parent company, Bats Global Markets, Inc. (the
``Corporation''), to remove reference to DEH, as well as Bats Global
Markets Holdings, an intermediate holding company wholly owned by the
Corporation (``BGMH'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the 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 parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    On December 17, 2015, DEH filed a certificate of cancellation with
the State of Delaware, effective December 31, 2015. As a result, DEH
was dissolved, its affairs wound up, and its certificate of formation
and operating agreement were cancelled, each effective December 31,
2015. In connection with DEH's dissolution, the Corporation proposes to
amend its bylaws on-file with the Commission to remove reference to DEH
because the entity no longer exists. The Exchange also proposes to
remove reference to BGMH because inclusion of the reference to BGMH is
unnecessary. Specifically, the applicable provision relates to any
entity in which the Corporation holds an interest and the text the
Exchange proposes to eliminate is a parenthetical that was intended to
provide examples, not an exhaustive list, of such entities.
    The purpose of this rule filing is to amend the bylaws of the
Corporation, the ultimate parent company of the Exchange, as described
above.\5\ Thus, the changes described herein only relate to references
contained in the bylaws of the Corporation, and do not impact the
governance of the Exchange. The Exchange will continue to be governed
by its existing certificate of incorporation and bylaws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange notes that such change has already been filed
by the Corporation in connection with its bylaws on-file with the
Secretary of State of Delaware.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and rules and regulations thereunder that are
applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\6\ In particular, the
proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(1) of the Act, because it
retains, without modification, the existing limitations on ownership
and total voting power that currently exist and that are designed to
prevent any stockholder from exercising undue control over the
operation of the Exchange and to assure that the Exchange is able to
carry out its regulatory obligations under the Act. Under the proposal,
the Corporation is making certain administrative changes to the bylaws
of the Corporation. These changes, however, do not impact the
governance of the Exchange nor do they modify the ownership of the
Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes
any burden on competition. As described above, the proposed rule change
is simply to reflect the dissolution of DEH and to remove an
unnecessary reference in the Corporation's bylaws to BGMH. These
changes do not impact the governance of the Exchange nor do they modify
the ownership of the Corporation.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any written comments from members or other interested parties.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (A)
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (B) impose any significant burden on competition; and (C) by
its terms, become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was
filed or such shorter time as the Commission may designate it has
become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \7\ and
paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\8\ the Exchange has
designated this rule filing as non-controversial. The Exchange has
given the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed
rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed
rule change at least five business days prior to the date of filing of
the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: (1) Necessary or
appropriate in the public interest; (2) for the protection of
investors; or (3) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute
proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved
or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BatsBYX-2016-19 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-BatsBYX-2016-19. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing will also 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-BatsBYX-2016-19 and should
be submitted on or before August 29, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-18699 Filed 8-5-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


the same manner as an ALO Order until the Day ISO ALO is either traded
in full or displayed at its limit price (proposed Rule 6.64P-
O(f)(3)(D)(ii)). This proposed rule is new for options trading because,
as described above, the Exchange would be offering Day ISO and Day ISO
ALO for options trading for the first time with the transition to
Pillar. The rule text is based in part on Rule 7.35-E(h)(3)(D), with
differences to reflect how a Day ISO ALO would be processed on options
as compared to how similarly-named orders trade on the Exchange's cash
equity market, as described in more detail above in connection with
proposed Rule 6.62P-O(e)(3).
    Proposed Rule 6.64P-O(g) would describe order processing during a
trading halt. The proposed rule is based in part on Rule 7.18-E(c),
with differences to reflect how options would trade on Pillar as
described below. The proposed Rule is designed to provide granularity
in Exchange rules about how new and existing orders, quotes, and order
instructions would be processed during a trading halt. As proposed, the
Exchange would process new and existing orders and quotes in a series
during a trading halt as follows:
     Cancel any unexecuted quantity of orders for which the
500-millisecond Trading Collar timer has started and all resting Market
Maker quotes (proposed Rule 6.64P-O(g)(1)). This proposed rule would be
unique for options traded on the Exchange. The Exchange proposes to
cancel resting Market Maker quotes when a trading halt is triggered,
which represents current functionality, and as noted below, would
accept new Market Maker quotes during a trading halt, which would be
the basis for the Rotational Quote that would be published for a
Trading Halt Auction. The Exchange also proposes to cancel any
unexecuted quantity of orders for which the 500-millisecond Trading
Collar has started because such timer would have ended during a trading
halt, and therefore such orders were subject to cancellation already.
This would be

new functionality on Pillar and reflects the proposed new Trading
Collar behavior that orders would be priced at their collar for only
500 milliseconds and then would cancel.
     Re-price all other resting orders on the Consolidated Book
to their limit price. This would be new functionality on Pillar for
options trading; currently, during a halt, resting orders do not
reprice to their limit price.\161\ The repricing of a Non-Routable
Limit Order, ALO Order, or Day ISO ALO to its limit price during a
trading halt would not be counted toward the (limited) number of times
such order may be repriced, and any subsequent repricing of such order
during the transition to continuous trading would be permitted as the
additional (uncounted) repricing event as provided for in proposed
Rules 6.62P-O(e)(1)(B) and (e)(2)(C) (proposed Rule 6.64P-O(g)(2)). As
described above, once resting, a Non-Routable Limit Order, ALO Order,
or Day ISO ALO that was repriced on arrival is eligible to be repriced
only one additional time. This proposed rule provides transparency that
the repricing of such orders to their limit price during a trading halt
would not count towards that ``one'' additional repricing, but that any
subsequent repricing after the Auction concludes would count.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \161\ On its cash equities market, for trading halts in
Exchange-listed securities, the Exchange reprices resting orders to
their limit price. See Rule 7.18-E(c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Accept and process all cancellations (proposed Rule 6.64P-
O(g)(3)). This proposed rule is based on Rule 7.18-E(c)(4), without any
differences, and is consistent with current functionality.
     Reject incoming Limit Orders designated IOC or FOK
(proposed Rule 6.64P-O(g)(4)). This proposed rule is based on Rule
7.18-E(c)(5), with a difference to add orders designated FOK and not
include non-displayed orders and is consistent with current
functionality.
     Accept all other incoming order and quote messages and
instructions until the Auction Processing Period for the Trading Halt
Auction ends, at which point, paragraph (e) of proposed Rule 6.64P-O
would govern the entry of incoming orders, quotes, and order
instructions (proposed Rule 6.64P-O(g)(5)). This proposed rule is based
on Rule 7.18-E(c)(6), with differences to cross reference the options
rule relating to the transition to continuous trading and is consistent
with current functionality.
     Disseminate a zero bid and zero offer quote to OPRA and
proprietary data feeds (proposed Rule 6.64P-O(g)(6)). This proposed
rule is based on current functionality and is designed to promote
clarity and transparency in Exchange rules that when a trading halt
begins, the Exchange will ``zero'' out the Exchange's BBO.
    Finally, proposed Rule 6.64P-O(h) would provide that whenever, in
the judgment of the Exchange, the interests of a fair and orderly
market so require, the Exchange may adjust the timing of or suspend the
Auctions set forth in this Rule with prior notice to OTP Holders and
OTP Firms. This proposed rule is based on Rule 7.35-E(i), with a
difference to reference OTP Holders instead of ETP Holders and also
reference OTP Holders and OTP Firms.
    In connection with proposed Rule 6.64P-O, the Exchange proposes to
add the following preamble to Rule 6.64-O: ``This Rule is not
applicable to trading on Pillar.'' This proposed preamble is designed
to promote clarity and transparency in Exchange rules that Rule 6.64-O
would not be applicable to trading on Pillar.
* * * * *
    As discussed above, because of the technology changes associated
with the migration to the Pillar trading platform, subject to approval
of this proposed rule change, the Exchange will announce by Trader
Update when rules with a ``P'' modifier will become operative and for
which symbols. The Exchange believes that keeping existing rules on the
rulebook pending the full migration of Pillar will reduce confusion
because it will ensure that the rules governing trading on the OX
system will continue to be available pending the full migration to
Pillar.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\162\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\163\ in particular, because
it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to, and perfect the
mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange
believes that the proposed rules to support Pillar would remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system because the proposed rules would promote
transparency in Exchange rules by using consistent terminology
governing trading on both the Exchange's cash equity and options
trading platforms, thereby ensuring that members, regulators, and the
public can more easily navigate the Exchange's rulebook and better
understand how options trading is conducted on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \162\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \163\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Generally, the Exchange believes that adding new rules with the
modifier ``P'' to denote those rules that would be operative for the
Pillar trading platform would remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by
providing transparency of which rules would govern trading once a
symbol has been migrated to the Pillar platform. The Exchange similarly
believes that adding a preamble to those current rules that would not
be applicable to trading on Pillar would remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system because it would promote transparency regarding which rules
would govern trading on the Exchange during and after the transition to
Pillar.
    In addition, the Exchange believes that incorporating functionality
currently available on the Exchange's cash equity market for options
trading would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free
and open market and a national market system because the Exchange would
be able to offer consistent functionality across both its options and
cash equity trading platforms, adapted as applicable for options
trading. Accordingly, with the transition to Pillar, the Exchange will
be able to offer additional features to its OTP Holders and OTP Firms
that are currently available only on the Exchange's cash equity
platform. For similar reasons, the Exchange believes that using Pillar
terminology for the proposed new rules would remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system because it would promote consistency in the Exchange's rules
across both its options and cash equity platforms.
Definitions and Applicability
    The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to Rule 1.1,
including adding definitions from Rule 6.1-O and Rule 6.1A-O to Rule
1.1, would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free
and open market and a national market system because the proposed
changes

are designed to promote clarity and transparency in Exchange rules by
consolidating into Rule 1.1 definitions relating to both cash equity
and options trading. The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to
eliminate obsolete definitions and modifying the text of certain
existing definitions relating to options trading that are being added
to Rule 1.1, would further remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system
because it would ensure that the definitions used in Exchange rules are
updated and consistent. Finally, the Exchange believes that organizing
Rule 1.1 alphabetically and eliminating sub-paragraph numbering would
make the proposed rules easier to navigate.
    The Exchange further believes that proposed new Rule 6.1P-O
relating to applicability would remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system
because the proposed rule would include those elements of current Rule
6.1-O that would remain applicable and eliminates duplicative text that
would no longer be necessary after the transition to Pillar. The
Exchange further notes that proposed Rule 6.1P-O is similar to NYSE
American Rule 900.1NY.
Order Ranking and Display
    The Exchange believes that proposed new Rule 6.76P-O would remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system because the Exchange is not proposing
substantive changes to how the Exchange would rank and display orders
and quotes on Pillar as compared to the OX system. Rather, the proposed
revisions to the Exchange's options trading rules would remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system because the proposed changes are designed to
simplify the structure of the Exchange's options rules and use
consistent Pillar terminology for both cash equity and options trading,
without changing the underlying functionality for options trading. For
example, the Exchange believes the proposed definitions set forth in
Rule 6.76P-O, i.e., display price, limit price, working price, working
time, and Aggressing Order/Aggressing Quote, would promote transparency
in Exchange rules and make them easier to navigate because these
proposed definitions would be used in other proposed Pillar options
trading rules. The Exchange notes that these proposed definitions are
consistent with the definitions set forth in Rule 7.36-E for cash
equity trading with differences only as necessary to address
functionality associated with options trading that are not applicable
to cash equity trading, e.g., reference to quotes.
    The Exchange further believes that moving descriptions of order
type behavior, which are currently set forth in Rule 6.76-O, to
proposed Rule 6.62P-O, and therefore not include such detail in
proposed Rule 6.76P-O, would make Exchange rules easier to navigate
because information regarding how a specific order type would operate
would be in a single location in the Exchange's rulebook. The Exchange
notes that this proposed structure is consistent with the Exchange's
cash equity rules, which similarly set forth information relating to an
order type's ranking in Rule 7.31-E.
    Moreover, the Exchange is not proposing any functional changes to
how it would rank and display orders and quotes on Pillar as compared
to the OX system. Rather, the Exchange believes that using new
terminology to describe ranking and display, including the proposed
priority categories of Priority 1--Market Orders, Priority 2--Display
Orders, and Priority 3--Non-Display Orders, would remove impediments
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system because the proposed rule would provide more granularity
and use Pillar terminology to describe functionality that is consistent
with the OX system functionality currently referred to as the ``Display
Order Process'' and the ``Working Order Process'' in Rule 6.76-O.
Order Execution and Routing
    The Exchange believes that proposed new Rule 6.76AP-O would remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system because the proposed rule would set forth a
price-time priority model for Pillar that is substantively the same as
the Exchange's current price-time priority model as set forth in Rule
6.76A-O. The proposed differences as compared to Rule 6.76A-O are
designed to use Pillar terminology that is based in part on Rule 7.37-
E, if applicable, without changing the functionality that is currently
available for options trading.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed modifications to the LMM
Guarantee would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system because it provides
clarity of how multiple quotes from an LMM would be allocated (i.e.,
only the first quote in time priority would be eligible for the LMM
Guarantee). The Exchange similarly believes that eliminating Directed
Order Market Makers and Directed Orders would remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system because these features are not currently used on the Exchange,
and therefore eliminating Directed Orders and Directed Order Market
Makers would streamline the Exchange's rules. The Exchange notes that
the remaining differences in proposed Rule 6.76AP-O relating to the LMM
Guarantee are designed to promote clarity and transparency in Exchange
rules and would not introduce new functionality.
    The Exchange believes that the structure and content of the rule
text in proposed Rule 6.76AP-O promotes transparency by using
consistent Pillar terminology. The Exchange also believes that adding
more detail regarding current functionality in new Rule 6.76AP-O, as
described above, would promote transparency by providing notice of when
orders would be executed or routed by the Exchange.
Orders and Modifiers
    The Exchange believes that proposed new Rule 6.62P-O would remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system because it would use existing Pillar
terminology to describe the order types and modifiers that would be
available on the Exchange's options Pillar trading system. As noted
above, the Exchange proposes to offer order types and modifiers that
are either based on existing order types available on the OX system as
described in Rule 6.62-O, or orders and modifiers available on the
Exchange's cash equity trading platform, as described in Rule 7.31-E,
with differences as applicable to reflect differences in options
trading from cash equity trading. The Exchange believes that
structuring proposed Rule 6.62P-O based on the structure of Rule 7.31-E
would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and
open market and a national market system because it would promote
transparency and consistency in the Exchange's rulebook.
    In addition to the terminology changes to describe the order types
and modifiers that are currently available on the Exchange, the
Exchange further believes that the order types and modifiers proposed
for options trading on Pillar that either differ from order types and
modifiers available on the OX

system or that would be new would remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and national market system because:
     Market Orders on Pillar would function similarly to how
Market Orders function under current options trading rules, including
being subject to Trading Collars. However, the proposed functionality
would expand the circumstances under which Market Orders may be
rejected, which functionality is designed to ensure that Market Orders
do not execute either when there is no prevailing market in a series,
which can occur if there is no NBO, no NBB and an NBO higher than
$0.50, or an absence of contra-side Market Maker quotations or an Away
Market NBBO. In addition, the proposed functionality would provide that
if the displayed prices are too wide to assure a fair and orderly
execution of a Market Order, such Market Order would be rejected. The
Exchange believes that the proposed ``wide-spread'' check for Market
Orders is consistent with similar price protections on other options
exchanges and is designed to prevent a Market Order trading at a price
that could be considered a Catastrophic Error.\164\ The Exchange
believes that the proposed rule describing Market Orders would promote
transparency by providing notice of when a Market Order would be
subject to such validations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \164\ See supra note 55 (citing Cboe's Market Order NBBO Width
Protection, which similarly looks to the midpoint of the NBBO in
applying this protection).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Exchange is not proposing any new or different
behavior for Limit Orders than is currently available for options
trading on the Exchange, other than the application of Limit Order
Price Protection and Trading Collars, which would differ on Pillar. The
Exchange believes using Pillar terminology based on Rule 7.31-E(a)(2)
to describe Limit Orders would promote consistency and clarity in
Exchange rules.
     The proposed Limit Order Price Protection functionality is
based in part on the existing ``Limit Order Filter'' for orders and
price protection filters for quotes because an order or quote would be
rejected if it is priced a specified percentage away from the contra-
side NBB or NBO. The proposed Limit Order Price Protection
functionality is also based in part on the functionality available on
the Exchange's cash equity trading platform, and therefore is not
novel. The Exchange believes that using the same mechanism for both
orders and quotes would simplify the operation of the Exchange and
achieve similar results as the current rules, which is to reject an
order or quote that is priced too far away from the prevailing market.
The Exchange believes that re-applying Limit Order Price Protection
after an Auction concludes would ensure that Limit Orders and quotes
continue to be priced consistent with the prevailing market, and that
using an Auction Price (if available, and if not available, Auction
Collars, and if not available, the NBBO) to assess Limit Orders and
quotes after an Auction concludes would ensure that the Exchange would
be applying the most recent price in a series in assessing whether such
orders or quotes should be cancelled. The Exchange further believes
that the proposed Specified Thresholds for determining whether to
reject a Limit Order or quote would remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system
because they are designed to be tailored to the applicable Reference
Price, and thus more granular that the current thresholds.
    The proposed Trading Collar functionality is based in part on how
trading collars currently function on the Exchange because the proposed
functionality would create a ceiling or floor price at which an order
could be traded or routed. The Exchange believes that the proposed
differences for Trading Collars on Pillar, including applying the same
Trading Collar logic to both Limit Orders and Market Orders, applying
them once per trading day (unless there is a trading halt), tailoring
the specified thresholds to be within the current parameters for
determining whether a trade would be an Obvious Error or Catastrophic
Error, and canceling orders that have been displayed at their Trading
Collar for 500 milliseconds, would remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system
because they are designed to provide a deterministic price protection
mechanism for orders. In addition, the proposed Pillar Trading Collar
functionality is designed to simplify the process by applying a static
ceiling price (for buy orders) or floor price (for sell orders) at
which such order could be traded or routed that would be applicable to
the order until it is traded or cancelled. The Exchange believes that
the proposed functionality would provide greater determinism to an OTP
Holder or OTP Firm of the Trading Collar that would be applicable to
its orders and when such orders may be cancelled if it reaches its
Trading Collar.
     The Exchange is not proposing any new or different Time-
in-Force modifiers than are currently available for options trading on
the Exchange. The Exchange believes using Pillar terminology based on
Rule 7.31-E(b) to describe the time-in-force modifiers would promote
consistency and clarity in Exchange rules.
     Auction-Only Orders, and specifically, the proposed MOO
and LOO Orders, would operate no differently than how ``Opening-Only
Orders'' currently function on the OX system. However, rather than
refer to Opening-Only Orders, the Exchange proposes to use Pillar
terminology that is based on Rule 7.31-E(c) terminology. The Exchange
further believes that offering its IO Order type for Auctions on the
options trading platform--both for Core Open Auctions and Trading Halt
Auctions--would provide OTP Holders and OTP Firms with new, optional
functionality to offset an Imbalance in an Auction. The proposed
availability of the IO Order on the options platform would be more
expansive than is currently available on the Exchange's cash equity
platform, which (unlike options) does not account for quotes in
determining an Imbalance and which limits the use of IO Orders solely
to Trading Halt Auctions. The Exchange believes this proposed
functionality would afford OTP Holders and OTP Firms with greater
flexibility for all Auctions on Pillar.
     The Exchange would continue to offer Reserve Orders, AON
Orders, Stop Orders, and Stop Limit Orders, which are currently
available on the OX system. The proposed differences to Reserve Orders
for options trading would harmonize with how Reserve Orders function on
the Exchange's cash equity market, with changes as applicable to
address options trading (e.g., no round lot/odd lot concept for options
trading). The proposed changes to AON Orders would provide greater
execution opportunities for such orders by allowing them to be
integrated in the Consolidated Book and once resting, trade with
incoming orders and quotes. The changes are also based on how orders
with an MTS Modifier, which are also conditional orders, function on
the Exchange's cash equity market. The Exchange believes it is
appropriate to opt not to support Market Orders designated as AON on
Pillar because such functionality was not used often on the OX system,
indicating a lack of market participant interest in this functionality.
The proposed differences for Stop Orders and Stop Limit Orders

are designed to promote transparency by providing clarity of
circumstances when either order may be elected and make clear that,
once elected, such orders are subject to the price protection and risk
checks applicable to Market Orders and Limit Orders, respectively.
Finally, the Exchange believes that offering Non-Displayed Limit Orders
for options trading on Pillar, which are available on the Exchange's
cash equity platform, would provide additional, optional trading
functionality for OTP Holders and OTP Firms. The Exchange notes that
the proposed Non-Displayed Limit Order would function similarly to how
a PNP Blind Order that locks or crosses the contra-side NBBO would be
processed because in such circumstances, a PNP Blind Order is not
displayed. A Non-Displayed Limit Order would differ from a PNP Blind
Order only because it would never be displayed, even if its limit price
doesn't lock or cross the contra-side NBBO.
     The Exchange believes that the proposed orders (and
quotes) with instructions not to route (i.e., Non-Routable Limit Order,
ALO Order, and ISOs) would streamline the offerings available for
options trading on the Exchange by making the functionality the same
for both orders and quotes and consolidating the description of non-
routable orders and quotes in proposed Rule 6.62P-O(e). In particular,
the Exchange believes that allowing Market Makers to enter a Non-
Routable Limit Order or an ALO Order and then opt to designate such as
either as a quote or an order would streamline Exchange rules by
consolidating the description of the functionality in a single rule,
thereby adding clarity and transparency. The Exchange believes that
using Pillar terminology, including order type names, that is based on
the terminology used for cash equity trading would promote clarity and
consistency across the Exchange's cash equity and options trading
platforms.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed Non-Routable Limit Order is
not novel because it is based on how the PNP, RPNP, and MMRP orders and
quotes currently function on the OX system, including the continued
availability of the option to designate a non-routable order either to
cancel or reprice if it is marketable against an Away Market NBBO. The
Exchange believes that the proposed differences (which would be new for
options trading and are not currently available on the Exchange's cash
equity market) would provide OTP Holders and OTP Firms with greater
determinism of when such orders or quotes may be repriced by limiting
the number of times a resting order could be repriced. The Exchange
further believes that providing additional options to cancel a resting
Non-Routable Limit Order or ALO Order rather than reprice an additional
time would provide additional choice to market participants. Similarly,
the proposed ALO Order is not novel because it is based in part on how
the RALO and MMLO orders and quotes currently function on the OX
system. As such, the Exchange believes that the proposed non-routable
order/quote types would continue to provide OTP Holders and OTP Firms
with the core functionality associated with existing non-routable
order/quote types that would not be offered under Pillar, including
that the proposed rules would provide for non-routable functionality
and the ability to either reprice or cancel such orders/quotes. The
Exchange believes the proposed functionality to allow an ALO Order
(which can never be a liquidity taker) to lock non-displayed interest
(which is consistent with the treatment of ALO Orders on the Exchange's
cash equity platform) or to reprice if such order crosses non-displayed
interest, would reduce potential repricing or cancellation events for
an incoming ALO Order and would likewise reduce potential information
leakage about non-displayed interest in the Consolidated Book.
    Finally, the proposed IOC ISO is not novel for options trading on
the Exchange and the Exchange believes that the proposed Pillar
terminology to describe the same functionality would promote
transparency. The proposed DAY ISO and DAY ISO ALO functionality would
be new for options trading and are based in part on how such order
types function in the Exchange's cash equity market. In addition, the
proposed DAY ISO functionality is consistent with existing Rule 6.95-
O(b)(3), which currently provides an exception to locking or crossing
an Away Market Protected Quotation if the OTP Holder or OTP Firm
simultaneously routed an ISO to execute against the full displayed size
of any locked or crossed Protected Bid or Protected Offer. The Exchange
notes that this exception is not necessary for IOC ISOs because such
orders would never be displayed at a price that would lock or cross a
Protected Quotation; they cancel if they cannot trade. Accordingly,
this existing exception in the Exchange's rules contemplates an ISO
that would be displayed, which would mean it would need a time-in-force
modifier of ``Day.'' In addition, Day ISOs are available for options
trading on other options exchanges, and therefore are not novel.\165\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \165\ See supra notes 96, 97 (citing to availability of Day ISO
orders on Nasdaq and Cboe).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Exchange believes that the proposed additional detail
defining Complex Orders to define the ``legs'' and ``components'' of
such orders would promote transparency in Exchange rules.
     On Pillar, the only electronically-entered crossing orders
would be QCC Orders, which is consistent with current functionality.
The Exchange believes that the proposed differences, including using
Pillar terminology and consolidating rule text relating to QCC Orders
in proposed Rule 6.62P-O, would promote transparency and clarity in
Exchange rules. In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed
descriptions of how a QCC Order priced at the market would be traded,
including the proposed new functionality, would provide transparency
regarding at which price such orders would trade. The proposed
description of Complex Cross Orders, including Complex QCCs, is
designed to distinguish such orders from Single-Leg Cross Orders and to
promote clarity and transparency in Exchange rules regarding the price
requirements for a Complex Cross Order, including when there is no NBB
or NBO on a given leg or there is displayed Customer interest equal to
the best-priced complex interest. Further, Complex QCC (which, at this
time, are the only electronic Complex Cross Orders to be offered under
Pillar) are available for trading on other options exchanges, and
therefore are not novel.\166\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \166\ See supra note 102 (citing Complex QCC Order type, as
offered on Cboe and ISE).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Exchange believes that moving the descriptions of
orders available only in open outcry from Rule 6.62-O to proposed Rule
6.62P-O(h) would ensure that these order types remain in the rulebook
after the transition to Pillar is complete. For CTB Orders, the
Exchange believes that, because Floor Brokers have an existing
obligation to satisfy better-priced interest on the Consolidated Book,
the proposed change to automate such priority on Pillar (i.e., to allow
CTB Orders to satisfy any displayed interest (including non-Customer
interest) at better prices than the latest-arriving displayed Customer
interest) would not only make it easier for Floor Brokers to comply
with Exchange priority rules, but would also increase execution
opportunities and achieve the goal of a CTB Order. The Exchange also
believes that codifying this order type and the

associated regulatory obligations would add clarity and transparency in
Exchange rules.
     The proposed Proactive if Locked/Crossed Modifier, STP
Modifier, and MTS Modifier are not novel and are based on the
Exchange's current cash equity modifiers of the same name. The Exchange
believes that extending the availability of these existing modifiers to
options trading would provide OTP Holders and OTP Firms with
additional, optional functionality that is not novel and is based on
existing Exchange rules. Further, such proposed optional functionality
would afford OTP Holders and OTP Firms with greater flexibility in
specifying how their trading interest should be handled. For example,
the proposed MTS Modifier works similarly to the existing (and
proposed) AON functionality, but provides the OTP Holder or OTP Firm
with the alternative to designate a portion smaller than the full
quantity as the minimum trade size. The Exchange further believes that
extending the availability of STP Modifiers to all orders and quotes,
and not just those of Market Makers, would provide additional
protections for OTP Holders and OTP Firms and facilitate their
compliance and risk management by assisting them in avoiding
unintentional wash-sale trading.
Market Maker Quotations
    The Exchange believes that proposed Rule 6.37AP-O would remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system because it is based on current Rule 6.37A-O,
with such changes as necessary to use Pillar terminology. The Exchange
believes that consolidating into one rule functionality for orders and
quotes, such that Non-Routable Limit Orders and ALO Orders may be
designated as quotes per proposed Rule 6.37AP-O, would obviate the need
to separately describe the same functionality in two rules and
therefore streamline the Exchange's rules and promote transparency and
consistency.
Pre-Trade and Activity-Based Risk Controls
    The Exchange believes that the proposed Rule 6.40P-O, setting forth
pre-trade and activity-based risk controls, would remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system and promote just and equitable principles of trade
because the proposed functionality would incorporate existing activity-
based risk controls, without any substantive differences, and augment
them with additional pre-trade risk controls and related functionality
that are based on the pre-trade risk controls currently available on
the Exchange's cash equity trading platform. The Exchange believes that
the proposed differences are designed to provide greater flexibility to
OTP Holders and OTP Firms in how to set risk controls for both orders
and quotes. The Exchange believes that using Pillar terminology based
on the cash equity rules, including using the term ``Entering Firm'' to
mean OTP Holders and OTP Firms, including Market Makers, would promote
transparency in Exchange rules. In addition, the proposed Single Order
Maximum Notional Value Risk Limit and Single Order Maximum Quantity
Risk Limit checks would provide Entering Firms with additional risk
protection mechanisms on an individual order or quote basis. Moreover,
the Exchange believes that aggregating a Market Maker's quotes and
orders for purposes of calculating activity-based risk controls would
better reflect the aggregate risk that a Market Maker has with respect
to its quotes and orders. The Exchange further believes that the
proposed Automated Breach Actions would provide Entering Firms with
additional flexibility in how they could set their risk mechanisms and
the automated responses if a risk mechanism is breached. The proposed
Kill Switch Action functionality would also provide OTP Holders and OTP
Firms with greater flexibility to provide bulk instructions to the
Exchange with respect to cancelling existing orders and quotes and
blocking new orders and quotes. Further, as noted herein, providing
``Kill Switch Action'' functionality in Exchange rules is consistent
with the rules of other options exchanges.\167\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \167\ See supra note 115 (citing optional ``Kill Switch''
functionality available on Cboe).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Price Reasonability Checks--Orders and Quotes
    The Exchange believes that the proposed Rule 6.41P-O, setting forth
Price Reasonability Checks, would remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system
because they are based on existing functionality, with differences
designed to use Pillar terminology and promote consistency and
transparency in Exchange rules. Specifically, on Pillar, the Exchange
proposes to apply the same types of Price Reasonability Checks to both
orders and quotes, and therefore proposes to describe those checks in a
single rule--proposed Rule 6.41P-O. The proposed rule also provides
specificity regarding when the Price Reasonability Checks would be
applied to an order or quote, which would promote transparency and
clarity in Exchange rules. In addition, the Exchange believes that by
utilizing the last sale on the Primary Market (rather than the
Consolidated Last Sale) for the Price Reasonability Checks, the Pillar
system would need to ingest and process less data, thereby improving
efficiency and performance of the system without compromising the price
protection features.
Auction Process
    The Exchange believes that proposed Rule 6.64P-O would remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system because the proposed rule maintains the
fundamentals of an auction process that is tailored for options trading
while at the same time enhancing the process by incorporating certain
Pillar auction functionality that is currently available on the
Exchange's cash equity platform, as described in Rule 7.35-E. For
example, the Exchange proposes to augment the imbalance information
that would be disseminated in advance of an Auction to include fields
available on the Exchange's cash equity market (e.g., Book Clearing
Price, Far Clearing Price, Auction Collars, and Auction Indicators),
yet tailor such information to be specific to options trading (e.g.,
Auction Collars based on a Legal Width Quote and how the Auction
Indicator would be determined). The Exchange believes that the proposed
additional Auction Imbalance Information would promote transparency to
market participants in advance of an Auction. The Exchange also
proposes to transition to continuous trading following an Auction in a
manner similar to how the Exchange's cash equity market transitions to
continuous trading following a cash equity Trading Halt Auction,
including how orders and quotes that are received during an Auction
Processing Period would be processed, which the Exchange believes would
promote consistency across the Exchange's options and cash equity
trading platforms. The proposed rule describing how orders and quotes
that are received during the Auction Processing Period would be
handled, and how unexecuted quotes and orders would be transitioned to
continuous trading would provide granularity regarding the process,
thereby providing transparency in Exchange rules. Because the Exchange
would be harnessing Pillar technology to support Auctions for

options trading, the Exchange believes that structuring proposed Rule
6.64P-O based on Rule 7.35-E (and NYSE Rule 7.35, in part, as well)
would promote transparency in the Exchange's trading rules.
    The Exchange further believes that the proposed Auction Process for
options trading on Pillar would remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system. The
proposed process maintains the core functionality of the current
options auction process, including that orders are matched based on
price-time priority and that an Auction would not be conducted if the
bid-ask differential is not within an acceptable range. As proposed,
the Auction Process on Pillar would begin with the proposed Rotational
Quote, which would provide notice not only of when the process would
begin, but also whether Market Makers on the Exchange have quoted in a
series. Similar to the current rule, the Exchange would require a
``Calculated NBBO,'' which is calculated using information consistent
with the information the Exchange receives from OPRA before the
Exchange opens a series, to meet specified requirements, including that
it not be crossed, not have a zero offer, and meet specified bid-ask
differentials, i.e., be a ``Legal Width Quote'' before a series can be
opened with a trade.\168\ The Exchange believes that the proposed bid-
ask differentials for a Legal Width Quote are consistent with current
functionality, with one difference designed to improve the automated
implementation by using whole dollar amounts as the break point for the
next level of bid-ask differentials. In addition, the Exchange believes
that the proposed Auction Trigger, which would begin the Auction
Process, is consistent with the current trigger for starting an
auction. The Exchange believes that the proposed difference to allow
the trade on the Primary Market to be odd-lot sized (in addition to
having a quote from the Primary Market, which means that the underlying
security would be open on the Primary Market), would allow for series
overlaying low-volume securities to open automatically and reduce the
need to manually trigger an Auction in a series.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \168\ As noted herein, the concept of a Calculated NBBO is
consistent with similar concepts utilized on other options exchanges
and is therefore not new or novel. See, e.g., Cboe Rule 5.31(a)
(regarding used of ``Composite Market'' concept).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As with the current rule, Market Makers are not obligated to quote
in their assigned series for an Auction. However, the Exchange believes
that having Market Makers quote in their assigned series would promote
fair and orderly Auctions. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes a
difference on Pillar to provide time for Market Maker(s) assigned to a
series to enter quotes within the specified bid-ask differentials
before a series could be opened or reopened. The proposed Opening MMQ
Time Parameter would be a minute, and the proposed rule provides
transparency of how many Market Makers assigned to a series would be
required to quote in a series and in what time periods. If Market
Makers do not quote within those specified time periods, but at the end
of the Opening MMQ Time Parameter there is a Legal Width Quote based on
the Away Market NBBO, the Exchange would open or reopen that series for
trading. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule would promote
transparency in Exchange rules of when the Exchange could open or
reopen a series, including circumstances of when the Exchange would
wait to provide Market Makers time to submit a two-sided quotation in a
series and when the Exchange would proceed with opening or reopening a
series based on a Legal Width Quote even if there are no Market Maker
quotes in that series.
    The proposed rule would also provide transparency of when the
Exchange would open or reopen a series for trading when the Calculated
NBBO is wider than the Legal Width Quote for the series. The Exchange
believes that the proposed process is designed to provide additional
opportunities for a series to open or reopen not currently available on
the OX system, while at the same time preserving the existing
requirement that a series would not open on a trade if there is no
Legal Width Quote. The proposed functionality to provide additional
opportunities to open or reopen a series when the market is wider than
the specified bid-ask differentials is not novel and the Exchange
believes that this proposed rule would allow for more automated
Auctions on the Exchange for series that may already be opened on
another exchange.\169\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \169\ See, e.g., Cboe Rule 5.31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the proposed rule describing how existing and new orders
would be processed during a trading halt is designed to provide
additional granularity in Exchange rules. Certain of the proposed
functionality is based on current processes. The Exchange believes that
the proposed differences in order/quote handling would remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market
because they align with the proposed differences in behavior for
specified orders and quotes on Pillar. For example, the Exchange
believes that repricing resting non-routable orders and quotes during a
trading halt to their limit price would be consistent with how such
orders would be processed in an Auction if they arrived during a pre-
open state. The proposed differences also reflect that on Pillar, ALO
Orders would be eligible to participate in an Auction. In addition, the
Exchange believes that canceling orders that are subject to the Trading
Collar 500 millisecond timer would be consistent with the intent of
such functionality, which is to cancel such collared orders after a
specified time period.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange operates in a
competitive market and regularly competes with other options exchanges
for order flow. The Exchange believes that the transition to Pillar
would promote competition among options exchanges by offering a low-
latency, deterministic trading platform. The proposed rule changes
would support that inter-market competition by allowing the Exchange to
offer additional functionality to its OTP Holders and OTP Firms,
thereby potentially attracting additional order flow to the Exchange.
Otherwise, the proposed changes are not designed to address any
competitive issues, but rather to amend the Exchange's rules relating
to options trading to support the transition to Pillar. As discussed in
detail above, with this rule filing, the Exchange is not proposing to
change its core functionality regarding its price-time priority model,
and in particular, how it would rank, display, execute or route orders
and quotes. Rather, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule
changes would promote consistent use of terminology to support both
options and cash equity trading on the Exchange, making the Exchange's
rules easier to navigate. The Exchange does not believe that the
proposed rule changes would raise any intra-market competition as the
proposed rule changes would be applicable to all OTP Holders and OTP
Firms, and reflects the Exchange's existing price-time priority model,
including existing LMM Guarantee, without proposing any substantive
changes.

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

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

III. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove SR-
NYSEArca-2021-47, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, and Grounds for
Disapproval Under Consideration

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \170\ to determine whether the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, should be approved or
disapproved. Institution of such proceedings is appropriate at this
time in view of the legal and policy issues raised by the proposed rule
change. Institution of proceedings does not indicate that the
Commission has reached any conclusions with respect to any of the
issues involved. Rather, as described below, the Commission seeks and
encourages interested persons to provide comments on the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \170\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\171\ the Commission is
providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration.
The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional
analysis of the proposed rule change's consistency with Section 6(b)(5)
of the Act \172\ 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, . . . 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,'' \173\ and
not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.\174\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \171\ Id.
    \172\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \173\ Id.
    \174\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Procedure: Request for Written Comments

    The Commission requests that interested persons provide written
submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the
issues 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 proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with Section
6(b)(5) 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 that would be facilitated by an oral
presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will
consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4 under the Act, any request for an
opportunity to make an oral presentation.\175\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \175\ Section 19(b)(2) of the Act 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 an SRO. See Securities
Acts Amendments of 1975, Report of the Senate Committee on Banking,
Housing and Urban Affairs to Accompany S. 249, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th
Cong., 1st Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments regarding whether the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, should be approved or disapproved by October 28, 2021.
Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's
submission must file that rebuttal by November 12, 2021. The Commission
asks that commenters address the sufficiency of the Exchange's
statements in support of the proposal, which are set forth in Amendment
No. 1,\176\ and any other issues raised by the proposed rule change
under the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \176\ See supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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-NYSEArca-2021-47 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-NYSEArca-2021-47. 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-NYSEArca-2021-47 and should be submitted
on or before October 28, 2021. Rebuttal comments should be submitted by
November 12, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \177\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12) & 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\177\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-21624 Filed 10-6-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 47 (Wednesday, March 11, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 12814]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05547]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER15-1171-000]

Chalk Cliff Limited; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding,
of Chalk Cliff Limited's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such application
includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of
future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability is March 24, 2015.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 4, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-05547 Filed 3-10-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical.  Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies.  The NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.  This rulemaking
does not involve technical standards.   Therefore, EPA is not
considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

J.  Executive Order 12898:  Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice.  Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by
identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.

EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations, because it effects the
level of environmental protection equally for all affected populations
without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or
low-income population.  Any ozone depletion that results from this
proposed rule will impact all affected populations equally because ozone
depletion is a global environmental problem with environmental and human
effects that are, in general, equally distributed across geographical
regions.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82

	Environmental protection, Ozone depletion, Chemicals, Exports, Imports.

Dated:  ____________________

______________________________________________

Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, 40 CFR Part 82 is proposed to
be amended as follows:

PART 82- PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE

1. The authority citation for part 82 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671-7671q.

2. Section 82.8 is amended by revising the table in paragraph (c)(1) and
paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows:

§ 82.8 Grant of essential use allowances and critical use allowances.

*   *   *   *   *

(c) * * *

(1) * * *

Company	2008 Critical use allowances for pre-plant uses* (kilograms)
2008 Critical use allowances for post-harvest uses* (kilograms)

Great Lakes Chemical Corp.	1,691,276	193,248

Albemarle Corp.	695,491	79,468

Ameribrom, Inc.	384,343	43,916

TriCal, Inc.	11,967	1,367

Total	2,783,078	317,998

* For production or import of class I, Group VI controlled substance
exclusively for the Pre-Plant or Post-Harvest uses specified in appendix
L to this subpart.

(2) Allocated critical stock allowances granted for specified control
period.  The following companies are allocated critical stock allowances
for 2008 on a pro-rata basis in relation to the inventory held by each.

Company

	Albemarle	Industrial Fumigation Company

Ameribrom, Inc.	J.C. Ehrlich Co.

Bill Clark Pest Control, Inc.	Pacific Ag

Blair Soil Fumigation	Pest Fog Sales Corp.

Burnside Services, Inc.	Prosource One

Cardinal Professional Products	Reddick Fumigants

Carolina Eastern, Inc.	Royster-Clark, Inc.

Degesch America, Inc.	Southern State Cooperative, Inc.

Dodson Bros.	Trical Inc.

Great Lakes Chemical Corp.	Trident Agricultural Products

Harvey Fertilizer & Gas	UAP Southeast (NC)

Helena Chemical Co.	UAP Southeast (SC)

Hendrix & Dail	Univar

Hy Yield Bromine	Vanguard Fumigation Co.

	Western Fumigation

TOTAL – 1,715,438 kilograms

3. Appendix L to Subpart A is revised to read as follows:

APPENDIX L TO PART 82 SUBPART A – APPROVED CRITICAL USES AND LIMITING
CRITICAL CONDITIONS FOR THOSE USES FOR THE 2008 CONTROL PERIOD

Column A	Column B	Column C

Approved Critical Uses	Approved Critical User and Location of Use
Limiting Critical Conditions

that either exist, or that the approved critical user reasonably expects
could arise without methyl bromide fumigation:

PRE-PLANT USES

Cucurbits	(a) Michigan growers	Moderate to severe soilborne disease
infestation

A need for methyl bromide for field trial research purposes

	(b) Southeastern U.S. limited to growing locations in Alabama,
Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia  	Moderate to severe yellow or purple
nutsedge infestation

Moderate to severe soilborne disease infestation

Moderate to severe root knot nematode infestation

A need for methyl bromide for field trial research purposes

	(c) Georgia growers	Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge
infestation

Moderate to severe soilborne disease infestation

Moderate to severe root knot nematode infestation

A need for methyl bromide for field trial research purposes

Eggplant	(a) Florida growers	Moderate to severe yellow or purple
nutsedge infestation

Moderate to severe soilborne disease infestation

Restrictions on alternatives due to karst topographical features and
soils not supporting seepage irrigation

A need for methyl bromide for field trial research purposes

	(b) Georgia growers	Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge
infestation Moderate to severe nematode infestation

Moderate to severe pythium collar, crown and root rot

Moderate to severe southern blight infestation

Restrictions on alternatives due to karst topographical features

A need for methyl bromide for field trial research purposes

	(c) Michigan growers	Moderate to severe soilborne disease infestation

A need for methyl bromide for field trial research purposes

Forest Nursery Seedlings	(a) Growers in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia,
Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia 	Moderate to severe yellow or purple
nutsedge infestation

Moderate to severe soilborne disease infestation

Moderate to severe nematode infestation

	(b) International Paper and its subsidiaries limited to growing
locations in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas
Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation  Moderate to
severe soilborne disease infestation

	(c) Public (government-owned) seedling nurseries in Illinois,  Indiana,
Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West
Virginia, and Wisconsin	Moderate to severe weed infestation including
purple and yellow nutsedge infestation

Moderate to severe Canada thistle infestation

Moderate to severe nematode infestation

Moderate to severe soilborne disease infestation

	(d) Weyerhaeuser Company and its subsidiaries limited to growing
locations in Alabama, Arkansas, North Carolina, and South Carolina
Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation

Moderate to severe soilborne disease infestation

Moderate to severe nematode or worm infestation

	(e) Weyerhaeuser Company and its subsidiaries limited to growing
locations in Oregon and Washington 	Moderate to severe yellow nutsedge
infestation

Moderate to severe soilborne disease infestation

	(f) Michigan growers	Moderate to severe soilborne disease infestation

Moderate to severe Canada thistle infestation

Moderate to severe nutsedge infestation

Moderate to severe nematode infestation

	(g) Michigan herbaceous perennials growers	Moderate to severe nematode
infestation

Moderate to severe soilborne disease infestation

Moderate to severe  yellow nutsedge and other weed infestation

Orchard Nursery Seedlings	(a) Members of the Western Raspberry Nursery
Consortium limited to growing locations in California and Washington
Moderate to severe nematode infestation

Presence of medium to heavy clay soils

Prohibition on use of 1,3-dichloropropene products because local
township limits on use of this alternative have been reached

A need for methyl bromide for field trial research purposes

	(b) Members of the California Association of Nursery and Garden Centers
representing Deciduous Tree Fruit Growers	Moderate to severe nematode
infestation

Presence of medium to heavy clay soils

Prohibition on use of 1,3-dichloropropene products because local
township limits on use of this alternative have been reached

A need for methyl bromide for field trial research purposes

	(c) California rose nurseries	Moderate to severe nematode infestation

Prohibition on use of 1,3-dichloropropene products because local
township limits on use of this alternative have been reached

A need for methyl bromide for field trial research purposes

Strawberry Nurseries	(a) California growers	Moderate to severe soilborne
disease infestation

Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation

Moderate to severe nematode infestation

A need for methyl bromide for field trial research purposes

	(b) North Carolina and Tennessee growers	Moderate to severe black root
rot

Moderate to severe root-knot nematode infestation

Moderate to severe yellow and purple nutsedge infestation

A need for methyl bromide for field trial research purposes

Orchard Replant	(a) California stone fruit growers	Moderate to severe
nematode infestation

Moderate to severe soilborne disease  infestation

Replanted (non-virgin) orchard soils to prevent orchard replant disease

Presence of medium to heavy soils

Prohibition on use of 1,3-dichloropropene products because local
township limits on use of this alternative have been reached

	(b) California table and raisin grape growers 	Moderate to severe
nematode infestation

Moderate to severe soilborne disease  infestation

Replanted (non-virgin) orchard soils to prevent orchard replant disease

Medium to heavy soils

Prohibition on use of 1,3-dichloropropene products because local
township limits for this alternative have been reached

	(c) California wine grape growers	Moderate to severe nematode
infestation

Moderate to severe soilborne disease infestation

Replanted (non-virgin) orchard soils to prevent orchard replant disease

Medium to heavy soils

Prohibition on use of 1,3-dichloropropene products because local
township limits for this alternative have been reached

	(d) California walnut growers	Moderate to severe nematode infestation

Moderate to severe soilborne disease infestation

Replanted (non-virgin) orchard soils to prevent orchard replant disease

Medium to heavy soils

Prohibition on use of 1,3-dichloropropene products because local
township limits for this alternative have been reached

	(e) California almond growers	Moderate to severe nematode infestation

Moderate to severe soilborne disease infestation

Replanted (non-virgin) orchard soils to prevent orchard replant disease

Medium to heavy soils

Prohibition on use of 1,3-dichloropropene products because local
township limits for this alternative have been reached

Ornamentals	(a) California growers	Moderate to severe soilborne disease
infestation

Moderate to severe nematode infestation

Prohibition on use of 1,3-dichloropropene products because local
township limits for this alternative have been reached

A need for methyl bromide for field trial research purposes

	(b) Florida growers	Moderate to severe weed infestation

Moderate to severe soilborne disease infestation

Moderate to severe nematode infestation

Restrictions on alternatives due to karst topographical features and
soils not supporting seepage irrigation

A need for methyl bromide for field trial research purposes

Peppers	(b) Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia growers	Moderate to
severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation Moderate to severe nematode
infestation

Moderate to severe pythium root, collar, crown and root rots

A need for methyl bromide for field trial research purposes

	(c) Florida growers	Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge
infestation

Moderate to severe soilborne disease infestation

Moderate to severe nematode infestation

Restrictions on alternatives due to karst topographical features and
soils not supporting seepage irrigation

A need for methyl bromide for field trial research purposes

	(d) Georgia growers	Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge
infestation Moderate to severe nematode infestation, or moderate to
severe pythium root and collar rots

Moderate to severe southern blight infestation, crown or root rot

A need for methyl bromide for field trial research purposes

	(e) Michigan growers	Moderate to severe soilborne disease  infestation

A need for methyl bromide for field trial research purposes

Strawberry Fruit	(a) California growers	Moderate to severe black root
rot or crown rot

Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation

Moderate to severe nematode infestation

Prohibition on use of 1,3-dichloropropene products because local
township limits for this alternative have been reached

Time to transition to an alternative

A need for methyl bromide for field trial research purposes

	(b) Florida growers	Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge
infestation

Moderate to severe nematode infestation

Moderate to severe soilborne disease infestation

Carolina geranium or cut-leaf evening primrose infestation

Restrictions on alternatives due to karst topographical features and
soils not supporting seepage irrigation

a need for methyl bromide for field trial research purposes

	(c) Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, South
Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia growers	Moderate to severe yellow or
purple nutsedge infestation

Moderate to severe nematode infestation

Moderate to severe black root and crown rot

A need for methyl bromide for field trial research purposes

Sweet Potato Slips	(a) California growers	Prohibition on use of
1,3-dichloropropene products because local township limits for this
alternative have been reached

Tomatoes	(a) Michigan growers	Moderate to severe soilborne disease
infestation

Moderate to severe fungal pathogen infestation

A need for methyl bromide for field trial research purposes

	(c) Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia
growers	Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation
Moderate to severe soilborne disease infestation

Moderate to severe nematodes

Restrictions on alternatives due to karst topographical features, and in
Florida, soils not supporting seepage irrigation

A need for methyl bromide for field trial research purposes

POST-HARVEST  USES

Food Processing	(a) Rice millers in all locations in the U.S. who are
members of the USA Rice Millers Association.	Moderate to severe
infestation of beetles, weevils or moths

Older structures that can not be properly sealed to use an alternative
to methyl bromide

Presence of sensitive electronic equipment subject to corrosion

Time to transition to an alternative

	(b) Pet food manufacturing facilities in the U.S. who are active
members of the Pet Food Institute  (For this proposed rule, “pet
food” refers to domestic dog and cat food).  	Moderate to severe
infestation or beetles, moths, or cockroaches

Older structures that can not be properly sealed to use an alternative
to methyl bromide

Presence of sensitive electronic equipment subject to corrosion

Time to transition to an alternatives

	(c) Bakeries in the U.S.	Older structures that can not be properly
sealed to use an alternative to methyl bromide

Presence of sensitive electronic equipment subject to corrosion

Time to transition to an alternative

	(d) Members of the North American Millers’ Association in the U.S.
Moderate to severe beetle infestation

Older structures that can not be properly sealed to use an alternative
to methyl bromide

Presence of sensitive electronic equipment subject to corrosion

Time to transition to an alternative

	(e) Members of the National Pest Management Association associated with
dry commodity structure fumigation (cocoa) and dry commodity fumigation
(processed food, herbs and spices, dried milk and cheese processing
facilities)	Moderate to severe beetle or moth  infestation

Older structures that can not be properly sealed to use an alternative
to methyl bromide

Presence of sensitive electronic equipment subject to corrosion

Time to transition to an alternatives

Commodities	(a) California entities storing walnuts, beans, dried plums,
figs, raisins, dates (in Riverside county only), and pistachios in
California	Rapid fumigation is required to meet a critical market
window, such as during the holiday season, rapid fumigation is required
when a buyer provides short (2 working days or less) notification for a
purchase or there is a short period after harvest in which to fumigate
and there is limited silo availability for using alternatives

A need for methyl bromide for field trial research purposes

Dry Cured Pork Products	(a) Members of the National Country Ham
Association	Moderate to severe red legged ham beetle infestation

Moderate to severe cheese/ham skipper infestation

Moderate to severe dermested beetle infestation

Ham mite infestation

	(b) Members of the American Association of Meat Processors	Moderate to
severe red legged ham beetle infestation

Moderate to severe cheese/ham skipper infestation

Moderate to severe dermested beetle infestation

Ham mite infestation

	(c) Nahunta Pork Center (North Carolina)	Moderate to severe red legged
ham beetle infestation

Moderate to severe cheese/ham skipper infestation

Moderate to severe dermested beetle infestation

Ham mite infestation

	(d) Gwaltney and Smithfield Inc.	Moderate to severe red legged ham
beetle infestation

Moderate to severe cheese/ham skipper infestation

Moderate to severe dermested beetle infestation

Ham mite infestation

 Due to rounding, numbers do not add exactly.

 Due to rounding, numbers do not add exactly.

 Due to rounding, numbers do not add exactly.

 Due to rounding, numbers do not add exactly.

 Due to rounding, numbers do not add exactly.

 PAGE

 PAGE   80

DRAFT – DO NOT QUOTE OR CIRUCLATE

 PAGE

DRAFT – DO NOT QUOTE OR CIRCULATE

The analysis for the Technical Support Document is complete.  The
information contained in that analysis is CBI.  EPA is producing a
redacted version for the public docket, which it will circulate to the
inter-agency group as soon as possible.