[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 10 (Friday, January 15, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4142-4143]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00810]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90885; File No. 4-757]

Joint Industry Plan; Order Instituting Proceedings to Determine
Whether To Approve or Disapprove a National Market System Plan
Regarding Consolidated Equity Market Data

January 11, 2021.

I. Introduction

    On August 11, 2020, Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc., Cboe BZX Exchange,
Inc., Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc., Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc., Cboe
Exchange, Inc., Investors Exchange LLC, Long Term Stock Exchange, Inc.,
MEMX LLC, Nasdaq BX, Inc., Nasdaq ISE, LLC, Nasdaq PHLX LLC, Nasdaq
Stock Market LLC, New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE American LLC, NYSE
Arca, Inc., NYSE Chicago, Inc., NYSE National, Inc., and Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'') (collectively, the
``SROs'' or ``Participants'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') a proposed new single national
market system plan governing the public dissemination of real-time
consolidated equity market data for national market system (``NMS'')
stocks (the ``CT Plan''). The proposed CT Plan was published for
comment in the Federal Register on October 13, 2020.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Notice of Filing of a National Market System Plan
Regarding Consolidated Equity Market Data, Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 34-90096 (Oct. 6, 2020), 85 FR 64565 (Oct. 13, 2020)
(``Notice''). Comments received in response to the Notice can be
found on the Commission's website at https://www.sec.gov/comments/4-757/4-757.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This order institutes proceedings, under Rule 608(b)(2)(i) of
Regulation NMS,\2\ to determine whether to disapprove the CT Plan or to
approve the plan with any changes or subject to any conditions the
Commission deems necessary or appropriate after considering public
comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 17 CFR 242.608(b)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

    The SROs filed the CT Plan pursuant to a Commission order directing
the SROs to act jointly in developing and filing with the Commission a
proposed new single national market system plan to replace the three
existing national market system plans that govern the public
dissemination of real-time, consolidated equity market data for NMS
stocks (the ``Governance Order'').\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Order Directing the Exchanges and the Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority to Submit a New National Market System Plan
Regarding Consolidated Equity Market Data, Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 34-88827 (May 6, 2020), 85 FR 28702 (May 13, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In issuing the Governance Order, the Commission stated that
developments in technology and changes in the equities markets have
heightened an inherent conflict of interest between the Participants'
collective responsibilities in overseeing the existing equity data
plans \4\ and their individual interests in maximizing the viability of
proprietary data products that they sell to market participants.\5\
This conflict of interest, the Commission stated, combined with the
concentration of voting power in the existing equity data plans among a
few large ``exchange groups''--multiple exchanges operating under one
corporate umbrella--has contributed to significant concerns regarding
whether the consolidated feeds meet the purposes for them set out by
Congress and by the Commission in adopting the national market
system.\6\ The Commission therefore found it in the public interest to
require the Participants to jointly develop and file with the
Commission a single new consolidated data plan with specified terms and
conditions regarding the governance of the new plan.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The three equity data plans that currently govern the
collection, consolidation, processing, and dissemination of SIP data
are (1) the Consolidated Tape Association Plan (``CTA Plan''), (2)
the Consolidated Quotation Plan (``CQ Plan''), and (3) the Joint
Self-Regulatory Organization Plan Governing the Collection,
Consolidation, and Dissemination of Quotation and Transaction
Information for Nasdaq-Listed Securities Traded on Exchanges on an
Unlisted Trading Privileges Basis (``UTP Plan''). See Governance
Order, supra note 3, 85 FR at 28703 & n.34.
    \5\ See Governance Order, supra note 3, 85 FR at 28702.
    \6\ See id. The Commission also stated in the Governance Order
that the continued existence of three separate NMS plans for equity
market data creates inefficiencies and unnecessarily burdens ongoing
improvements in the provision of equity market data to market
participants. See id.
    \7\ See Governance Order, supra note 3, 85 FR at 28729-31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The full text of the proposed CT Plan appears in Attachment A to
the Notice.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Notice, supra note 1, 85 FR 64574-95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove the
Proposed CT Plan

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Rule
608(b)(2)(i) of Regulation NMS,\9\ and Rules 700 and 701 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice,\10\ to determine whether to disapprove
the CT Plan or to approve the plan with any changes or subject to any
conditions the Commission deems necessary or appropriate after
considering public comment. Institution of proceedings does not
indicate that the Commission has reached any conclusions with respect
to any of the issues involved. Rather, the Commission seeks and
encourages interested persons to provide additional comment on the
proposed CT Plan to inform the Commission's analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \10\ 17 CFR 201.700; 17 CFR 201.701.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 608(b)(2) of Regulation NMS provides that the Commission
``shall approve a national market system plan . . . with such changes
or subject to such conditions as the Commission may deem necessary or
appropriate, if it finds that such plan . . . is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors and
the maintenance of fair and orderly markets, to remove impediments to,
and perfect the mechanisms of, a national market system, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.'' \11\ Rule 608(b)(2)
further provides that the Commission shall disapprove a national market
system plan or proposed amendment if it does not make such a
finding.\12\ In the Notice, the Commission sought comment on elements
of the proposed CT Plan that bear on the Commission's analysis of
whether the plan should be approved, disapproved,

or approved with modifications.\13\ In this order, pursuant to Rule
608(b)(2)(i) of Regulation NMS,\14\ the Commission is providing notice
of the grounds for disapproval under consideration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See 17 CFR 242.608(b)(2).
    \12\ See id.
    \13\ See Notice, supra note 1, 85 FR at 64568-74.
    \14\ 17 CFR 242.608(b)(2)(i). See also Commission Rule of
Practice 700(b)(2), 17 CFR 201.700(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether the proposed CT Plan is consistent with the
Governance Order;
     Whether, consistent with Rule 608 of Regulation NMS, the
proposed CT Plan is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly
markets, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a
national market system, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act; \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See 17 CFR 242.608(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether modifications to the proposed CT Plan, or
conditions to its approval, would be required to make the proposed plan
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of
investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets, to remove
impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a national market
system, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act; \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See 17 CFR 242.608(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether the proposed CT Plan is consistent with Congress's
finding, in Section 11A(1)(C)(iii) of the Act, that it is in the public
interest and appropriate for the protection of investors and the
maintenance of fair and orderly markets to ensure ``the availability to
brokers, dealers, and investors or information with respect to
quotations for and transactions in securities'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1)(C)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether, consistent with the purposes of Section
11A(c)(1)(B) of the Act,\18\ the proposed CT Plan is appropriately
structured, and whether its provisions are appropriately drafted, to
support the prompt, accurate, reliable, and fair collection,
processing, distribution, and publication of information with respect
to quotations for and transactions in NMS securities, and the fairness
and usefulness of the form and content of such information;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(c)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether the proposed CT Plan effectively addresses the
inherent conflict of interest between the Participants' collective
responsibilities in overseeing the existing equity data plans and their
individual interests in maximizing the viability of proprietary data
products that they sell to market participants, as well as the
concentration of voting power in the existing equity data plans among a
few large exchange groups; and
     Whether the provisions of the proposed CT Plan that were
not mandated by the Governance Order are consistent with the Act and
the rules and regulations issued thereunder that are applicable to NMS
plans.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Rule 700(b)(3)(ii) of the Commission's Rules of
Practice. 17 CFR 200.700(b)(3)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional
consideration and comment on the issues raised above.

IV. Commission's Solicitation of Comments

    The Commission requests that interested persons provide written
submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the
issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have
with the proposals. In particular, the Commission invites the written
views of interested persons concerning whether the proposals are
consistent with Section 11A or any other provision of the Act, or the
rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not appear to be
any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be
facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the
Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 608(b)(2)(i) of Regulation
NMS,\20\ any request for an opportunity to make an oral
presentation.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 242.608(b)(2)(i).
    \21\ Rule 700(c)(ii) of the Commission's Rules of Practice
provides that ``[t]he Commission, in its sole discretion, may
determine whether any issues relevant to approval or disapproval
would be facilitated by the opportunity for an oral presentation of
views.'' 17 CFR 201.700(c)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments regarding whether the proposals should be approved or
disapproved by February 5, 2021. Any person who wishes to file a
rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by
February 19, 2021. Comments may be submitted by any of the following
methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number 4-757 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 4-757. 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 Participants' principal offices. 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 4-757 and should be submitted on or before
February 5, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-00810 Filed 1-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 25, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28097-28099]
[FR Doc No: 2021-10519]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0136; FRL-10023-41]

Pesticide Registration Review; Sulfuryl Fluoride Draft Interim
Re-Entry Mitigation Measures and Registration Review Draft Risk
Assessments for Sulfuryl Fluoride; Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's Sulfuryl
Fluoride Draft Interim Re-Entry Mitigation Measures and several
registration review draft risk assessments for sulfuryl fluoride.
Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide registrations
to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the statutory
standard for registration, that is, that the pesticide can perform its
intended function without causing unreasonable adverse effects on human
health or the environment. Through this program, EPA is ensuring that
each pesticide's registration is based on current scientific and other
knowledge, including its effects on human health and the environment.
EPA may pursue mitigation at any time during the registration review
process if it finds that a pesticide poses unreasonable adverse effects
to human health or the environment. To address human health incidents
and in response to EPA's Office of Inspector General 2016 (OIG) Report,
Additional Measures Can Be Taken to Prevent Deaths and Serious Injuries
From Residential Fumigations (No. 17-P-0053), the EPA believes that the
mitigation measures outlined in this Sulfuryl Fluoride Draft Interim
Re-Entry Mitigation Measures are necessary to address identified human
health risk concerns. The scope of this interim mitigation is focused
on the use of sulfuryl fluoride as a structural fumigant in residential
use sites. The Agency is also publishing several registration review
risk assessments on sulfuryl fluoride for public comment.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 26, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, are available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Public Reading Room are closed to visitors
with limited exceptions. The EPA/DC staff continue to provide remote
customer service via email, phone, and webform. For the latest status
information on EPA/DC services and docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For pesticide specific information
contact: Moana Appleyard, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P),
Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703) 308-8175; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general questions on the registration review program, contact:
Melanie Biscoe, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides
discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

II. Background

    Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide
registrations to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the
statutory standard for registration, that is, the pesticide can perform
its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human
health or the environment. As part of the registration review process,
the Agency has completed the Sulfuryl Fluoride Draft Interim Re-Entry
Mitigation Measures. This decision document is in response to the EPA
Office of the Inspector General's (OIG) 2016 report entitled Additional
Measures Can Be Taken to Prevent Deaths and Serious Injuries From
Residential Fumigations (available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-12/documents/_epaoig_20161212-17-p-0053.pdf). The
OIG conducted this report to determine the extent and nature of adverse
impacts caused by structural fumigation, after two incidents in 2015,
including one with the chemical sulfuryl fluoride. The OIG report
sought to determine whether regulatory, program execution (e.g.,
training, funding, inspections, enforcement, etc.), or other factors
were associated with adverse impacts. The focus of the audit with
regards to the chemical sulfuryl fluoride, is residential fumigation
use. The OIG report detailed several recommendations that fall under
the purview of the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), including:
     Implement a process to evaluate label changes for all
three brands of sulfuryl fluoride to require secured tenting and
fumigation management plans.
     Clearly define the criteria for meeting the applicator
stewardship training requirement.
     Conduct an assessment of clearance devices to validate
their effectiveness.
    The purpose of the Sulfuryl Fluoride Draft Interim Re-Entry
Mitigation Measures is to propose risk mitigation measures to address
these recommendations from the OIG report ahead of the typical
mitigation phase of Registration Review. EPA expects that the
implementation of the mitigation measures described in this risk
mitigation document will allow sulfuryl fluoride products to remain
available to users while addressing the recommendations from the OIG
report.
    The Agency has also completed several registration review draft
human health and ecological risk assessments for sulfuryl fluoride.
After reviewing comments received during the public comment period, EPA
may then issue the Sulfuryl Fluoride Final Interim Re-Entry Mitigation
Measures, revised risk assessments, explain any changes to the
mitigation measures and draft risk assessments, and respond to
comments. The Agency is only proposing mitigation to address the OIG
audit at this time. Once all the risk assessments are completed for all
the uses of sulfuryl fluoride, EPA may propose additional mitigation to
address potential risks, as part of the normal registration review
process. At that time, EPA may request public input on additional risk
mitigation before completing a Proposed Interim Decision (PID). Through
this program, EPA is ensuring that each pesticide's registration is
based on current scientific and other knowledge, including its effects
on human health and the environment.

III. Authority

    EPA is conducting its registration review of the sulfuryl fluoride
documents listed in Unit IV pursuant to section 3(g) of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Procedural
Regulations for Registration Review at 40 CFR part 155, subpart C.
Section 3(g) of FIFRA provides, among other things, that the
registrations of pesticides are to be reviewed every 15 years. Under
FIFRA, a pesticide product may be registered or remain registered only
if it meets the statutory standard for registration given in FIFRA
section 3(c)(5) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(5)). When used in accordance with
widespread and commonly recognized practice, the pesticide product must
perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on
the environment; that is, without any unreasonable risk to man or the
environment, or a human dietary risk from residues that result from the
use of a pesticide in or on food.

IV. What action is the Agency taking?

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.58, this notice announces the availability
of EPA's Sulfuryl Fluoride Draft Interim Re-Entry Mitigation Measures
and several human health and ecological risk assessments for sulfuryl
fluoride and opens a 60-day public comment period on the Sulfuryl
Fluoride Draft Interim Re-Entry Mitigation Measures and the risk
assessments. Additional support documents will be available in the
public docket, which the Agency is not taking comment on.
    Documents to publish in response to the OIG audit and open for
public comment:
     Sulfuryl Fluoride Draft Interim Re-Entry Mitigation
Measures.
     Sulfuryl Fluoride: Tier I Review of Human Incidents for
Draft Risk Assessment.
    Support documents to publish in response to the OIG audit that are
not open for public comment:
     Memorandum: Assessment of Portable Devices for Their
Effectiveness in Detecting Sulfuryl Fluoride (SF) at Clearance Level.
     Laboratory Testing of Portable Clearance Devices with
Sulfuryl Fluoride Standard, Analytical Chemistry Branch (ACB), Office
of Pesticide Programs.
    The Agency is also publishing the following documents to the
sulfuryl fluoride docket as part of the Registration Review of sulfuryl
fluoride. These documents will publish for a 60-day comment period.
After the dietary risk assessment for sulfuryl fluoride is

completed and publishes for comment, the Agency will issue a Proposed
Interim Decision (PID) to address all the uses of sulfuryl fluoride.
    Registration Review documents available for publication and open
for public comment:
     Sulfuryl Fluoride. Residential Post-application Exposure
and Risk Assessment.
     Sulfuryl Fluoride. Occupational and Residential Exposure
Assessment in Support of Registration Review.
     Sulfuryl Fluoride--Draft Risk Assessment in Support of
Office of Registration Review Part I: Occupational and Residential
Exposure.
     Six Structural and Commodity Fumigants: Combined Draft
Risk Assessment (DRA) and Drinking Water Assessment (DWA) for
Registration Review.
     Overview of Application Methods and Factors, Use, Usage,
and Benefits of Commodity and Structural Fumigants: Phosphine [(066500)
including Aluminum Phosphide (066501) and Magnesium Phosphide
(066504)], Propylene Oxide (042501), Sulfur Dioxide (077601), Sodium
Metabisulfite (111409), Sulfuryl Fluoride, (078003), Ethylene Oxide
(042301), and Methyl Bromide (053201).
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.53(c), EPA is providing an opportunity,
through this notice of availability, for interested parties to provide
comments and input concerning the Agency's Sulfuryl Fluoride Draft
Interim Re-Entry Mitigation Measures and the draft human health and
ecological risk assessments for sulfuryl fluoride. The Agency will
consider all comments received during the public comment period and
make changes, as appropriate, to these documents. EPA may then issue
the Sulfuryl Fluoride Final Interim Re-Entry Mitigation Measures,
revised risk assessments, explain any changes to the mitigation
measures and draft risk assessments, and respond to comments.
    Information submission requirements. Anyone may submit data or
information in response to this document. To be considered during a
pesticide's registration review, the submitted data or information must
meet the following requirements:
     To ensure that EPA will consider data or information
submitted, interested persons must submit the data or information
during the comment period. The Agency may, at its discretion, consider
data or information submitted at a later date.
     The data or information submitted must be presented in a
legible and useable form. For example, an English translation must
accompany any material that is not in English and a written transcript
must accompany any information submitted as an audio-graphic or video-
graphic record. Written material may be submitted in paper or
electronic form.
     Submitters must clearly identify the source of any
submitted data or information.
     Submitters may request the Agency to reconsider data or
information that the Agency rejected in a previous review. However,
submitters must explain why they believe the Agency should reconsider
the data or information in the pesticide's registration review.
    As provided in 40 CFR 155.58, the registration review docket for
each pesticide case will remain publicly accessible through the
duration of the registration review process; that is, until all actions
required in the final decision on the registration review case have
been completed.

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: May 5, 2021.
Mary Reaves,
Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2021-10519 Filed 5-24-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: August 2, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 148)]
[Notices]
[Page 42460-42462]
[DOCID:fr02au07-144]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56150; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2007-56]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change as Modified by
Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 thereto Relating to NYSE Arca Rule 6.72 and the
Penny Pilot for Options Trading

July 26, 2007.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on June 18, 2007, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been substantially prepared by NYSE Arca. On July 23, 2007, the
Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\3\ The
Exchange filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposal on July 25, 2007. The
Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule
change pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \4\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder,\5\ which rendered the proposal effective upon
filing with the Commission.\6\ The Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Amendment No. 1 superseded and replaced the original filing
in its entirety.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \6\ See Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NYSE Arca proposes to amend its option trading rules in order to
extend the Penny Pilot in options classes in certain issues (``Pilot
Program'') previously approved by the Commission through September 27,
2007. The text of the proposed rule change is available on NYSE Arca's
Web site at http://www.nysearca.com, at the Exchange's

Office of the Secretary, 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 extend the time period of the Pilot
Program \7\ through September 27, 2007. The Exchange believes the
benefits to public customers and other market participants who will be
able to express their true prices to buy and sell options have been
demonstrated to outweigh the increase in quote traffic. The Exchange
previously filed with the Commission its economic and capacity analysis
of the Pilot Program.\8\ The Exchange attached its report as Exhibit 3
to the proposed rule change. The report assessed, among other things,
the impact of the Pilot Program upon quote rates, effective spreads,
quoted spreads, available liquidity, data mitigation, and volume
changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-55156 (January
23, 2007), 72 FR 4759 (February 1, 2007) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-73).
    \8\ See Exhibit 3 to proposed rule change, ``Understanding
Economic and Capacity Impacts of the Penny Pilot'' previously
submitted to the Commission by NYSE Arca on May 31, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Exchange, the results detailed in the report
indicate that the pre-pilot capacity fears were unfounded and
unrealized and the pre-pilot predictions of spread compression were
justified--much to the benefit of investors. The Exchange believes that
these results strongly support the extension of the Pilot Program.
    The Exchange, pursuant to discussions with Commission staff,
intends to file a separate request to further extend and expand the
Pilot Program, prior to September 27, 2007.
    The Exchange agrees to submit a report to the Commission that
includes data and written analysis of information collected from May 1,
2007 through September 27, 2007. This report will include, but is not
limited to: (1) Data and written analysis on the number of quotations
generated for options selected for the Pilot Program; (2) an assessment
of the quotation spreads for the options selected for the Pilot
Program; (3) an assessment of the impact of the Pilot Program on the
capacity of the NYSE Arca's automated systems; (4) any capacity
problems or other problems that arose related to the operation of the
Pilot Program and how the Exchange addressed them; and (5) an
assessment of trade through complaints that were sent by the Exchange
during the operation of the Pilot Program and how they were addressed.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \9\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ in particular, 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, and to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    On July 20, 2007, Citadel submitted a comment letter to the
Commission in response to the Exchange's original filing regarding the
Penny Pilot (SR-NYSEArca-2007-56).\11\ No other written comments were
solicited or received by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Exchange subsequently filed Amendment No. 1, which
superseded and replaced the original filing in its entirety.
Amendment No. 1 changed the original scope of the proposed extension
and expansion considerably. As a result, the Exchange believes that
Citadel's comments are no longer applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\13\
because the foregoing proposed rule does not: (i) Significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \14\ The Commission notes that the effective date of the
proposed rule change is July 23, 2007, the date on which Amendment
No. 1 was filed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally may
not become operative prior to 30-days after the date of filing.\15\
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to designate a
shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest.\16\ The Exchange has requested that
the Commission waive the 5-day pre-filing requirement and the 30-day
operative delay. The Commission believes that waiving the 5-day pre-
filing requirement and the 30-day operative delay is consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest because such waiver
will ensure continuity of the Exchange's rules and will allow the Penny
Pilot Program to remain in effect without interruption. For these
reasons, the Commission designates the proposal to be operative upon
filing with the Commission.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) requires the self-regulatory organization to give the
Commission notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change,
along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change,
at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission.
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \17\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ For purposes of calculating the 60-day period within which
the Commission may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change under
Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, the Commission considers the period
to commence on July 25, 2007, the date on which NYSE Arca submitted
Amendment No. 2. See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, as amended, 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-NYSEArca-2007-56 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2007-56.
This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is
used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the NYSE Arca. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2007-56 and should
be submitted on or before August 23, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-14991 Filed 8-1-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


From:
Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Friday, October 16, 2015 3:38 PM
To:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:
David Ailor<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Palma, Ted<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
follow-up from NATA conversation

Hello Stephen  -  Were you the one who I had a conversation with about NATA? I checked with our risk staff for coke, Ted Palma, and he said that you have to look at tract level (see below from NATA page). I had downloaded at first the same thing that you had and saw the same 3.8 x 10-e5 MIR number in a county in KY.

At the TRACK level for Allegheny County in PA, the risk from coke oven emissions estimated in the 2005 NATA (released in 2013) for one of the tracks (492700) is 300 MIR, with the coke oven emissions contribution 138 MIR or 48% of total 300 MIR for the track. The top pollutants contributing to 94% of the MIR in this track are from five HAP: coke oven emissions, PAH/POM, formaldehyde, napthalene, benzene in this order. The top two, coke oven emissions and PAH/POM, contribute 81% of the total MIR for the track. See attached table. If you look back on main county level data you will see that Allegheny County as a whole is the third highest county with COE, and has an MIR that is 25% of the KY County.

P.s. David- Please forward to correct person if I have wrong guy. He was sitting a few people up from where I was standing and had a VERY well kept hair style, i.e. he was bald.

Nationwide, Tract-level Results (zipped MS ACCESS format)
::2005 NATA US Cancer Risks Tract
_____________________________________________________________
Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D 243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

<< Allegheny-tract492700--NATA05_srcrisk_pollbkdn_bytract_hapcat_25Jan11.pdf >>