[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 158 (Wednesday, August 15, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40605-40610]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17495]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83814; File No. SR-PEARL-2018-17]

Self-Regulatory Organizations: Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change by MIAX PEARL, LLC To Amend the
MIAX PEARL Fee Schedule

August 9, 2018.
    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice
is hereby given that on August 1, 2018, MIAX PEARL, LLC (``MIAX PEARL''
or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Add/Remove Tiered Rebates/Fees
set forth in Section 1(a) of the Fee Schedule to (i) decrease Maker (as
defined below) rebates in Tier 6 for options transactions in Penny
classes (as defined below) and non-Penny classes (as defined below) for
Priority Customers; \3\ (ii) increase Taker (as defined below) fees in
certain Tiers for options transactions in Penny classes and in all
Tiers for options transactions in non-Penny classes for MIAX PEARL
Market Makers,\4\ and (iii) increase the Taker fees in all Tiers for
options transactions in non-Penny classes for Non-Priority Customers,
Firms, Broker-Dealers and Non-MIAX PEARL Market Makers (collectively
herein ``Professional Members'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Priority Customer'' means a person or entity that (i) is
not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) does not place more
than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a
calendar month for its own beneficial account(s). See Exchange Rule
100, including Interpretations and Policies .01.
    \4\ ``Market Maker'' means a Member registered with the Exchange
for the purpose of making markets in options contracts traded on the
Exchange. See the Definitions Section of the Fee Schedule and
Exchange Rule 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange currently assesses transaction rebates and fees to all
market participants which are based upon the total monthly volume
executed by the Member \5\ on MIAX PEARL in the relevant, respective
origin type (not including Excluded Contracts) \6\ expressed as a
percentage of TCV.\7\ In addition, the per contract transaction rebates
and fees are applied retroactively to all eligible volume for that
origin type once the respective threshold tier (``Tier'') has been
reached by the Member. The Exchange aggregates the volume of Members
and their Affiliates.\8\ Members that place resting liquidity, i.e.,
orders resting on the book of the MIAX PEARL System,\9\ are paid the
specified ``maker'' rebate (each a ``Maker''), and Members that execute
against resting liquidity are assessed the specified ``taker'' fee
(each a ``Taker''). For opening transactions and ABBO uncrossing
transactions, per contract transaction rebates and fees are waived for
all market participants. Finally, Members are assessed lower
transaction fees and receive lower rebates for order executions in
standard option classes in the Penny Pilot Program \10\ (``Penny
classes'') than for order executions in standard option classes which
are not in the Penny Pilot Program (``non-Penny classes''), where
Members are assessed higher transaction fees and receive higher
rebates. Transaction rebates and fees in Section 1(a) of the Fee
Schedule are currently assessed according to the following tables:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``Member'' means an individual or organization that is
registered with the Exchange pursuant to Chapter II of the Exchange
Rules for purposes of trading on the Exchange as an ``Electronic
Exchange Member'' or ``Market Maker.'' Members are deemed
``members'' under the Exchange Act. See the Definitions Section of
the Fee Schedule and Exchange Rule 100.
    \6\ ``Excluded Contracts'' means any contracts routed to an away
market for execution. See the Definitions Section of the Fee
Schedule.
    \7\ ``TCV'' means total consolidated volume calculated as the
total national volume in those classes listed on MIAX PEARL for the
month for which the fees apply, excluding consolidated volume
executed during the period time in which the Exchange experiences an
``Exchange System Disruption'' (solely in the option classes of the
affected Matching Engine (as defined below)). The term Exchange
System Disruption, which is defined in the Definitions section of
the Fee Schedule, means an outage of a Matching Engine or collective
Matching Engines for a period of two consecutive hours or more,
during trading hours. The term Matching Engine, which is also
defined in the Definitions section of the Fee Schedule, is a part of
the MIAX PEARL electronic system that processes options orders and
trades on a symbol-by-symbol basis. Some Matching Engines will
process option classes with multiple root symbols, and other
Matching Engines may be dedicated to one single option root symbol
(for example, options on SPY may be processed by one single Matching
Engine that is dedicated only to SPY). A particular root symbol may
only be assigned to a single designated Matching Engine. A
particular root symbol may not be assigned to multiple Matching
Engines. The Exchange believes that it is reasonable and appropriate
to select two consecutive hours as the amount of time necessary to
constitute an Exchange System Disruption, as two hours equates to
approximately 1.4% of available trading time per month. The Exchange
notes that the term ``Exchange System Disruption'' and its meaning
have no applicability outside of the Fee Schedule, as it is used
solely for purposes of calculating volume for the threshold tiers in
the Fee Schedule. See the Definitions Section of the Fee Schedule.
    \8\ ``Affiliate'' means (i) an affiliate of a Member of at least
75% common ownership between the firms as reflected on each firm's
Form BD, Schedule A, or (ii) the Appointed Market Maker of an
Appointed EEM (or, conversely, the Appointed EEM of an Appointed
Market Maker). An ``Appointed Market Maker'' is a MIAX PEARL Market
Maker (who does not otherwise have a corporate affiliation based
upon common ownership with an EEM) that has been appointed by an EEM
and an ``Appointed EEM'' is an EEM (who does not otherwise have a
corporate affiliation based upon common ownership with a MIAX PEARL
Market Maker) that has been appointed by a MIAX PEARL Market Maker,
pursuant to the process described in the Fee Schedule. See the
Definitions Section of the Fee Schedule.
    \9\ The term ``System'' means the automated trading system used
by the Exchange for the trading of securities. See Exchange Rule
100.
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83517 (June 25,
2018), 83 FR 30792 (June 29, 2018) (SR-PEARL-2018-14).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Per contract rebates/fees for penny classes       Per contract rebates/
                                                                           ----------------------------------------------------    fees for non-penny
               Origin                     Tier         Volume criteria                                                                   classes
                                                          (percent)            Maker       Taker *     SPY taker    QQQ, IWM,  -------------------------
                                                                                VXX taker      Maker        Taker
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority Customer...................            1  0.00-0.10..............      ($0.25)        $0.48        $0.44        $0.47      ($0.85)        $0.87
                                                2  Above 0.10-0.35........       (0.40)         0.46         0.43         0.46       (0.95)         0.86
                                                3  Above 0.35-0.50........       (0.45)         0.44         0.42         0.44       (1.00)         0.85
                                                4  Above 0.50-0.75........       (0.52)         0.44         0.41         0.43       (1.03)         0.84
                                                5  Above 0.75-1.25........       (0.53)         0.44         0.40         0.42       (1.04)         0.84
                                                6  Above 1.25.............       (0.54)         0.43         0.38         0.40       (1.05)         0.84
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* For all Penny Classes other than SPY, QQQ, IWM, and VXX.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Per contract rebates/fees for   Per contract rebates/fees for
                                                                                penny classes                 non-penny classes
                  Origin                         Tier         Volume criteria (percent)  ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Maker           Taker         Maker **        Taker **
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All MIAX PEARL Market Makers..............               1  0.00-0.15...................         ($0.25)           $0.50         ($0.30)           $1.05
                                                         2  Above 0.15-0.40.............          (0.40)            0.50          (0.30)            1.05
                                                         3  Above 0.40-0.65.............          (0.40)            0.48          (0.60)            1.03
                                                         4  Above 0.65-1.00 or Above              (0.47)            0.43          (0.65)            1.02
                                                             2.25 in SPY.
                                                         5  Above 1.00-1.40.............          (0.48)            0.43          (0.70)            1.02
                                                         6  Above 1.40..................          (0.48)            0.43          (0.85)            1.02
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Per contract rebates/fees for   Per contract rebates/fees for
                                                                                penny classes                 non-penny classes
                  Origin                         Tier         Volume criteria (percent)  ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Maker [caret]                       Maker
                                                                                Taker         **[caret]       Taker **
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Priority Customer, Firm, BD, and Non-                1  0.00-0.15...................         ($0.25)           $0.50         ($0.30)           $1.05
 MIAX PEARL Market Makers.                               2  Above 0.15-0.40.............          (0.40)            0.50          (0.30)            1.05
                                                         3  Above 0.40-0.65.............          (0.40)            0.48          (0.60)            1.04
                                                         4  Above 0.65-1.00.............          (0.47)            0.48          (0.65)            1.04
                                                         5  Above 1.00-1.40.............          (0.48)            0.48          (0.70)            1.04
                                                         6  Above 1.40..................          (0.48)            0.48          (0.85)            1.04
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
** Members may qualify for the Maker Rebate and the Taker Fee associated with the highest Tier for transactions in Non-Penny classes if the Member
  executes more than 0.30% volume in Non-Penny classes, not including Excluded Contracts, as compared to the TCV in all MIAX PEARL listed option
  classes. For purposes of qualifying for such rates, the Exchange will aggregate the volume transacted by Members and their Affiliates in the following
  Origin types in Non-Penny classes: MIAX PEARL Market Makers, and Non-Priority Customer, Firm, BD, and Non-MIAX PEARL Market Makers.
[caret] Members may qualify for Maker Rebates equal to the greater of: (A) ($0.40) for Penny Classes and ($0.65) for Non-Penny Classes, or (B) the
  amount set forth in the applicable Tier reached by the Member in the relevant Origin, if the Member and their Affiliates execute at least 1.50% volume
  in the relevant month, in Priority Customer Origin type, in all options classes, not including Excluded Contracts, as compared to the TCV in all MIAX
  PEARL listed option classes.

    Except as otherwise set forth herein, the Volume Criteria is
calculated based on the total monthly volume executed by the Member in
all options classes on MIAX PEARL in the relevant Origin type, not
including Excluded Contracts, (as the numerator) expressed as a
percentage of (divided by) TCV (as the denominator). In Tier 4 for MIAX
PEARL Market Makers, the alternative Volume Criteria (above 2.25% in
SPY) is calculated based on the total monthly volume executed by the
Market Maker solely in SPY options on MIAX PEARL in the relevant Origin
type, not including Excluded Contracts, (as the numerator) expressed as
a percentage of (divided by) SPY TCV (as the denominator). The per
contract transaction rebates and fees shall be applied retroactively to
all eligible volume once the threshold has been reached by Member. The
Exchange aggregates the volume of Members and their Affiliates in the
Add/Remove Tiered Fees. The per contract transaction rebates and fees
shall be waived for transactions executed during the opening and for
transactions that uncross the ABBO.

Maker Rebates

    The Exchange proposes to decrease the Maker rebate amounts in Tier
6 as described below for Penny and non-Penny classes for Priority
Customers. Specifically, for Priority Customer options transactions in
Penny classes, the Exchange proposes to decrease the Maker rebate in
Tier 6 from ($0.54) to ($0.53). For Priority Customer options
transactions in non-Penny classes, the Exchange proposes to decrease
the Maker rebate in Tier 6 from ($1.05) to ($1.04).

Taker Fees

    The Exchange proposes to: (i) Increase the Taker fees assessable to
MIAX PEARL Market Makers in certain Tiers for options transactions in
Penny classes and in all Tiers for options transactions in non-Penny
classes, and (ii) increase the Taker fees assessable to Professional
Members in all tiers for options transactions in non-Penny classes.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to increase the Taker fees for MIAX
PEARL Market Makers orders in options in Penny classes in Tier 4 from
$0.43 to $0.47, in Tier 5 from $0.43 to $0.45 and in Tier 6 from $0.43
to $0.44. The Exchange also proposes to increase the Taker fee for MIAX
PEARL Market Makers for options transactions in non-Penny classes in
Tier 1 from $1.05 to $1.10, in Tier 2 from $1.05 to $1.10, in Tier 3
from $1.03 to $1.09, in Tier 4 from $1.02 to $1.08, in Tier 5 from
$1.02 to $1.07 and in Tier 6 from $1.02 to $1.06. The Exchange proposes
to increase the Taker fees for Professional Members for options
transactions in non-Penny classes in Tier 1 from $1.05 to $1.10, in
Tier 2 from $1.05 to $1.10, in Tier 3 from $1.04 to $1.10, in Tier 4
from $1.04 to $1.09, in Tier 5 from $1.04 to $1.08 and in Tier 6 from
$1.04 to $1.07.
    The purpose of increasing the specified Taker fees and decreasing
the specified Maker rebates is for business and competitive reasons. As
a new exchange, in order to attract order flow, the Exchange initially
set its Maker rebates and Taker fees so that they were meaningfully
higher/lower than other options exchanges that operate comparable
maker/taker pricing models.\11\ The Exchange now believes that it is
appropriate to further adjust these specified Maker rebates and Taker
fees so that they are more in line with

other exchanges, but will still remain highly competitive such that
they should enable the Exchange to continue to attract order flow and
maintain market share.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 80915 (June 13,
2017), 82 FR 27912 (June 19, 2017) (SR-PEARL-2017-29); 80914 (June
13, 2017), 82 FR 27910 (June 19, 2017) (SR-PEARL-2017-30).
    \12\ See Cboe BZX Options Exchange Fee Schedule, under
``Transaction Fees.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe BZX'') generally provides for
similar fees and rebates. For example, under threshold criteria similar
to MIAX PEARL's proposed rebates in Priority Customer Tier 6 for Penny
Classes, Cboe BZX's Customer Penny Pilot Add Tiers 5, 6 and 7 provides
for a rebate of $0.53.\13\ Additionally, under threshold criteria
similar to MIAX PEARL's proposed rebates in Priority Customer Tier 6
for non-Penny Classes, Cboe BZX provides for a rebate of $1.02 in its
Customer Non-Penny Pilot Add Tier 3, and a rebate of $1.05, in Tier
4.\14\ Further, under threshold criteria similar to MIAX PEARL's
proposed Taker fees for Market Makers in Tiers 4, 5 and 6, in Penny
Classes, Cboe BZX charges fees of $0.44 and $0.47 in its non-Customer
Penny Pilot Take Volume Tiers for Market Makers.\15\ Additionally,
similar to the Taker fees proposed by MIAX PEARL for Market Makers in
non-Penny Classes, Cboe BZX charges Market Makers a fee of $1.07 in its
non-Customer, Non-Penny Pilot Take Volume Tiers.\16\ Furthermore,
similar to the Taker fees proposed by MIAX PEARL for Professional
Members in Non-Penny Classes, Cboe BZX charges Professionals a fee of
$1.07 in its Non-Customer, Non-Penny Pilot Take Volume Tiers.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Cboe BZX Options Exchange Fee Schedule, under
``Transaction Fees,'' ``Customer Penny Pilot Add Tiers.''
    \14\ See Cboe BZX Options Exchange Fee Schedule, under
``Transaction Fees,'' ``Customer Non-Customer Penny Pilot Add Volume
Tier.''
    \15\ See Cboe BZX Options Exchange Fee Schedule, under
``Transaction Fees,'' ``Non-Customer Penny Pilot Take Volume
Tiers.''
    \16\ See Cboe BZX Options Exchange Fee Schedule, under
``Transaction Fees,'' ``Non-Customer Non-Penny Pilot Take Volume
Tiers.''
    \17\ See Cboe BZX Options Exchange Fee Schedule, under
``Transaction Fees,'' ``Non-Customer Non-Penny Pilot Take Volume
Tiers.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With all proposed changes, Section 1)a) of the Fee Schedule shall
be the following:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Per contract rebates/fees for penny classes       Per contract rebates/
                                                                           ----------------------------------------------------    fees for non-penny
               Origin                     Tier         Volume criteria                                                                   classes
                                                          (percent)            Maker       Taker *     SPY taker    QQQ, IWM,  -------------------------
                                                                                VXX taker      Maker        Taker
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority Customer...................            1  0.00-0.10..............      ($0.25)        $0.48        $0.44        $0.47      ($0.85)        $0.87
                                                2  Above 0.10-0.35........       (0.40)         0.46         0.43         0.46       (0.95)         0.86
                                                3  Above 0.35-0.50........       (0.45)         0.44         0.42         0.44       (1.00)         0.85
                                                4  Above 0.50-0.75........       (0.52)         0.44         0.41         0.43       (1.03)         0.84
                                                5  Above 0.75-1.25........       (0.53)         0.44         0.40         0.42       (1.04)         0.84
                                                6  Above 1.25.............       (0.53)         0.43         0.38         0.40       (1.04)         0.84
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* For all Penny Classes other than SPY, QQQ, IWM, and VXX.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Per contract rebates/fees for   Per contract rebates/fees for
                                                                                penny classes                 non-penny classes
                  Origin                         Tier         Volume criteria (percent)  ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Maker           Taker         Maker **        Taker **
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All MIAX PEARL Market Makers..............               1  0.00-0.15...................         ($0.25)           $0.50         ($0.30)           $1.10
                                                         2  Above 0.15-0.40.............          (0.40)            0.50          (0.30)            1.10
                                                         3  Above 0.40-0.65.............          (0.40)            0.48          (0.60)            1.09
                                                         4  Above 0.65-1.00.............          (0.47)            0.47          (0.65)            1.08
                                                            or Above 2.25 in SPY........
                                                         5  Above 1.00-1.40.............          (0.48)            0.45          (0.70)            1.07
                                                         6  Above 1.40..................          (0.48)            0.44          (0.85)            1.06
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Per contract rebates/fees for   Per contract rebates/fees for
                                                                                penny classes                 non-penny classes
                  Origin                         Tier         Volume criteria (percent)  ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Maker [caret]                       Maker
                                                                                Taker         **[caret]       Taker **
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Priority Customer, Firm, BD, and Non-                1  0.00-0.15...................         ($0.25)           $0.50         ($0.30)           $1.10
 MIAX PEARL Market Makers.                               2  Above 0.15-0.40.............          (0.40)            0.50          (0.30)            1.10
                                                         3  Above 0.40-0.65.............          (0.40)            0.48          (0.60)            1.10
                                                         4  Above 0.65-1.00.............          (0.47)            0.48          (0.65)            1.09
                                                         5  Above 1.00-1.40.............          (0.48)            0.48          (0.70)            1.08
                                                         6  Above 1.40..................          (0.48)            0.48          (0.85)            1.07
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
** Members may qualify for the Maker Rebate and the Taker Fee associated with the highest Tier for transactions in Non-Penny classes if the Member
  executes more than 0.30% volume in Non-Penny classes, not including Excluded Contracts, as compared to the TCV in all MIAX PEARL listed option
  classes. For purposes of qualifying for such rates, the Exchange will aggregate the volume transacted by Members and their Affiliates in the following
  Origin types in Non-Penny classes: MIAX PEARL Market Makers, and Non-Priority Customer, Firm, BD, and Non-MIAX PEARL Market Makers.
[caret] Members may qualify for Maker Rebates equal to the greater of: (A) ($0.40) for Penny Classes and ($0.65) for Non-Penny Classes, or (B) the
  amount set forth in the applicable Tier reached by the Member in the relevant Origin, if the Member and their Affiliates execute at least 1.50% volume
  in the relevant month, in Priority Customer Origin type, in all options classes, not including Excluded Contracts, as compared to the TCV in all MIAX
  PEARL listed option classes.

    Except as otherwise set forth herein, the Volume Criteria is
calculated based on the total monthly volume executed by the Member in
all options classes on MIAX PEARL in the relevant Origin type, not
including Excluded Contracts, (as the numerator) expressed as a
percentage of (divided by) TCV (as the denominator). In Tier 4 for MIAX
PEARL Market Makers, the alternative Volume Criteria (above 2.25% in
SPY) is calculated based on the total monthly volume executed by the
Market Maker solely in SPY options on MIAX PEARL in the relevant Origin
type, not including Excluded Contracts, (as the numerator) expressed as
a percentage of (divided by) SPY TCV (as the denominator). The per
contract transaction rebates and fees shall be applied retroactively to
all eligible volume once the threshold has been reached by Member. The
Exchange aggregates the volume of Members and their Affiliates in the
Add/Remove Tiered Fees. The per contract transaction rebates and fees
shall be waived for transactions executed during the opening and for
transactions that uncross the ABBO.
    The proposed changes are scheduled to become operative August 1,
2018.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \18\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\19\ in that it
is an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among Exchange members and issuers and other persons using its
facilities, and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\20\ in that 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 mechanisms of a
free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1) and (b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed Maker rebate decrease in Penny classes and non-Penny
classes applicable to Priority Customers in Tier 6 is reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all similarly
situated market participants are subject to the same tiered rebates and
fees and access to the Exchange is offered on terms that are not
unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange believes it is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory to only offer this reduced taker fee to
Priority Customer orders because a Priority Customer is, by definition,
not a broker or dealer in securities, and does not place more than 390
orders in listed options per day on average during a calendar month for
its own beneficial account(s). This limitation does not apply to
participants on the Exchange whose behavior is substantially similar to
that of market professionals, who will generally submit a higher number
of orders than Priority Customers. For competitive and business
reasons, the Exchange initially set its Maker rebates for Priority
Customer orders higher than certain other options exchanges that
operate comparable maker/taker pricing models.\21\ The Exchange now
believes that it is appropriate to further decrease those specified
Maker rebates so that they are more in line with other exchanges, and
will still remain highly competitive such that they should enable the
Exchange to continue to attract order flow and maintain market
share.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See supra note 11.
    \22\ See supra note 12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed Taker fee increases in certain specified Tiers
applicable to orders submitted by MIAX PEARL Market Makers and
Professional Members are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because all option orders of the same origin type are
subject to the same tiered Taker fees and access to the Exchange is
offered on terms that are not unfairly discriminatory. For competitive
and business reasons, the Exchange initially set its Taker fees for
MIAX PEARL Market Maker and Professional Member orders lower than
certain other options exchanges that operate comparable maker/taker
pricing models.\23\ The Exchange now believes that it is appropriate to
further increase those specified Taker fees so that they are more in
line with other exchanges, and will still remain highly competitive
such that they should enable the Exchange to continue to attract order
flow and maintain market share. The Exchange notes that, even as
amended, its Taker fees for MIAX PEARL Market Makers and Professional
Members are generally lower than certain other options exchanges
operating competing models.\24\ The Exchange believes for these reasons
that increasing certain Taker fees for MIAX PEARL Market Maker and
Professional Member transactions in the specified Tiers is equitable,
reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory, and thus consistent with
the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See supra note 11.
    \24\ See supra note 12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the proposed increases to the Taker fees for MIAX
PEARL Market Maker and Professional Member transactions promotes just
and equitable principles of trade, fosters cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and
protects investors and the public interest, because even with the
increases, the Exchange's proposed Taker fees for MIAX PEARL Market
Maker and Professional Member orders still remain highly competitive
with certain other options exchanges offering comparable pricing
models, and should enable the Exchange to continue to attract order
flow and maintain market share.\25\ The Exchange believes that the
amount of such fees, as proposed to be increased, will continue to
encourage those market participants to send orders to the Exchange. To
the extent that order flow is increased by the proposal, market
participants will increasingly compete for the opportunity to trade on
the Exchange, including sending more orders which will have the
potential to be assessed lower fees and higher rebates than certain
other competing options exchanges. The resulting increased volume and
liquidity will benefit all Exchange participants by providing more
trading opportunities and tighter spreads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    MIAX PEARL does not believe that the proposed rule changes will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the
proposed changes in the specified Maker rebates and Taker fees for the
applicable market participants should continue to encourage the
provision of liquidity that enhances the quality of the Exchange's
market and increases the number of trading opportunities on MIAX PEARL
for all participants who will be able to compete for such
opportunities. The proposed rule change should enable the Exchange to
continue to attract and compete for order flow with other exchanges.
However, this competition does not create an undue burden on
competition but rather offers all market participants the opportunity
to receive the benefit of competitive pricing.
    The proposed Maker rebate decreases and Taker fee increases are
intended to keep the Exchange's fees highly competitive with those of
other

exchanges, and to encourage liquidity and should enable the Exchange to
continue to attract and compete for order flow with other exchanges.
The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in
which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they
deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive. In such an
environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its rebates and fees
to remain competitive with other exchanges and to attract order flow.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes reflect this
competitive environment because they modify the Exchange's fees in a
manner that encourages market participants to continue to provide
liquidity and to send order flow to the Exchange.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\26\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \27\ thereunder.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change,
the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such
action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether
the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \27\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-PEARL-2018-17 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-PEARL-2018-17. 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-PEARL-2018-17, and should be submitted
on or before September 5, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-17495 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


EO12866MACT_NSPSUtilitiesMATS2060_AP52RIA20111104ES.doc

Executive Summary

This Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) presents the health and welfare
benefits, costs, and other impacts of the final Mercury and Air Toxics
Standards (MATS) in 2016.

ES.1	Key Findings

This rule will reduce emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP)
including mercury from the electric power industry. As a co-benefit, the
emissions of certain PM2.5 precursors such as SO2 will also decline. EPA
estimates that this final rule will yield annual monetized benefits (in
2007$) of between $37 to $91 billion using a 3% discount rate and $33 to
$82 billion using a 7% discount rate. The great majority of the
estimates are attributable to co-benefits from 4,300 to 11,000 fewer
PM2.5-related premature mortalities.  The monetized benefits from
reductions in mercury emissions are expected to be $0.004 to $0.006
billion in 2016 using a 3% discount rate and $0.0005 to $0.001 billion
using a 7% discount rate.  The annual social costs, approximated by the
compliance costs, are $9.2 billion (2007$) and the annual monetized net
benefits are $28 to $81 billion using 3% discount rate or $24 to $72
billion using a 7% discount rate. The benefits outweigh costs by between
4 to 1 or 10 to 1 depending on the benefit estimate and discount rate
used. There are some costs and important benefits that EPA could not
monetize, such as those for the HAP being reduced by this final rule
other than mercury. Upon considering these limitations and
uncertainties, it remains clear that the benefits of the MATS are
substantial and far outweigh the costs. Employment impacts associated
with the final rule are estimated to be small.

The benefits and costs in 2016 of the final rule are in Table ES-1.  The
emission reductions from the electricity sector that are expected to
result from the rule are reported in Table ES-2.

Table ES-1.	Summary of EPA’s Estimates of Annualizeda Benefits, Costs,
and Net Benefits of the Final MATS in 2016b (billions of 2007$)

Description	Estimate

(3% Discount Rate)	Estimate

(7% Discount Rate)

Costsc	$9.2	$9.2

Benefitsd,e,f	$37 to $91 + B	$33 to $82 + B

Net benefits (benefits-costs)g	$28 to $81 + B	$24 to $72 + B

a 	All estimates presented in this report represent annualized estimates
of the benefits and costs of the final MATS in 2016 rather than the net
present value of a stream of benefits and costs in these particular
years of analysis.

b	Estimates rounded to two significant figures and represent annualized
benefits and costs anticipated for the year 2016.

c Total social costs are approximated by the compliance costs ($9.2
billion) do not include monitoring and reporting costs.

d	Total benefits are composed primarily of monetized PM-related health
benefits. The reduction in premature fatalities each year accounts for
over 90% of total monetized benefits. Benefits in this table are
nationwide and are associated with directly emitted PM2.5 and SO2
reductions. The estimate of social benefits also includes CO2-related
benefits calculated using the social cost of carbon, discussed further
in chapter 5.

e	Not all possible benefits or disbenefits are quantified and monetized
in this analysis. B is the sum of all unquantified benefits and
disbenefits. Data limitations prevented us from quantifying these
endpoints, and as such, these benefits are inherently more uncertain
than those benefits that we were able to quantify. Estimates here are
subject to uncertainties discussed further in the body of the document.
Potential benefit categories that have not been quantified and monetized
are listed in Table ES-4.

f	Mortality risk valuation assumes discounting over the SAB-recommended
20-year segmented lag structure. Results reflect the use of 3% and 7%
discount rates consistent with EPA and OMB guidelines for preparing
economic analyses (EPA, 2000; OMB, 2003).

g	Net benefits are rounded to two significant figures. Columnar totals
may not sum due to rounding

Table ES-2: 	Projected Electricity Generating Unit (EGU) Emissions of
SO2, NOX, Mercury, Hydrogen Chloride, PM, and CO2 with the Base Case and
with MATS, 2015 a,b

 	 	SO2

(million tons)	NOX

(million tons)	Mercury

(tons)	HCl

(thousand tons)	PM2.5

(thousand tons)	CO2

(million metric tonnes)

Base	All EGUs	3.4	1.9	28.7	48.7	277	2,230

	Coal > 25 MW	3.3	1.7	26.6	45.3	270	1,906

MATS	All EGUs	2.1	1.9	10.6	9.0	224	2,215

	Coal > 25 MW	1.9	1.7	8.4	5.5	215	1,881

a	Source: Integrated Planning Model run by EPA, 2011

b	The year 2016 is the compliance year for MATS, though as we explain in
later chapters, we use 2015 as a proxy for compliance in 2016 for IPM
emissions and costs due to availability of modeling impacts in that
year.

ES.1.1	Health Benefits

The final MATS Rule is expected to yield significant health benefits by
reducing emissions not only of HAP such as mercury, but also significant
co-benefits by reducing to direct fine particles (PM2.5) and sulfur
dioxide, which contributes to the formation of PM2.5.

Our analyses suggest this rule would yield benefits in 2016 of $37 to
$91 billion (based on a 3% discount rate) and $33 to $82 billion (based
on a 7% discount rate). This estimate reflects the economic value of a
range of avoided health outcomes including 510 fewer mercury-related IQ
points lost as well as avoided PM2.5-related impacts, including 4,300 to
11,000 premature deaths, 4,800 nonfatal heart attacks, 2,600
hospitalizations for respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, 550,000
lost work days and 3.2 million days when adults restrict normal
activities because of respiratory symptoms exacerbated by PM2.5.

We also estimate substantial additional health improvements for children
from reductions in upper and lower respiratory illnesses, acute
bronchitis, and asthma attacks. See Table ES-2 for a list of the annual
reduction in health effects expected in 2016 and Table ES -3 for the
estimated value of those reductions.

We also include in our monetized benefits estimates the effect from the
reduction in CO2 emissions resulting from this rule. We calculate the
benefits associated with these emission reductions using the interagency
estimates of the social cost of carbon (SCC).

ES.1.2	Welfare Benefits

The term welfare benefits covers both environmental and societal
benefits of reducing pollution, such as reductions in damage to
ecosystems, improved visibility and improvements in recreational and
commercial fishing, agricultural yields, and forest productivity. EPA
did not quantify any of the important welfare benefits expected from the
final MATS, but these are discussed in detail in Chapter 5.

Table ES-2.	Estimated Reduction in Incidence of Adverse Health Effects
of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (95% confidence intervals)a,b

Impact	Eastern U.S.c	Western U.S.	Total

Mercury-Related Endpoints

	IQ Points Lost

	510.8

PM-Related Endpoints

	Premature death

	Pope et al. (2002)  XE "Pope et al. (2002)"   (age > 30)	4,100

(1,100 – 7,100)	130

(30 – 220)	4,300

(1,200 – 7,300)

Laden et al. (2006)  XE "Laden et al. (2006)"   (age > 25)	11,000

(4,900 – 16,000)	330

(140 – 510)	11,000

(5,000 – 17,000)

Infant (< 1 year)	19

(-22 – 60)	1

(-1 – 2)	20

(-22 – 62)

Chronic bronchitis	2,800

(90 – 5,400)	110

(-2 – 210)	2,900

(88 – 5,600)

Non-fatal heart attacks (age > 18)	4,700

(1,200 – 8,200)	120

(25 – 210)	4,800

(1,200 – 8,400)

Hospital admissions—respiratory (all ages)	820

(330 – 1,300)	17

(6 – 27)	840

(330 – 1,300)

Hospital admissions—cardiovascular (age > 18)	1,800

(1,200 – 2,200)	42

(28 – 51)	1,800

(1,300 – 2,200)

Emergency room visits for asthma (age < 18)	3,100

(1,600 – 4,500)	110

(52 – 160)	3,200

(1,600 – 4,700)

Acute bronchitis (age 8–12)	6,100

(-1,400 – 13,000)	250

(-71 – 570)	6,300

(-1,400 – 14,000)

Lower respiratory symptoms (age 7–14)	78,000

(30,000 – 130,000)	3,200

(1,100 – 5,200)	81,000

(31,000 – 130,000)

Upper respiratory symptoms (asthmatics age 9–18)	59,000

(11,000 – 110,000)	2,400

(360 – 4,500)	61,000

(11,000 – 110,000)

Asthma exacerbation (asthmatics 6–18)	130,000

(4,600 – 440,000)	5,300

(-10 – 18,000)	130,000

(4,500 – 450,000)

Lost work days (age 18–65)	530,000

(450,000 – 610,000)	21,000

(18,000 – 25,000)	550,000

(460,000 – 630,000)

Minor restricted-activity days (age 18–65)	3,100,000

(2,500,000 – 3,700,000)	120,000

(100,000 – 150,000)	3,200,000

(2,600,000 – 3,800,000)

a	Estimates rounded to two significant figures; column values will not
sum to total value.

b	The negative estimates for certain endpoints are the result of the
weak statistical power of the study used to calculate these health
impacts and do not suggest that increases in air pollution exposure
result in decreased health impacts.

c	Includes Texas and those states to the north and east.

Table ES-3.	Estimated Economic Value of Health and Welfare Benefits of
the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (95% confidence intervals, billions
of 2007$)a

Impact	Pollutant	Eastern U.S.b	Western U.S.	Total

Avoided IQ loss associated with methylmercury exposure from self-caught
fish consumption among recreational anglers

3% discount rate	$0.004 – $0.006	Hg	$0.004  – $0.006

7% discount rate	$0.000005 – $0.000009	Hg	$0.000005  – $0.000009

Adult premature death (Pope et al., 2002  XE "Pope et al. 2002"   PM
mortality estimate)

3% discount rate	PM2.5	$33

($2.6 – $100)	$1.0

(<$0.01 – $3.2)	$34

($2.7 – $100)

7% discount rate	PM2.5	$30

($2.4 – $91)	$0.9

(<$0.01 – $2.8)	$31

($2.4 – $93)

Adult premature death (Laden et al., 2006  XE "Laden et al. 2006"   PM
mortality estimate)

	3% discount rate	PM2.5	$85

($7.5 – $250)	$2.6

($0.1 – $7.7)	$88

($7.6 – $250)

7% discount rate	PM2.5	$77

($6.7 – $220)	$2.4

($0.1 – $7.0)	$79

($6.8 – $230)

Infant premature death	PM2.5	$0.2

($-0.2 – $0.8)	<$0.01	$0.2

($-0.2 – $0.8)

Chronic Bronchitis	PM2.5	$1.3

($0.1 – $6.2)	$0.1

(<$0.01 – $0.2)	$1.4

($0.1 – $6.4)

Non-fatal heart attacks

3% discount rate	PM2.5	$0.5

($0.1 – $1.3)	<$0.01	$0.5

($0.1 – $1.3)

7% discount rate	PM2.5	$0.4

($0.1 – $1.0)	<$0.01	$0.4

($0.1 – $1.0)

Hospital admissions—respiratory 	PM2.5	$0.01

(<$0.01 – $0.02)	<$0.01	$0.01

($0.01 – $0.02)

Hospital admissions—cardiovascular	PM2.5	$0.03

(<$0.01 – $0.05)	<$0.01	$0.03

(<$0.01 – $0.05)

Emergency room visits for asthma 	PM2.5	<$0.01	<$0.01	<$0.01

Acute bronchitis 	PM2.5	<$0.01	<$0.01	<$0.01

Lower respiratory symptoms 	PM2.5	<$0.01	<$0.01	<$0.01

Upper respiratory symptoms 	PM2.5	<$0.01	<$0.01	<$0.01

Asthma exacerbation 	PM2.5	<$0.01	<$0.01	<$0.01

Lost work days 	PM2.5	$0.1

($0.1 – $0.1)	<$0.01	$0.1

($0.1 – $0.1)

(continued)

Table ES-3.	Estimated Economic Value of Health and Welfare Benefits of
the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (95% confidence intervals, billions
of 2007$)a (continued)

Impact	Pollutant	Eastern U.S.b	Western U.S.	Total

Minor restricted-activity days 	PM2.5	$0.2

($0.1 – $0.3)	<$0.01	$0.2

($0.1 – $0.3)

CO2-related benefits

(3% discount rate)	CO2	$0.35

Monetized total Benefits (Pope et al., 2002  XE "Pope et al. 2002"
PM2.5 mortality estimate)

	3% discount rate

$36+B

($2.8 – $110)	$1.1+B

(<$0.01 – $3.5)	$37+B

($3.2 – $110)

7% discount rate

$32+B

($2.5 – $99)	$1.0+B

(<$0.01 – $3.1)	$33+B

($2.9 – $100)

Monetized total Benefits (Laden et al., 2006  XE "Pope et al. 2002"
PM2.5 mortality estimate)

3% discount rate

$88+B

($7.6 – $260)	$2.7+B

($0.1 – $8.1)	$91+B

($8.1 – $260)

7% discount rate

$79+B

($6.9 – $230)	$2.4+B

($0.1 – $7.3)	$82+B

($7.3 – $240)

a Economic value adjusted to 2007$ using GDP deflator. Estimates rounded
to two significant figures. The negative estimates for certain endpoints
are the result of the weak statistical power of the study used to
calculate these health impacts and do not suggest that increases in air
pollution exposure result in decreased health impacts. Confidence
intervals reflect random sampling error and not the additional
uncertainty associated with accounting for differences in air quality
baseline forecasts described in chapter 5. The net present value of
reduced CO2 emissions are calculated differently than other benefits.
The same discount rate used to discount the value of damages from future
emissions (SCC at 5, 3, 2.5 percent) is used to calculate net present
value of SCC for internal consistency. This table shows monetized CO2
co-benefits at discount rates at 3 and 7 percent that were calculated
using the global average SCC estimate at a 3% discount rate because the
interagency workgroup on this topic deemed this marginal value to be the
central value. In section 5.6 we also report CO2 co-benefits using
discount rates of 5 percent (average), 2.5 percent (average), and 3
percent (95th percentile).

b	Includes Texas and those states to the north and east.

Figure ES-1 summarizes an array of PM2.5-related monetized benefits
estimates based on alternative epidemiology and expert-derived
PM-mortality estimate.

Figure ES-2 summarizes the estimated net benefits for the final rule by
displaying all possible combinations of health and climate co-benefits
and costs. Each of the 14 bars in each graph represents a separate point
estimate of net benefits under a certain combination of cost and benefit
estimation methods. Because it is not a distribution, it is not possible
to infer the likelihood of any single net benefit estimate.

Figure ES-1. Economic Value of Estimated PM2.5-Related Health Benefits
According to Epidemiology or Expert-Derived PM Mortality Risk
Estimatea,b

a	Based on the modeled interim baseline, which is approximately
equivalent to the final baseline (see Appendix 5A)

b	Column total equals sum of PM2.5-related mortality and morbidity
benefits.

Figure ES-2. Net Benefits of the MATS Rule According to PM2.5
Epidemiology or Expert-Derived Mortality Risk Estimatea,b

a	Based on the modeled interim baseline, which is approximately
equivalent to the final baseline (see Appendix 5A)

b	Column total equals sum of PM2.5-related mortality and morbidity
benefits.

ES.2	Not All Benefits Quantified

EPA was unable to quantify or monetize all of the health and
environmental benefits associated with the final MATS Rule. EPA believes
these unquantified benefits are substantial, including the overall value
associated with HAP reductions, value of increased agricultural crop and
commercial forest yields, visibility improvements, and reductions in
nitrogen and acid deposition and the resulting changes in ecosystem
functions. Tables ES-4 and ES-5 provide a list of these benefits.

Table ES-4.	Human Health Effects of Pollutants Affected by the Mercury
and Air Toxics Standards

Benefits Category	Specific Effect	Effect Has Been Quantified	Effect Has
Been Monetized	More Informationa

Improved Human Health

Reduced incidence of premature mortality from exposure to PM2.5	Adult
premature mortality based on cohort study estimates and expert
elicitation estimates (age >25 or age >30)			Section 5.4

	Infant mortality (age <1)			Section 5.4

Reduced incidence of morbidity from exposure to PM2.5	Non-fatal heart
attacks (age > 18)			Section 5.4

	Hospital admissions—respiratory (all ages)			Section 5.4

	Hospital admissions—cardiovascular (age >18)			Section 5.4

	Emergency room visits for asthma (<18)			Section 5.4

	Acute bronchitis (age 8–12)			Section 5.4

	Lower respiratory symptoms (age 7–14)			Section 5.4

	Upper respiratory symptoms (asthmatics age 9-11)			Section 5.4

	Asthma exacerbation (asthmatics age 6–18)			Section 5.4

	Lost work days (age 18-65)			Section 5.4

	Minor restricted-activity days (age 18–65)			Section 5.4

	Chronic Bronchitis (age >26)			Section 5.4

	Other cardiovascular effects (e.g., other ages)	—	—	PM ISAc

	Other respiratory effects (e.g., pulmonary function, non-asthma ER
visits, non-bronchitis chronic diseases, other ages and populations)	—
—	PM ISAc

	Reproductive and developmental effects (e.g., low birth weight,
pre-term births, etc)	—	—	PM ISAc, d

	Cancer, mutagenicity, and genotoxicity effects	—	—	PM ISAc, d

Reduced incidence of mortality from exposure to ozone	Premature
mortality based on short-term study estimates (all ages)	—	—	Ozone
CD, Draft Ozone ISAb

	Premature mortality based on long-term study estimates (age 30–99)
—	—	Ozone CD, Draft Ozone ISAb

Reduced incidence of morbidity from exposure to ozone	Hospital
admissions—respiratory causes (age > 65)	—	—	Ozone CD, Draft Ozone
ISAb

	Hospital admissions—respiratory causes (age <2)	—	—	Ozone CD,
Draft Ozone ISAb

	Emergency room visits for asthma (all ages)	—	—	Ozone CD, Draft
Ozone ISAb

	Minor restricted-activity days (age 18–65)	—	—	Ozone CD, Draft
Ozone ISAb

(continued)

Table ES-4.	Human Health Effects of Pollutants Affected by the Mercury
and Air Toxics Standards (continued)

Benefits Category	Specific Effect	Effect Has Been Quantified	Effect Has
Been Monetized	More Information

	School absence days (age 5–17)	—	—	Ozone CD, Draft Ozone ISAb

	Decreased outdoor worker productivity (age 18-65)	—	—	Ozone CD,
Draft Ozone ISAb

	Other respiratory effects (e.g., premature aging of lungs)	—	—
Ozone CD, Draft Ozone ISAc

	Cardiovascular and nervous system effects	—	—	Ozone CD, Draft Ozone
ISAd

	Reproductive and developmental effects	—	—	Ozone CD, Draft Ozone
ISAd

Reduced incidence of morbidity from exposure to NO2	Asthma hospital
admissions (all ages)	—	—	NO2 ISAb

	Chronic lung disease hospital admissions (age > 65)	—	—	NO2 ISAb

	Respiratory emergency department visits (all ages)	—	—	NO2 ISAb

	Asthma exacerbation (asthmatics age 4–18)	—	—	NO2 ISAb

	Acute respiratory symptoms (age 7–14)	—	—	NO2 ISAb

	Premature mortality	—	—	NO2 ISAc,d

	Other respiratory effects (e.g., airway hyperresponsiveness and
inflammation, lung function, other ages and populations)	—	—	NO2
ISAc,d

Reduced incidence of morbidity from exposure to SO2	Respiratory hospital
admissions (age > 65)	—	—	SO2 ISAb

	Asthma emergency room visits (all ages)	—	—	SO2 ISAb

	Asthma exacerbation (asthmatics age 4–12)	—	—	SO2 ISAb

	Acute respiratory symptoms (age 7–14)	—	—	SO2 ISAb

	Premature mortality	—	—	SO2 ISAc,d

	Other respiratory effects (e.g., airway hyperresponsiveness and
inflammation, lung function, other ages and populations)	—	—	SO2
ISAc,d

Reduced incidence of morbidity from exposure to methyl mercury (through
reduced mercury deposition as well as the role of sulfate in methylation
)	Neurologic effects—IQ loss			IRIS; NRC, 2000b

	Other neurologic effects (e.g., developmental delays, memory, behavior)
—	—	IRIS; NRC, 2000c

	Cardiovascular effects	—	—	IRIS; NRC, 2000c,d

	Genotoxic, immunologic, and other toxic effects	—	—	IRIS; NRC,
2000c,d

a	For a complete list of references see Chapter 5.

b	We assess these benefits qualitative due to time and resource
limitations for this analysis.

c	We assess these benefits qualitatively because we do not have
sufficient confidence in available data or methods.

d	We assess these benefits qualitatively because current evidence is
only suggestive of causality or there are other significant concerns
over the strength of the association.

Table ES-5.	Environmental Effects of Pollutants Affected by the Mercury
and Air Toxics Standards

Benefits Category	Specific Effect	Effect Has Been Quantified	Effect Has
Been Monetized	More Informationa

Improved Environment

Reduced visibility impairment	Visibility in Class I areas in SE, SW, and
CA regions	—	—	PM ISAb

	Visibility in Class I areas in other regions	—	—	PM ISAb

	Visibility in residential areas	—	—	PM ISAb

Reduced climate effects	Global climate impacts from CO2 	—		Section
5.6

	Climate impacts from ozone and PM	—	—	Section 5.6

	Other climate impacts (e.g., other GHGs, other impacts) 	—	—	IPCCc

Reduced effects on materials	Household soiling	—	—	PM ISAc

	Materials damage (e.g., corrosion, increased wear)	—	—	PM ISAc

Reduced effects from PM deposition (metals and organics)	Effects on
Individual organisms and ecosystems	—	—	PM ISAc

Reduced vegetation and ecosystem effects from exposure to ozone	Visible
foliar injury on vegetation	—	—	Ozone CD, Draft Ozone ISAc

	Reduced vegetation growth and reproduction	—	—	Ozone CD, Draft
Ozone ISAb

	Yield and quality of commercial forest products and crops	—	—	Ozone
CD, Draft Ozone ISAb,d

	Damage to urban ornamental plants	—	—	Ozone CD, Draft Ozone ISAc

	Carbon sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems	—	—	Ozone CD, Draft
Ozone ISAc

	Recreational demand associated with forest aesthetics	—	—	Ozone CD,
Draft Ozone ISAc

	Other non-use effects	 	 	Ozone CD, Draft Ozone ISAc

	Ecosystem functions (e.g., water cycling, biogeochemical cycles, net
primary productivity, leaf-gas exchange, community composition)	—	—
Ozone CD, Draft Ozone ISAc

(continued)

Table ES-5.	Environmental Effects of Pollutants Affected by the Mercury
and Air Toxics Standards (continued)

Benefits Category	Specific Effect	Effect Has Been Quantified	Effect Has
Been Monetized	More Information

Reduced effects from acid deposition	Recreational fishing	—	—	NOx
SOx ISAb

	Tree mortality and decline	—	—	NOx SOx ISAc

	Commercial fishing and forestry effects	—	—	NOx SOx ISAc

	Recreational demand in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems	—	—	NOx
SOx ISAc

	Other nonuse effects	 	 	NOx SOx ISAc

	Ecosystem functions (e.g., biogeochemical cycles)	—	—	NOx SOx ISAc

Reduced effects from nutrient enrichment	Species composition and
biodiversity in terrestrial and estuarine ecosystems	—	—	NOx SOx
ISAc

	Coastal eutrophication	—	—	NOx SOx ISAc

	Recreational demand in terrestrial and estuarine ecosystems	—	—	NOx
SOx ISAc

	Other non-use effects	 	 	NOx SOx ISAc

	Ecosystem functions (e.g., biogeochemical cycles, fire regulation)	—
—	NOx SOx ISAc

Reduced vegetation effects from ambient exposure to SO2 and NOx	Injury
to vegetation from SO2 exposure	—	—	NOx SOx ISAc

	Injury to vegetation from NOx exposure	—	—	NOx SOx ISAc

Reduced incidence of morbidity from exposure to methyl mercury (through
reduced mercury deposition as well as the role of sulfate in methylation
)	Effects on fish, birds, and mammals (e.g., reproductive effects)	—
—	Mercury Study RTCc,d

	Commercial, subsistence and recreational fishing	—	—	Mercury Study
RTCc

a	For a complete list of references see Chapter 5.

b	We assess these benefits qualitative due to time and resource
limitations for this analysis.

c	 We assess these benefits qualitatively because we do not have
sufficient confidence in available data or methods.

d 	We assess these benefits qualitatively because current evidence is
only suggestive of causality or there are other significant concerns
over the strength of the association.

ES.3	Costs and Employment Impacts

The projected annual incremental private costs of the final MATS Rule to
the electric power industry are $9.2 billion in 2015. These costs
represent the total cost to the electricity-generating industry of
reducing HAP emissions to meet the emissions limits set out in the rule.
Estimates are in 2007 dollars. These costs of the rule are estimated
using the Integrated Planning Model (IPM).

There are several national changes in energy prices that result from the
final MATS Rule.  Retail electricity prices are projected to increase in
the contiguous US by an average of 3.0% in 2015 with the final MATS
Rule.  On a weighted average basis between 2015 and 2030, consumer
natural gas price anticipated to increase from 0.4% to 0.7% depending on
consumer class in response to the final MATS Rule.

There are several other types of energy impacts associated with the
final MATS Rule.  A small amount of coal-fired capacity, about 5.5 GW
(less than 2 percent of all coal-fired capacity and 0.5% of total
generation capacity in 2015), is projected to become uneconomic to
maintain by 2015.  These units are predominantly smaller and less
frequently-used generating units dispersed throughout the contiguous US.
 If current forecasts of either natural gas prices or electricity demand
were revised in the future to be higher, that would create a greater
incentive to keep these units operational.  Coal production for use in
the power sector is projected to decrease by less than 1 percent by
2015, and we expect slightly reduced coal demand in Appalachia and the
West with the final MATS Rule.

In addition to addressing the costs and benefits of the final MATS Rule,
EPA has estimated a portion of the employment impacts of this
rulemaking. We have estimated two types of impacts. One provides an
estimate of the employment impacts on the regulated industry over time.
The second covers the short-term employment impacts associated with the
construction of needed pollution control equipment until the compliance
date of the regulation. We expect that the rule’s impact on employment
will be small, but will (on net) result in an expected increase in
employment.

The approaches to estimate employment impacts use different analytical
techniques and are applied to different industries during different time
periods, and they use different units of analysis.  No overlapping
estimates are summed.  Estimates of employment changes per dollar of
expenditure on pollution control from Morgenstern et al. (2002) are used
to estimate the ongoing annual employment impacts for the regulated
entities (the electric power sector) as a result of this rule.  The
short term estimates for employment needed to design, construct, and
install the control equipment in the three year period before the
compliance date are also provided using an approach that estimates
employment impacts for the environmental protection sector based on
forecast changes from IPM on the number and scale of pollution controls
and labor intensities in relevant sectors.  Finally some of the other
types of employment impacts that will be ongoing are estimated using IPM
outputs and labor intensities, as reported in chapter 6, but not
included in this table because they omit some potentially important
categories.

In Table ES-6, we show the employment impacts of the MATS Rule as
estimated by the environmental protection sector approach and by the
Morgenstern approach.

Table ES-6.	Estimated Employment Impact Table

	Annual (Reoccurring)	One
T浩䌨湯瑳畲瑣潩畄楲杮䌠浯汰慩据敐楲摯ܩ䔇癮
物湯敭瑮污瀠潲整瑣潩敳瑣牯愠灰潲捡慨万瑯愠灰楬
慣汢ݥ㜴〬〰܇敎⁴晥敦瑣漠汥捥牴捩甠楴楬祴猠捥
潴⁲浥汰祯敭瑮映潲潍杲湥瑳牥瑥憠⹬灡牰慯档
ݣⰸ〰戰

−14,000 to +30,000d	Not Applicable

a	These one-time impacts on employment are estimated in terms of
job-years.

b	This estimate is not statistically different from zero.

c	These annual or reoccurring employment impacts are estimated in terms
of production workers as defined by the US Census Bureau’s Annual
Survey of Manufacturers (ASM).

d	95% confidence interval

ES.4	Small Entity and Unfunded Mandates Impacts

After preparing an analysis of small entity impacts, EPA cannot certify
that this proposal will not have a no SISNOSE (significant economic
impacts on a substantial number of small entities).  Of the 83 small
entities affected, 49 are projected to have costs greater than 1 percent
of their revenues.  EPA’s decision to exclude units smaller than 25
Megawatt capacity (MW) as per the requirements of the Clean Air Act has
already significantly reduced the burden on small entities, and EPA
participated in a Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) to examine ways to mitigate the impact of the proposed Toxics
Rule on affected small entities

EPA examined the potential economic impacts on state and
municipality-owned entities associated with this rulemaking based on
assumptions of how the affected states will implement control measures
to meet their emissions.  These impacts have been calculated to provide
additional understanding of the nature of potential impacts and
additional information.

According to EPA’s analysis, of the 96 government entities considered
in this, EPA projects that 51 government entities will have compliance
costs greater than 1 percent of base generation revenue in 2015, based
on our assumptions of how the affected states implement control measures
to meet their emissions budgets as set forth in this rulemaking.

Government entities projected to experience compliance costs in excess
of 1 percent of revenues may have some potential for significant impact
resulting from implementation of the Toxics Rule.

ES.5	Limitations and Uncertainties

Every analysis examining the potential benefits and costs of a change in
environmental protection requirements is limited to some extent by data
gaps, limitations in model capabilities (such as geographic coverage),
and variability or uncertainties in the underlying scientific and
economic studies used to configure the benefit and cost models. Despite
the uncertainties, we believe this benefit-cost analysis provides a
reasonable indication of the expected economic benefits and costs of the
final MATS Rule.

For this analysis, such uncertainties include possible errors in
measurement and projection for variables such as population growth and
baseline incidence rates; uncertainties associated with estimates of
future-year emissions inventories and air quality; variability in the
estimated relationships between changes in pollutant concentrations and
the resulting changes in health and welfare effects; and uncertainties
in exposure estimation.

Below is a summary of the key uncertainties of the analysis:

Costs

Compliance costs are used to approximate the social costs of this rule.
Social costs may be higher or lower than compliance costs and differ
because of preexisting distortions in the economy, and because certain
compliance costs may represent shifts in rents.

Analysis does not capture employment shifts as workers are retrained at
the same company or re-employed elsewhere in the economy.

We do not include the costs of certain relatively small permitting costs
associated with updating Title V permits or increases in monitoring
costs for affected units.

Technological innovation is not incorporated into these cost estimates.
Thus, these cost estimates may be potentially higher than what may occur
in the future, all other things being the same.

Benefits

The mercury concentration estimates for the analysis come from several
different sources

The mercury concentration estimates used in the model were based on
simple temporal and spatial averages of reported fish tissue samples.
This approach assumes that the mercury samples are representative of
“local” conditions (i.e., within the same HUC 12) in similar
waterbodies (i.e., rivers or lakes).

State-level averages for fishing behavior of recreational anglers are
applied to each modeled census tract in the state; which does not
reflect within-state variation in these factors.

Application of state-level fertility rates to specific census tracts
(and specifically to women in angler households.

Applying the state-level individual level fishing participation rates to
approximate the household fishing rates conditions at a block level.

Populations are only included in the model if they are within a
reasonable distance of a waterbody with fish tissue MeHg samples. This
approach undercounts the exposed population (by roughly 40 to 45%) and
leads to underestimates of national aggregate baseline exposures and
risks and underestimates of the risk reductions and benefits resulting
from mercury emission reductions.

Assumption of 8 g/day fish consumption rate for the general population
in freshwater angler households.

The dose-response model used to estimate neurological effects on
children because of maternal mercury body burden has several important
uncertainties, including selection of IQ as a primary endpoint when
there may be other more sensitive endpoints, selection of the
blood-to-hair ratio for mercury, and the dose-response estimates from
the epidemiological literature. Control for confounding from the
potentially positive cognitive effects of fish consumption and, more
specifically, omega-3 fatty acids.

Valuation of IQ losses using a lost earning approach has several
uncertainties, including (1) there is a linear relationship between IQ
changes and net earnings losses, (2) the unit value applies to even very
small changes in IQ, and (3) the unit value will remain constant (in
real present value terms) for several years into the future. Each unit
value for IQ losses has two main sources of uncertainty (1). The
statistical error in the average percentage change in earnings as a
result of IQ changes and (2) estimates of average lifetime earnings and
costs of schooling. Most of the estimated PM-related benefits in this
rule accrue to populations exposed to higher levels of PM2.5. Of these
estimated PM-related mortalities avoided, about 30% occur among
populations initially exposed to annual mean PM2.5 level of 10 µg/m3
and about 80% occur among those initially exposed to annual mean PM2.5
level of 7.5 µg/m3 ; these are the lowest air quality levels considered
in the Laden et al. (2006) and Pope et al. (2002) studies, respectively.
This fact is important, because as we estimate PM-related mortality
among populations exposed to levels of PM2.5 that are successively
lower, our confidence in the results diminishes. However, our analysis
shows that a substantial portion of the impacts occur at higher
exposures.

There are uncertainties related to the health impact functions used in
the analysis. These include: within study variability; across study
variation; the application of concentration-response (C-R) functions
nationwide; extrapolation of impact functions across population; and
various uncertainties in the C-R function, including causality and
thresholds. Therefore, benefits may be under- or over-estimates.

Analysis is for 2016, and projecting key variables introduces
uncertainty. Inherent in any analysis of future regulatory programs are
uncertainties in projecting atmospheric conditions and source level
emissions, as well as population, health baselines, incomes, technology,
and other factors.

This analysis omits certain unquantified effects due to lack of data,
time and resources. These unquantified endpoints include other health
and ecosystem effects. EPA will continue to evaluate new methods and
models and select those most appropriate for estimating the benefits of
reductions in air pollution. Enhanced collaboration between air quality
modelers, epidemiologists, toxicologists, ecologists, and economists
should result in a more tightly integrated analytical framework for
measuring benefits of air pollution policies.

PM2.5 mortality benefits represent a substantial proportion of total
monetized benefits (over 90%), and these estimates have following key
assumptions and uncertainties.

The PM2.5 -related benefits of the alternative scenarios were derived
through a benefit per-ton approach, which does not fully reflect local
variability in population density, meteorology, exposure, baseline
health incidence rates, or other local factors that might lead to an
over-estimate or under-estimate of the actual benefits of this rule.

We assume that all fine particles, regardless of their chemical
composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality. This is
an important assumption, because PM2.5 produced via transported
precursors emitted from EGUs may differ significantly from direct PM2.5
released from diesel engines and other industrial sources, but no clear
scientific grounds exist for supporting differential effects estimates
by particle type.

We assume that the health impact function for fine particles is linear
within the range of ambient concentrations under consideration. Thus,
the estimates include health benefits from reducing fine particles in
areas with varied concentrations of PM2.5, including both regions that
are in attainment with fine particle standard and those that do not meet
the standard down to the lowest modeled concentrations.

To characterize the uncertainty in the relationship between PM2.5 and
premature mortality, we include a set of twelve estimates based on
results of the expert elicitation study in addition to our core
estimates. Even these multiple characterizations omit the uncertainty in
air quality estimates, baseline incidence rates, populations exposed and
transferability of the effect estimate to diverse locations. As a
result, the reported confidence intervals and range of estimates give an
incomplete picture about the overall uncertainty in the PM2.5 estimates.
This information should be interpreted within the context of the larger
uncertainty surrounding the entire analysis.

ES.6	References

Laden, F., J. Schwartz, F.E. Speizer, and D.W. Dockery. 2006.
“Reduction in Fine Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality.”
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 173:667-672.
Estimating the Public Health Benefits of Proposed Air Pollution
Regulations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Levy JI, Baxter LK, Schwartz J. 2009. Uncertainty and variability in
health-related damages from coal-fired power plants in the United
States. Risk Anal. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01227.x [Online 9 Apr
2009]

Pope, C.A., III, R.T. Burnett, M.J. Thun, E.E. Calle, D. Krewski, K.
Ito, and G.D. Thurston. 2002. “Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality,
and Long-term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution.” Journal of
the American Medical Association 287:1132-1141.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). December 2010. Guidelines
for Preparing Economic Analyses. EPA 240-R-10-001.

U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 2003. Circular A-4 Guidance
to Federal Agencies on Preparation of Regulatory Analysis.

Ö

í

摧࿗æЀ摧㥩

$

%

®

lÿÍ

D

lÿÍ

D

lÿÍ

 hù

H* hù

hi9

欀筤

欀൤

欀홤

¸ÿÇ

¸ÿÇ

렁쟿

he

hi9

愀Ĥ摧◫z

愀Ĥ摧◫z

愀Ĥ摧◫z

愀Ĥ摧◫z

愀Ĥ摧◫z

瑹◫z

愀Ĥ摧◫z

瑹◫z

愀Ĥ摧◫z

瑹算Ó

愀Ĥ摧◫z

瑹算Ó

愀Ĥ摧◫z

瑹算Ó

yte

瑹୥

愀Ĥ摧◫z

yte

瑹୥

愀Ĥ摧◫z

yte

瑹୥

愀Ĥ摧◫z

yte

瑹୥

愀Ĥ摧◫z

yte

瑹୥

愀Ĥ摧◫z

yte

瑹୥

愀Ĥ摧◫z

愀Ĥ摧◫z

yte

瑹୥

愀Ĥ摧◫z

yte

瑹୥

愀Ĥ摧◫z

yte

瑹୥

愀Ĥ摧◫z

摧算Ó

yte

瑹୥

he

愀Ĥ摧◫z

愀Ĥ摧◫z

yte

瑹୥

愀Ĥ摧◫z

yte

愀Ĥ摧痆

	ü

ó

ó

ó

ó

hÆu

ó

ó

ó

ó

ó

ó

 hÆu

ó

ó

摧➞(

ó

ó

ó

h

hi9

 he

he

 he

he

 he

hi9

hi9

hi9

hi9

hi9

8Environmental Health Perspectives 105(6):608-612.

 Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0472-114577, Technical Support Document:
Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive
Order 12866, Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, with
participation by Council of Economic Advisers, Council on Environmental
Quality, Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department
of Energy, Department of Transportation, Environmental Protection
Agency, National Economic Council, Office of Energy and Climate Change,
Office of Management and Budget, Office of Science and Technology
Policy, and Department of Treasury (February 2010). Also available at
HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations.htm"
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations.htm

 	The year 2016 is the compliance year for MATS, though as we explain in
later chapters, we use 2015 as a proxy for compliance in 2016 for IPM
emissions, costs and economic impact analysis due to availability of
modeling impacts in that year.

***E.O. 12866 Review–Draft–Do Not Cite, Quote, Or Release During
Review ***

ES-  PAGE  1


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 16, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71044-71045]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29485]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-D-0720]

International Conference on Harmonisation; E2B(R3) Electronic
Transmission of Individual Case Safety Reports; Draft Guidance on
Implementation; Data Elements and Message Specification; Appendix on
Backwards and Forwards Compatibility; Availability; Correction

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a notice
that appeared in the Federal Register of Thursday, October 20, 2011 (76
FR 65199). The document announced the availability of a draft guidance
entitled ``E2B(R3) Electronic Transmission of Individual Case Safety
Reports (ICSRs): Implementation Guide--Data Elements and Message
Specification'' (the draft E2B(R3) implementation guidance) and an
appendix to the draft guidance entitled ``ICSRs: Appendix to the
Implementation Guide--Backwards and Forwards Compatibility'' (the draft
BFC appendix). The document was published with an incorrect date in the
DATES section. This document corrects that error.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Olivia Pritzlaff, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 6308, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, (301)
796-3601.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. 2011-27147, appearing on page
65199

in the Federal Register of Thursday, October 20, 2011, the following
correction is made:
    1. On page 65199, in the first column, in the DATES section, the
date ``January 18, 2011'' is corrected to read ``January 18, 2012.''

    Dated: November 9, 2011.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-29485 Filed 11-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 161 (Friday, August 19, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 51993]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21226]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-D-0215]

Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration
Staff on In Vitro Companion Diagnostic Devices; Extension of Comment
Period

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is extending to October
12, 2011, the comment period for the notice that appeared in the
Federal Register of July 14, 2011 (76 FR 41506). In the notice, FDA
requested comments on a draft guidance document entitled ``In Vitro
Companion Diagnostic Devices.'' The Agency is taking this action in
response to requests for an extension to allow interested persons
additional time to submit comments.

DATES: Submit either written or electronic comments by October 12,
2011.

ADDRESSES: 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. 1601, Rockville, MD 20852. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth Mansfield, Center for Devices and Radiologic Health, Food and
Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, rm. 5676,
Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
Christopher Leptak, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and
Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, rm. 5102,
Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (HFM-17),
Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, suite 200N,
Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In the Federal Register of July 14, 2011 (76 FR 41506), FDA
published a notice announcing the availability of the draft guidance
entitled ``In Vitro Companion Diagnostic Devices,'' and the opening of
a public docket to receive comments on the draft guidance document.
Interested persons were invited to submit comments by September 12,
2011. At this time the Agency is extending the comment period until
October 12, 2011, to continue to receive public comments. Comments
submitted to the docket will assist in identifying issues to be
addressed in the finalized guidance document.

II. Request for Comments

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) either electronic or written comments regarding this
document. 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.

    Dated: August 15, 2011.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-21226 Filed 8-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register: September 1, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 169)]
[Notices]
[Page 53686-53687]
[DOCID:fr01se10-47]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2464-014]

Gresham Municipal Utilities; Notice of Intent To File License
Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, and Approving Use of
the Traditional Licensing Process

August 25, 2010.
    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application and
Request to Use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    b. Project No.: P-2464-014.
    c. Dated Filed: June 28, 2010.
    d. Submitted By: Gresham Municipal Utilities.
    e. Name of Project: Weed Dam Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On Red River in Shawano County, Wisconsin. No federal
lands are occupied by the project works or located within the project
boundary.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the Commission's regulations.
    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Gresham Municipal Utilities,
Village of Gresham, Wisconsin, Attn: Art Bahr, Village Administrator,
1126 Main Street, PO Box 50, Gresham, WI 54128.
    i. FERC Contact: Janet Hutzel at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Gresham Municipal Utilities filed its request to use the
Traditional Licensing Process on June 28, 2010.

Gresham Municipal Utilities provided public notice of its request on
July 6, 2010. In a letter issued on August 23, 2010, Ms. Ann F. Miles,
the Director of the Division of Hydropower Licensing, approved Gresham
Municipal Utilities request to use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with:
(a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife under section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR, part
402; and (b) the Wisconsin State Historic Preservation Officer, as
required by section 106, National Historical Preservation Act, and the
implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
    l. Gresham Municipal Utilities filed a Pre-Application Document
(PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the
Commission, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
    m. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site
(http://www.ferc.gov), using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
(202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in paragraph h.
    n. The licensee states its unequivocal intent to submit an
application for a new license for Project No. 2464. Pursuant to 18 CFR
16.8, 16.9, and 16.10 each application for a new license and any
competing license applications must be filed with the Commission at
least 24 months prior to the expiration of the existing license. All
applications for license for this project must be filed by June 30,
2013.
    o. Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filing and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-21794 Filed 8-31-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 18, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 180)]
[Notices]
[Page 53248-53249]
[DOCID:fr18se07-49]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

September 11, 2007.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP05-422-022.
    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company.
    Description: El Paso Natural Gas Company submits Thirty-Fourth
Revised Sheet 20 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1-A.
    Filed Date: 09/10/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070911-0089.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, September 24, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP07-38-003.
    Applicants: Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company submits Revised
Sheets 4, 5, and 6 to FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1,
effective 9/1/07.

    Filed Date: 09/10/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070910-0191.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, September 24, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP07-602-001.
    Applicants: Sabine Pipe Line LLC.
    Description: Sabine Pipe Line LLC submits Substitute Eighth Revised
Sheet 20 to its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1, to be effective 10/
11/07.
    Filed Date: 09/10/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070911-0087.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, September 24, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP07-688-000.
    Applicants: Chandeleur Pipe Line Company.
    Description: Chandeleur Pipe Line Co submits Twenty First Revised
Sheet 5 to its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1, to be
effective 10/11/07.
    Filed Date: 09/10/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070911-0086.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, September 24, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP07-689-000.
    Applicants: Northwest Pipeline Corporation.
    Description: Northwest Pipeline Corp requests that FERC waive an
obligation imposed upon Northwest by a 1998 Settlement Agreement to
pass through to its customers certain Gas Research Institute refunds.
    Filed Date: 09/10/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070911-0109.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, September 24, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP07-88-002.
    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company.
    Description: El Paso Natural Gas Company submits this filing to
provide the requested additional information on the accounting
practices used to report the disposition of costs & revenues related to
operational gas purchases.
    Filed Date: 09/10/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070911-0088.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, September 24, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP97-391-005.
    Applicants: Gas Technology Institute.
    Description: Northwest Pipeline Corp requests that FERC waive an
obligation imposed upon Northwest by a 1998 Settlement Agreement to
pass through to its customers certain Gas Research Institute refunds.
    Filed Date: 09/10/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070911-0109.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, September 24, 2007.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    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
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings 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 e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Acting Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-18281 Filed 9-17-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P