[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 149 (Wednesday, August 3, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51258-51264]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18313]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78431; File No. SR-BX-2016-045]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Regarding Tiers
Related to SPY Options

July 28, 2016.
    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 July 14, 2016, NASDAQ BX, Inc. (``BX'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below,
which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Options Pricing at Chapter XV
Section 2, entitled ``BX Options Market--Fees and Rebates,'' which
governs pricing for BX members using the BX Options Market (``BX
Options''). The Exchange proposes to modify fees and rebates (per
executed contract) for certain Penny Pilot \3\ Options to: (a) Delete
SPY Options from the Select Symbols Options Tier Schedule; and (b)
adopt a SPY Options Tier Schedule.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Penny Pilot was established in June 2012 and extended
through 2016. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 67256 (June
26, 2012), 77 FR 39277 (July 2, 2012) (SR-BX-2012-030) (order
approving BX option rules and establishing Penny Pilot); and 78036
(June 10, 2016), 81 FR 39308 (June 16, 2016) (SR-BX-2016-021)
(notice of filing and immediate effectiveness extending the Penny
Pilot through December 31, 2016).
    \4\ SPY, Select Symbols Options Tier Schedule, and SPY Options
Tier Schedule are discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqbx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal office
of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant 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 Chapter XV, Section 2 to modify fees
and rebates \5\ for certain Penny Pilot Options to: (a) Delete SPY \6\
Options from the Select Symbols Options Tier Schedule; and (b) adopt a
SPY Options Tier Schedule with explanatory notes. The proposed SPY
Options Tier Schedule would apply to Customers \7\ that remove
liquidity from Customers, Non-Customers,\8\ BX Options Market
Makers,\9\ and Firms.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Fees and rebates are per executed contract. Chapter XV,
Section 2(1).
    \6\ ``SPY'' or Standard and Poor's Depositary Receipts/SPDRs
options are Penny Pilot Options that are based on the SPDR exchange-
traded fund (``ETF''), which is designed to track the performance of
the S&P 500. Options on SPY (``SPY Options'') are among the highest
volume options traded on the Exchange.
    \7\ The term ``Customer'' or (``C'') applies to any transaction
that is identified by a Participant for clearing in the Customer
range at The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') which is not for
the account of broker or dealer or for the account of a
``Professional'' (as that term is defined in Chapter I, Section
1(a)(48)). BX Chapter XV. This is known as being marked in the
Customer range.
    \8\ Note 1 to Chapter XV, Section 2 states: ``\1\A Non-Customer
includes a Professional, Broker-Dealer and Non-BX Options Market
Maker.''
    \9\ The term ``BX Options Market Maker'' or (``M'') means a
Participant that has registered as a Market Maker on BX Options
pursuant to Chapter VII, Section 2, and must also remain in good
standing pursuant to Chapter VII, Section 4. In order to receive
Market Maker pricing in all securities, the Participant must be
registered as a BX Options Market Maker in at least one security. BX
Chapter XV.
    \10\ The term ``Firm'' or (``F'') applies to any transaction
that is identified by a Participant for clearing in the Firm range
at OCC. BX Chapter XV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, Chapter XV, Section 2 subsection (1) has a Select
Symbols Options Tier Schedule that includes SPY,\11\ but it does not
have a SPY Options Tier Schedule. Both of these issues are addressed in
the current filing and each specific change is described in detail
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77339 (March 10,
2016), 81 FR 14155 (March 16, 2016) (SR-BX-2016-016) (notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness to adopt Select Symbols Options
Tier Schedule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Change 1--Penny Pilot Options: Remove SPY Options From Select Symbols
Options Tier Schedule
    In Change 1, under Penny Pilot Options, the Exchange proposes to
remove SPY Options from the Select Symbols Options Tier Schedule. The
Exchange simultaneously proposes to establish a new SPY Options Tier
Schedule.
    Specifically, the Exchange proposes, commensurate with establishing
the SPY Options Tier Schedule, to delete SPY from the BX Options Select
Symbol List. The Select Symbols on this list represent, similarly to
SPY, some of the highest volume Penny Pilot Options traded on the
Exchange and in the U.S. The following are currently Select Symbols:
ASHR, DIA, DXJ, EEM, EFA, EWJ, EWT, EWW, EWY, EWZ, FAS, FAZ, FXE, FXI,
FXP, GDX, GLD, HYG, IWM, IYR, KRE, OIH, QID, QLD, QQQ, RSX, SDS, SKF,
SLV, SPY, SRS, SSO, TBT, TLT, TNA, TZA, UNG, URE, USO, UUP, UVXY, UYG,
VXX, XHB, XLB, XLE, XLF, XLI, XLK, XLP, XLU, XLV, XLY, XME, XOP, XRT.
The Select Symbol List is similar to that of other options exchanges
(e.g., the MIAX Options Exchange (``MIAX'').\12\ Whereas the current
Select Symbols Options Tier Schedule has four Tiers, the proposed SPY
Options Tier Schedule will have three Tiers. Moreover the SPY Options
Tier requirements as well as the proposed fees and rebates are, as
described below, very similar to those currently applicable to Select
Symbols.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See MIAX fee schedule at https://www.miaxoptions.com/content/fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, the BX Options Select Symbol List in Chapter XV,
Section 2 subsection (1) will not include SPY and will read as follows:
BX Options Select Symbol List
    The following are Select Symbols: ASHR, DIA, DXJ, EEM, EFA, EWJ,
EWT, EWW, EWY, EWZ, FAS, FAZ, FXE, FXI, FXP, GDX, GLD, HYG, IWM, IYR,
KRE, OIH, QID, QLD, QQQ, RSX, SDS, SKF, SLV, SRS, SSO, TBT, TLT, TNA,
TZA, UNG, URE, USO, UUP, UVXY, UYG, VXX, XHB, XLB, XLE, XLF, XLI, XLK,
XLP, XLU, XLV, XLY, XME, XOP, XRT.
Change 2--Penny Pilot Options: Add SPY Options Tier Schedule
    For Penny Pilot Options, in Change 2 the Exchange is proposing to
modify fees and rebates for Customer and BX Options Market Maker in
respect of SPY Options.\13\ Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to
add a SPY Options Tier Schedule. This schedule will have three Tiers
for Rebate to Remove Liquidity for Customer and several notes. The
three new Tiers, described below along with several proposed notes,
together make up the ``SPY Options Tier Schedule''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Non- Penny Pilot Options pricing will remain unchanged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Tier 1 in the SPY Options Tier Schedule, which is similar
in structure to current Tier 1 in the Select Symbols Options Tier
Schedule Rebate to Remove Liquidity,\14\ states that a BX Participant
(``Participant'') may earn a rebate if he removes less than 1500 SPY
Options contracts per day in the Customer range.\15\ Proposed Tier 1
offers a $0.10 rebate when a Customer trades with Non-Customer, BX
Options Market Maker, Customer, or Firm. The proposed $0.10 rebate is a
modest increase from the current $0.00 rebate in the Select Symbols
Options Tier Schedule now applicable to SPY Options. This increase is,
as further discussed, reasonable because it incentivizes Participants
to bring SPY Options volume to the Exchange. Whereas the Select Symbols
Options Tier Schedule takes into account total industry Customer volume
per month including equity and ETF options ADV contracts, in order to
incentivize Participants to transact more SPY Options volume on the
Exchange, proposed Tier 1 looks only at the amount of daily SPY Options
volume in the Customer range that is removed by the Participant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Current Select Symbols Options Tiers use industry customer
equity and ETF Option ADV to determine tier level. Rather than
industry ADV, proposed SPY Options Tier 1 looks only at how many SPY
Options contracts Participant removes in a day.
    \15\ For a discussion of Customer range, see note 7 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Tier 2 in the SPY Options Tier Schedule, which is similar
in structure to current Tier 2 in the Select Symbols Options Tier
Schedule Rebate to Remove Liquidity, states that a Participant may earn
a rebate if he removes 1500 to not more than 2999 SPY Options contracts
per day in the Customer range. Proposed Tier 2 offers a $0.42 rebate
when a Customer trades with Non-Customer, BX Options Market Maker,
Customer, or Firm. The proposed $0.42 rebate is a modest increase from
the current $0.25 rebate in the Select Symbols Options Tier Schedule
now applicable to SPY Options. This increase is, as further discussed,
reasonable because it incentivizes Participants to bring SPY Options
volume to the Exchange. Whereas the Select Symbols Options Tier
Schedule takes into account total industry Customer volume per month
including equity and ETF options ADV contracts, in order to incentivize
Participants to transact more SPY Options volume on the Exchange,
proposed Tier 2 looks only at the amount of daily SPY Options volume in
the Customer range that is removed by the Participant.
    The highest proposed Tier 3 in the SPY Options Tier Schedule, which
is similar in structure to current Tier 3 in

the Select Symbols Options Tier Schedule Rebate to Remove Liquidity,
states that a Participant may earn a rebate if he removes more than
2999 SPY Options contracts per day in the customer range. Proposed Tier
3 offers a $0.51 rebate when a Customer trades with Non-Customer, BX
Options Market Maker, Customer, or Firm. The proposed $0.51 rebate is a
modest increase from the current $0.37 rebate in the Select Symbols
Options Tier Schedule now applicable to SPY Options. This increase is,
as further discussed, reasonable because it incentivizes Participants
to bring SPY Options volume to the Exchange. Whereas the Select Symbols
Options Tier Schedule takes into account total industry Customer volume
per month including equity and ETF options ADV contracts, in order to
incentivize Participants to transact more SPY Options volume on the
Exchange, proposed Tier 3 looks only at the amount of daily SPY Options
volume in the Customer range that is removed by the Participant.
    As part of the new SPY Options Tier Schedule the Exchange proposes
six notes regarding certain fees to add liquidity and fees to remove
liquidity. The first four proposed notes are taken directly from the
Select Symbols Options Tier Schedule and use the same language except
that these proposed notes refer to SPY Options rather than Select
Symbols. The Exchange is also adding a sentence to the fourth note to
state: There will be no fee or rebate for Customer SPY Options that add
liquidity when contra to Firm, BX Options Market Maker or Non
Customer.\16\ The Exchange also proposes two additional notes. Proposed
note 5 would state that BX Options Market Maker fee to add liquidity
and BX Options Market Maker fee to remove liquidity in SPY Options will
each be $0.44 per contract when trading with Customer. Proposed note 6
would state that BX Options Market Maker fee to add liquidity in SPY
Options will be $0.10 per contract when trading with Firm, BX Options
Market Maker or Non Customer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Exchange believes that while the fourth note applicable
to Select Symbols Options now states that Customer fee to add
liquidity in when contra to another Customer is $0.33 per contract,
the proposed change is reasonable in light of the overall Exchange
efforts to incentivize Participants to bring SPY Options liquidity
to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today, when BX Options Market Maker trades in SPY Options with
Customer, the fee to add liquidity is between $0.29 and $0.44 per
contract and the fee to remove liquidity is between $0.25 and $0.42 per
contract, according to Tiers. Going forward, per proposed note 5, both
the fee to add liquidity in SPY Options and the fee to remove liquidity
in SPY Options when BX Options Market Maker trades with Customer will
be $0.44 per contract. Today the fee to add liquidity when BX Options
Market maker trades in SPY Options with Non-Customer or BX Options
Market Maker, or Firm is between $0.14 and $0.00 per contract,
according to Tiers. Going forward per proposed note 6 the BX Options
Market Maker fee to add liquidity will be $0.10 per contract when
trading SPY Options with Firm, BX Options Market Maker or Non Customer.
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to normalize the fees
discussed in note 5 and in note 6 so that they are the same for BX
Options Market Makers when trading such SPY Options.
    As proposed, the SPY Options Tier Schedule in Chapter XV, Section 2
subsection (1) will read as follows:
SPY Options Tier Schedule

                                           Rebate To Remove Liquidity
                                                 [per contract]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Applied to: Customer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Trading with: Non-Customer, BX Options Market Maker, Customer, or Firm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1...................................  Participant removes less than 1500 SPY Options                  $0.10
                                            contracts per day in the customer range.
Tier 2...................................  Participant removes 1500 to not more than 2999 SPY               0.42
                                            Options contracts per day in the customer range.
Tier 3...................................  Participant removes more than 2999 SPY Options                   0.51
                                            contracts per day in the customer range.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Note 1: Firm fee to add liquidity and fee to remove liquidity in SPY Options will be $0.33 per
  contract, regardless of counterparty.
 Note 2: Non-Customer fee to add liquidity and fee to remove liquidity in SPY Options will be $0.46 per
  contract, regardless of counterparty.
 Note 3: BX Options Market Maker fee to remove liquidity in SPY Options will be $0.46 per contract when
  trading with Firm, Non-Customer, or BX Options Market Maker.
 Note 4: Customer fee to add liquidity in SPY Options when contra to another Customer will be $0.33 per
  contract. There will be no fee or rebate for Customer SPY Options that add liquidity when contra to Firm, BX
  Options Market Maker or Non Customer.
 Note 5: BX Options Market Maker fee to add liquidity and BX Options Market Maker fee to remove
  liquidity in SPY Options will each be $0.44 per contract when trading with Customer.
 Note 6: BX Options Market Maker fee to add liquidity in SPY Options will be $0.10 per contract when
  trading with Firm, BX Options Market Maker or Non Customer.

    The Exchange is adopting a separate SPY Options Tier Schedule
because it believes that it will provide even greater incentives for
execution of SPY Options contracts on the BX Options Market. The
Exchange believes that its proposal should provide increased
opportunities for participation in SPY Options executions on the
Exchange, facilitating the ability of the Exchange to bring together
participants and encourage more robust competition for orders.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6 of the Act,\17\ in general, and with Section 6(b)(4) and
6(b)(5) of the Act,\18\ in particular, in that it provides for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among
members and issuers and other persons using any facility or system
which the Exchange operates or controls, and is not designed to permit
unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
Attracting order flow to the Exchange benefits all Participants who
have the opportunity to interact with this order flow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f (b) (4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the

current market model, the Commission highlighted the importance of
market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also,
recognized that current regulation of the market system ``has been
remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader
forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 29, 2005),
70 FR 37496 at 37499 (File No. S7-10-04) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Likewise, in NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission
\20\ (``NetCoalition'') the D.C. Circuit upheld the Commission's use of
a market-based approach in evaluating the fairness of market data fees
against a challenge claiming that Congress mandated a cost-based
approach.\21\ As the court emphasized, the Commission ``intended in
Regulation NMS that `market forces, rather than regulatory
requirements' play a role in determining the market data . . . to be
made available to investors and at what cost.'' \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Net Coalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
    \21\ See id. At 534-535.
    \22\ See id. At 537.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is
`fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market
system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that
act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of
where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to
take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange
possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of
order flow from broker dealers'. . . .'' \23\ Although the court and
the SEC were discussing the cash equities markets, the Exchange
believes that these views apply with equal force to the options
markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See id. At 539 (quoting Securities Exchange Act Commission
at [sic] Release No. 59039 (December 2, 2008), 73 FR 74770 at 74782-
74783 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal should provide increased
opportunities for participation in SPY Options executions on the
Exchange, facilitating the ability of the Exchange to bring together
participants and encourage more robust competition for orders.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change is reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for the following reasons.
Change 1--Penny Pilot Options: Remove SPY Options From Select Symbols
Options Tier Schedule
    For Penny Pilot Options, in Change 1, the Exchange proposes
modifications to remove SPY Options from the Select Symbols Options
Tier Schedule. The Exchange simultaneously proposes to establish a new
SPY Options Tier Schedule.
    Deleting SPY Options from the Select Symbols Options Tier Schedule
of rebates and fees is reasonable because SPY Options are proposed to
have their own new Tier structure to further incentivize Participants
to send SPY Options order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange believes
it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to delete SPY Options
from Select Symbols and establish the SPY Options Tier Schedule because
this schedule will be applied uniformly to all similarly situated
Participants. This is further discussed below.
Change 2--Penny Pilot Options: Add SPY Options Tier Schedule
    For Penny Pilot Options, in Change 2 the Exchange is proposing to
modify fees and rebates for Customer and BX Options Market Maker in
respect of SPY Options.\24\ Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to
add a SPY Options Tier Schedule as discussed. In adding the new Tiers
in the SPY Options Tier Schedule, the current SPY Options pricing in
the Select Symbols Options Tier Schedule will be replaced with the
proposed SPY Options Tier Schedule specifically applicable to SPY
Options, which are among the very highest volume options traded on the
Exchange. The proposed SPY Options Tier Schedule will have three Tiers
for Rebate to Remove Liquidity for Customer as well as several notes.
The three new Tiers, which make up the ``SPY Options Tier Schedule,''
are similar in structure to the current Select Symbols Options Tier
Schedule Rebate to Remove Liquidity.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Fees and rebates, as well as Tiers, for all other Select
Symbols options will remain unchanged.
    \25\ Unlike the Select Symbols Options Tier Schedule, in the SPY
Options Tier Schedule there is no tier 4, which in the Select
Symbols Options Tier Schedule for a rebate requires an even higher
amount of volume or volume associated with the Price Improvement
Mechanism Auction (``PRISM'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to establish separate
SPY Options Tiers to attract SPY Options volume to the Exchange while
separately setting forth fees and rebates related to SPY Options. The
Exchange believes that the proposed Tiers in the SPY Options Tier
Schedule are reasonable in that they reflect a structure that is not
novel in the options markets but rather is similar to that of other
options markets and competitive with what is offered by other
exchanges.\26\ In addition, the Exchange believes that making changes
to add Tiers applicable to the Customer in terms of Rebate to Remove
Liquidity is reasonable because it encourages the desired Customer
behavior by attracting Customer interest to the Exchange. Customer
activity enhances liquidity on the Exchange for the benefit of all
market participants and benefits all market participants by providing
more trading opportunities, which attracts market makers. An increase
in the activity of these market participants in turn facilitates
tighter spreads, which may cause an additional corresponding increase
in order flow from other market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See, e.g., the MIAX fee schedule at https://www.miaxoptions.com/content/fees and the BOX fee schedule at http://boxoptions.com/fee-schedule/ schedule/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Establishing SPY Option Tiers for Rebate to Remove Liquidity is
reasonable because it encourages market participant behavior through
progressive tiered fees and rebates using an accepted methodology among
options exchanges.\27\ The proposed Tiers in the SPY Options Tier
Schedule clearly reflect the progressively increasing nature of
Participant executions structured for the purpose of attracting order
flow to the Exchange. That is, as discussed if a Participant removes
more SPY Options contracts per day in the customer range he can earn
higher rebates. For example, in the highest proposed SPY Options Tier 3
Rebate to Remove Liquidity, for which Participant must remove more than
2999 SPY Options contracts per day in the customer range, the
Participant can earn the highest $0.51 rebate (per contract). And in
the lowest proposed SPY Options Tier 1 Rebate to Remove Liquidity, for
which Participant must remove less than 1500 SPY Options contracts per
day in the customer range, the Participant can earn the lowest $0.10
rebate (per contract).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See, e.g., fee and rebate schedules of other options
exchanges, including, but not limited to, NASDAQ Options Market
(``NOM''), NASDAQ PHLX LLC (``Phlx''), and Chicago Board Options
Exchange (``CBOE'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For Penny Pilot Options, establishing the Customer-related and BX
Options Market Maker-related fee and rebate changes in respect of SPY
Options, which includes the new SPY Options Tiers with notes, is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange's
proposal to assess fees and pay rebates according to the SPY

Options Tier Schedule will apply uniformly to all similarly situated
Participants. Thus, for example, certain Participants would earn a
Rebate to Remove Liquidity according to the same Tiers per the SPY
Options Tier Schedule.
    The fee and rebate schedule as proposed continues to reflect
differentiation among different market participants. The Exchange
believes that the differentiation is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory, as well as reasonable, and notes that unlike others
(e.g. Non-Customers) some market participants like BX Options Market
Makers commit to various obligations. Despite the fact that certain BX
Options Market Maker fees to add and remove liquidity are proposed to
be increased as discussed, the BX Options Market Maker fees to add and
remove will be lower as compared to other non-Customer market
participants. Unlike other non-Customer market participants, BX Options
MMs have obligations to the market and regulatory requirements, which
normally do not apply to other market participants.\28\ A BX Options
Market Maker has the obligation to make continuous markets, engage in
course of dealings reasonably calculated to contribute to the
maintenance of a fair and orderly market, and not make bids or offers
or enter into transactions that are inconsistent with course [sic] of
dealings. Customers will continue to be assessed the lowest fees
because Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by
providing more trading opportunities, which attracts market makers. An
increase in the activity of these market participants in turn
facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Pursuant to Chapter VII (Market Participants), Section 5
(Obligations of Market Makers), in registering as a Market Maker, an
Options Participant commits himself to various obligations.
Transactions of a Market Maker in its market making capacity must
constitute a course of dealings reasonably calculated to contribute
to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market, and Market Makers
should not make bids or offers or enter into transactions that are
inconsistent with such course of dealings. Further, all Market
Makers are designated as specialists on BX for all purposes under
the Act or rules thereunder. See Chapter VII, Section 5.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the new SPY Options Tier Schedule the Exchange proposes
six notes regarding certain fees to add liquidity and fees to remove
liquidity. The Exchange believes that this is reasonable. The first
four proposed notes are taken directly from the Select Symbols Options
Tier Schedule and use the same language except that these proposed
notes refer to SPY Options rather than Select Symbols; and note four
has one proposed added sentence.\29\ Proposed note 4 would state that
Customer fee to add liquidity in SPY Options when contra to another
Customer will be $0.33 per contract. There will be no fee or rebate for
Customer SPY Options that add liquidity when contra to Firm, BX Options
Market Maker or Non Customer.\30\ The Exchange also proposes two
additional notes. Proposed note 5 would state that BX Options Market
Maker fee to add liquidity and the BX Options Market Maker fee to
remove liquidity in SPY Options will each be $0.44 per contract when
trading with Customer. Proposed note 6 would state that BX Options
Market Maker fee to add liquidity in SPY Options will be $0.10 per
contract when trading with Firm, BX Options Market Maker or Non
Customer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ The sentence proposed to be added to the fourth note would
state: There will be no fee or rebate for Customer SPY Options that
add liquidity when contra to Firm, BX Options Market Maker or Non
Customer.
    \30\ Previously, as part of the Select Symbol Tier Schedule, a
Customer, when trading with Firm, BX Options Market Maker or Non
Customer could receive a Rebate to add liquidity ($0.00 to $0.25
rebate); and now there is no fee or rebate when a Customer adds
liquidity in SPY Options when trading with Firm, BX Options Market
Maker or Non Customer. The Exchange believes this change is
reasonable and not inequitable or unfairly discriminatory in light
of the overall Exchange efforts to incentivize Participants to bring
SPY Options liquidity to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today, when BX Options Market Maker trades in SPY Options with
Customer, the fee to add liquidity is between $0.29 and $0.44 per
contract and the fee to remove liquidity is between $0.25 and $0.42 per
contract, according to Tiers. Going forward, per proposed note 5, both
the fee to add liquidity in SPY Options and the fee to remove liquidity
in SPY Options when BX Options Market Maker trades with Customer will
be $0.44 per contract. Today the fee to add liquidity when BX Options
Market maker trades in SPY Options with Non-Customer or BX Options
Market Maker, or Firm is between $0.14 and $0.00 per contract,
according to Tiers. Going forward per proposed note 6 the BX Options
Market Maker fee to add liquidity will be $0.10 per contract when
trading SPY Options with Firm, BX Options Market Maker or Non
Customer.\31\ The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to normalize
the fees discussed in note 5 and in note 6 so that they are the same
for BX Options Market Makers when trading such SPY Options. The
Exchange believes that to incentivize bringing SPY Options liquidity to
the Exchange it is reasonable to make the proposed change in notes 1,
2, 3, and 4 (with the added sentence in note 4 as noted) to refer to
SPY Options rather than the Select Symbol Tier Schedule. The Exchange
believes that to incentivize bringing SPY Options liquidity to the
Exchange it is reasonable to normalize note 5 and note 6 fees so that
they are the same under all circumstances for BX Options Market Makers
when trading such SPY Options.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Previously, as part of the Select Symbol Tier Schedule, BX
Options Market Maker when trading with Customer would be assessed a
fee to remove liquidity in SPY Options ($0.25 to $0.42), and BX
Options Market Maker when trading with Customer would be assessed a
fee to add liquidity ($0.29 to $0.44); and as proposed there will be
a $0.44 fee to remove liquidity and a $0.44 fee to add liquidity in
SPY Options for all Tiers. The Exchange believes this change is
reasonable and not inequitable or unfairly discriminatory in light
of the overall Exchange efforts to incentivize Participants to bring
SPY Options liquidity to the Exchange.
    \32\ As part of the Select Symbol Tier Schedule a BX Options
Market Maker, when trading with a Customer, would be assessed a fee
to add liquidity between $0.29 to $0.44 depending on tier; and as
proposed in note 5 there will be a $0.44 fee to add liquidity in SPY
options for all Tiers. As part of the Select Symbol Tier Schedule a
BX Options Market Maker, when trading with a Non-Customer or BX
Options Market Maker, or Firm, would be assessed a fee to add
liquidity between $0.00 to $0.14 depending on tier, and as proposed
in note 5 [sic] there will be a $0.10 fee to add liquidity in SPY
options for all Tiers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For Penny Pilot Options, establishing the Customer-related and BX
Options Market Maker-related fee and rebate changes in respect of SPY
Options, which includes the new SPY Options Tiers with notes, is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. This is because the
Exchange's proposal to assess fees and pay rebates according to the SPY
Options Tier Schedule will apply uniformly to all similarly situated
Participants. Thus, for example, Participants would earn a Rebate to
Remove Liquidity according to the same Tiers per the SPY Options Tier
Schedule. It is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess the
same fee and rebate in respect of SPY Options regardless of industry
trade volume where this is applied uniformly to all similarly situated
Participants.
    The Exchange believes that by making the proposed changes it is
incentivizing Participants to bring more SPY Options volume to the
Exchange to further enhance liquidity in this market.
B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically,

the Exchange does not believe that its proposal to make changes to its
Penny Pilot Options fees and rebates and to establish the SPY Options
Tier Schedule with notes for such fees and rebates will impose any
undue burden on competition, as discussed below.
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which many
sophisticated and knowledgeable market participants can readily and do
send order flow to competing exchanges if they deem fee levels or
rebate incentives at a particular exchange to be excessive or
inadequate. Additionally, new competitors have entered the market and
still others are reportedly entering the market shortly. These market
forces ensure that the Exchange's fees and rebates remain competitive
with the fee structures at other trading platforms. In that sense, the
Exchange's proposal is actually pro-competitive because the Exchange is
simply continuing its fees and rebates and establishing separate Tiers
for SPY Options in order to remain competitive in the current
environment.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In terms of inter-market
competition, 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, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more
favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust
its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with
alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance
with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because
competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because
market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices,
the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this
market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited. In
terms of intra-market competition, the Exchange notes that price
differentiation among different market participants operating on the
Exchange (e.g., Customer, BX Options Market Maker, and Non-Customer) is
reasonable. Customer activity, for example, enhances liquidity on the
Exchange for the benefit of all market participants and benefits all
market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which
attracts market makers. An increase in the activity of these market
participants (particularly in response to pricing) in turn facilitates
tighter spreads, which may cause an additional corresponding increase
in order flow from other market participants. Moreover, unlike others
(e.g., Non-Customers) each BX Options Market Maker commits to various
obligations. These obligations include, for example, transactions of a
BX Market Maker must constitute a course of dealings reasonably
calculated to contribute to the maintenance of a fair and orderly
market, and Market Makers should not make bids or offers or enter into
transactions that are inconsistent with such course of dealings.
    In this instance, the proposed changes to the fees and rebates for
execution of contracts on the Exchange, and establishing SPY Options
Tiers with notes for such fees and rebates, do not impose a burden on
competition because the Exchange's execution and routing services are
completely voluntary and subject to extensive competition both from
other exchanges and from off-exchange venues. If the changes proposed
herein are unattractive to market participants, it is likely that the
Exchange will lose market share as a result. Accordingly, the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of
members or competing order execution venues to maintain their
competitive standing in the financial markets. Additionally, the
changes proposed herein are pro-competitive to the extent that they
continue to allow the Exchange to promote and maintain order
executions.
C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others
    No written comments were either solicited or 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.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BX-2016-045 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2016-045. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2016-045, and should be
submitted on or before August 24, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-18313 Filed 8-2-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 113 (Monday, June 13, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34221-34222]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14512]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2680-003.
    Applicants: Puget Sound Energy, Inc.
    Description: Puget Sound Energy, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35:
OATT--Revision Schedule 3, 5, 6 & 13, to be effective 5/27/2011.
    Filed Date: 05/31/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110531-5000.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 21, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2721-002.
    Applicants: El Paso Electric Company.
    Description: Notice of El Paso Electric Company of Non-Material
Change in Status.
    Filed Date: 05/31/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110531-5071.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 21, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2186-001.
    Applicants: Ameren Illinois Company.
    Description: Ameren Illinois Company submits tariff filing per 35:
Compliance Filing for Ameren Illinois--Rate Schedules 119 and 120 to be
effective 6/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 05/31/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110531-5011.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 21, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2187-001.
    Applicants: Ameren Illinois Company.
    Description: Ameren Illinois Company submits tariff filing per 35:
Compliance Filing for Ameren Illinois--Rate Schedules 126 and 133, to
be effective 6/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 05/31/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110531-5009.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 21, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2191-001.
    Applicants: Ameren Illinois Company.
    Description: Ameren Illinois Company submits tariff filing per 35:
Compliance Filing for Ameren Illinois--Rate Schedules 128 and 129 to be
effective 6/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 05/31/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110531-5007.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 21, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2197-001.
    Applicants: Ameren Illinois Company.
    Description: Ameren Illinois Company submits tariff filing per 35:
Compliance Filing for Ameren Illinois--Rate Schedules 123, 124, 132, to
be effective 6/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 05/31/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110531-5005.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 21, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2977-002.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Company submits tariff
filing per 35: Compliance Filing to WDAT Revise Generator
Interconnection Procedures to be effective 3/2/2011.
    Filed Date: 05/31/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110531-5178.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 21, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3004-002.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Pacific Gas and Electric Company submits tariff filing
per 35: Compliance Filing for WD Tariff: Generator Interconnection
Procedures to be effective 3/3/2011.
    Filed Date: 05/31/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110531-5165.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 21, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3547-001.
    Applicants: RG Steel Sparrows Point LLC.
    Description: RG Steel Sparrows Point LLC submits tariff filing per
35.17(b): RG Steel Revised Baseline MBRA ETariff to be effective 5/11/
2011.
    Filed Date: 05/31/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110531-5015.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 21, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3668-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Pacific Gas and Electric Company submits tariff filing
per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: Western WDT May 2011 Biannual Filing to be
effective 2/14/2011.
    Filed Date: 05/31/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110531-5003.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 21, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3669-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Pacific Gas and Electric Company submits tariff filing
per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: Western IA May 2011 Biannual Filing to be
effective 2/14/2011.
    Filed Date: 05/31/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110531-5004.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 21, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3670-000.
    Applicants: ArcelorMittal USA LLC.
    Description: ArcelorMittal USA LLC submits tariff filing per 35:
AMU MBRA Compliance Filing, to be effective 5/31/2011.
    Filed Date: 05/31/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110531-5014.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 21, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3671-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: California Independent System Operator Corporation
submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: 2011-05-

31 CAISO Service Agreement 625 MSSA with Anaheim to be effective 7/28/
2010.
    Filed Date: 05/31/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110531-5104.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 21, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3672-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: 2158 Arkansas Valley Electric Cooperative Corp. NITSA
NOA to be effective 5/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 05/31/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110531-5106.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 21, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3673-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: Queue No. W3-063; Original Service Agreement No. 2923
to be effective 5/3/2011.
    Filed Date: 05/31/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110531-5116.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 21, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3674-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: New York Independent System Operator, Inc. submits
tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: NYISO Errata Filing re: 7/30/11 RLS
filing Correcting Formula to be effective 10/21/2010.
    Filed Date: 05/31/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110531-5166.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 21, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3675-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: California Independent System Operator Corporation
submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: 2011-05-31 CAISO Amendment 2
to MSSA with Anaheim to be effective 7/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 05/31/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110531-5167.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 21, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3676-000.
    Applicants: New England Power Pool Participants Committee.
    Description: New England Power Pool Participants Committee submits
tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: June 2011 Membership Filing to be
effective 5/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 05/31/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110531-5186.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 21, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3677-000.
    Applicants: CP Energy Marketing (US) Inc.
    Description: CP Energy Marketing (US) Inc. submits tariff filing
per 35: CP Energy Marketing (US) Inc.'s Notice of Change in Status
Market-Based Rate Filing to be effective 4/29/2011.
    Filed Date: 05/31/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110531-5189.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 21, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3678-000.
    Applicants: Wisconsin Electric Power Company.
    Description: Notice of Cancellation of Wisconsin Electric Power
Company.
    Filed Date: 05/31/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110531-5196.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 21, 2011.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following public
utility holding company filings:

    Docket Numbers: PH11-14-000.
    Applicants: NYSE Euronext, NYSE Blue.
    Description: FERC-65A Notification of Exemption of NYSE Euronext,
et al.
    Filed Date: 05/31/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110531-5060.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 21, 2011.

    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.
    As it relates to any qualifying facility filings, the notices of
self-certification [or self-recertification] listed above, do not
institute a proceeding regarding qualifying facility status. A notice
of self-certification [or self-recertification] simply provides
notification that the entity making the filing has determined the
facility named in the notice meets the applicable criteria to be a
qualifying facility. Intervention and/or protest do not lie in dockets
that are qualifying facility self-certifications or self-
recertifications. Any person seeking to challenge such qualifying
facility status may do so by filing a motion pursuant to 18 CFR
292.207(d)(iii). Intervention and protests may be filed in response to
notices of qualifying facility dockets other than self-certifications
and self-recertifications.
    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 docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 3, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-14512 Filed 6-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: July 23, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 140)]
[Notices]
[Page 36481-36482]
[DOCID:fr23jy09-30]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2232-570]

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC; Notice of Application for Amendment
of License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

July 16, 2009.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Raw Water Intake on 0.26 Acres of Project
Lands.
    b. Project No.: 2232-570.
    c. Date Filed: June 18, 2009.
    d. Applicant: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Catawba-Wateree.
    f. Location: Lake Rhodhiss on the Catawba River, city of Lenoir,
Caldwell County, North Carolina
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 USC 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Kelvin K. Reagan, Duke Energy Carolinas,
LLC, P.O. Box 1006, Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1006, (704) 382-
9386.
    i. FERC Contact: Jeremy Jessup<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202) 502-
6779.

    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene and protests:
August 17, 2009.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy
of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative
of the Applicant specified in the particular application.
    k. Description of Request: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, proposes to
grant permission to the City of Lenoir to use 0.26 acres of project
lands to replace, construct, and maintain a raw water intake pipeline.
The proposed eighteen million gallons per day intake would consist of
two passive intake screens, two 36-inch diameter ductile iron intake
pipes, a 45-ft deep wet well, and a raw water pump station. The area
where the proposed intake tubes will be installed may require dredging
to achieve the necessary line and grade, and excavation to construct
structural supports for the intake screens. The proposed withdrawal is
for municipal use by the City of Lenoir, North Carolina.
    l. Location of the Application: The filing is available for
inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room,
located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426 or by
calling<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may
also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://ferc.gov using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also
register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docsfiling/esubscription.asp to
be notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Any filing must bear in all capital letters the title
``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable,
and the Project Number of the particular application to which the
filing refers.
    p. Agency Comments: Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
    q. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(I)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov
under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-17505 Filed 7-22-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: January 18, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 11)]
[Notices]
[Page 2929-2930]
[DOCID:fr18ja06-42]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0546; FRL-7756-9]

Notice of Filing of a Pesticide Petition for an Amendment
Establishing Tolerances for the Combined Residues of the Fungicide
Trifloxystrobin in or on Food Commodities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of a pesticide
petition proposing to amend 40 CFR 180.555 by establishing tolerances
for the combined residues of the fungicide trifloxystrobin and the free
form of its acid metabolite (CGA-32113) in or on the food commodities
barley and oats.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 17, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0546 and pesticide petition number (PP)
3E6769, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the on-line

instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch
(PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001.
     Hand Delivery: Public Information and Records Integrity
Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall 2, 1801
S. Bell St., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2005-0546. The docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
docket facility is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2005-0546. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available on-line
at http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov

or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access''

system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be captured automatically

and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit
the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/docket.htm/
.

     Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
http://www.regulation.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Public Information and

Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall
2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA. The docket facility is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the docket facility is (703) 305-
5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shaja Brothers Registration Division,
(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,

Washington, DC 20460-0001;<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 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 submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the document by docket ID number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
     Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.II. What Action is the Agency Taking?
    EPA is printing a summary of a pesticide petition received under
section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21
U.S.C. 346a, proposing the establishment or amendment of regulations in
40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various
food commodities. EPA has determined that this pesticide petition
contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in FFDCA
section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency
of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting
of the pesticide petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA
rules on this pesticide petition.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of the petition included in
this notice, prepared by the petitioner along with a description of the
analytical method available for the detection and measurement of the
pesticide chemical residues is available on EPA's Electronic Docket at
http://www.regulations.gov/. To locate this information on the home

page of EPA's Electronic Docket, select ``Quick Search'' and type the
OPP docket ID number. Once the search has located the docket, clicking
on the ``Docket ID'' will bring up a list of all documents in the
docket for the pesticide including the petition summary.

Amendment to Existing Tolerance

    PP 3E6769. IR-4, 681 U.S. Highway 1 South, North
Brunswick, NJ 08902, proposes to amend 40 CFR 180.555 by establishing
tolerances for the combined residues of the fungicide trifloxystrobin
and the free form of its acid metabolite (CGA-32113) in or on the food
commodities barley, grain at 0.05 parts per million (ppm); barley, hay
at 0.3 ppm; barley, straw at 5.0 ppm; oat, forage at 0.3 ppm; oat,
grain at 0.05 ppm; oat, hay at 0.3 ppm; and oat, straw at 5.0 ppm. A
practical analytical methodology for detecting and measuring levels of
trifloxystrobin in or on food commodities has been submitted to the
EPA. The limit of detection (LOD) for each analyte of this method is
0.08ng injected, and the limit of quantitation (LOQ) is 0.02 ppm. The
method is based on crop specific cleanup procedures and determination
by gas chromatography with nitrogen-phosphorus detection.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives,
Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: January 4, 2006.
Daniel J. Rosenblatt,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. 06-383 Filed 1-17-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 4 (Thursday, January 7, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 997-998]
[FR Doc No: X10-250107]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2007-28460]

Record of Decision (ROD) on the U.S. Coast Guard Long Range Aids
to Navigation (Loran-C) Program

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), United States Coast
Guard (USCG), announces the availability of the Record of Decision
(ROD) to decommission the USCG Loran-C Program and terminate
transmission of the North American Loran-C Radionavigation Signal. The
ROD is supported by the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement (PEIS) addressing the future of the USCG Loran-C Program. The
Final PEIS availability was announced by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) on June 12, 2009 (74 FR 28046).

DATES: The Final PEIS and ROD are now available in the docket. The USCG
intends to begin termination of the broadcast of the North American
Loran-C Radionavigation Signal beginning on or about February 8, 2010.
Loran stations are expected to cease transmitting the Loran-C
radionavigation signal by October 1, 2010.

ADDRESSES: To view the ROD or the Final PEIS, go to http://
www.regulations.gov, insert USCG-2007-28460 in the ``Keyword'' box, and
then click ``Search.'' Project documents, including the Final PEIS, are
also available on the ``USCG Long Range Aids to Navigation (Loran-C)
Program'' Web site at http://loranpeis.uscg.e2m-inc.com/. If access to
the Internet is not available, you may view the docket online by
visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If there are questions on this notice,
call LCDR Robert Manning, Electronic Navigation Division, USCG,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you
have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call
Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-
9826.

Background and Purpose

    Loran is a radionavigation system first developed during World War
II and operated by the USCG. The current Loran-C system is a low
frequency hyperbolic radionavigation system approved for use in the
Coastal Confluence Zone and as a supplemental air navigation aid. The
Loran-C radionavigation system provides navigation, location, and
timing services for both civil and military air, land, and marine users
in the continental United States (CONUS) and Alaska. The USCG operates
18 CONUS Loran Stations, 6 Alaska Loran Stations, and 24 monitoring
sites.
    On January 22, 2009 (74 FR 4047), the USCG made available the Draft
PEIS. The USCG delivered the Final PEIS addressing the future of the
USCG Loran-C Program to the EPA, and the EPA announced the availability
of the Final PEIS on June 12, 2009 (74 FR 28046).
    By separate notice published today in the Federal Register, the
USCG advised the public of the USCG's intention to begin planning for
the termination of the broadcast of the North American Loran-C
Radionavigation Signal beginning on or about February 8, 2010. The USCG
advised that if plans were implemented, Loran stations would cease
transmitting the Loran-C radionavigation signal by October 1, 2010.
    The Final PEIS on the future of the USCG Loran-C Program is a
program-level document that provided the USCG with high-level analysis
of the potential impacts on the human environment from the alternatives
for the future of the USCG Loran-C Program. The Final PEIS evaluated
the following five alternatives on the future of the USCG Loran-C
Program:
    (1) No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative refers to the
current, existing conditions without implementation of the Proposed
Action.
    (2) Decommission the USCG Loran-C Program and Terminate the North
American Loran-C Radionavigation Signal.
    (3) Automate, Secure, and Unstaff Loran-C Stations.
    (4) Automate, Secure, Unstaff, and Transfer Management of the
Loran-C Program to Another Government Agency.

    (5) Automate, Secure, Unstaff, and Transfer Management of the
Loran-C Program to Another Government Agency to Deploy an eLoran
system.
    The environmentally preferable alternatives selected in the ROD are
(1) no action alternative and (2) to decommission the USCG Loran-C
Program and terminate the North American Loran-C Radionavigation
Signal. It is important to note that the Final PEIS did not obligate
the USCG, DHS, or any other entity to undertake any specific course of
action with respect to Loran.
    This notice is issued under authority of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (Section 102 (2)(c)), as implemented by the Council
on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), USCG
Commandant Instruction M16475.1D., and ``Aids to Navigation
Authorized,'' which appears at 14 U.S.C. 81.

    Dated: January 4, 2010.
Kevin S. Cook,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of Prevention Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-84 Filed 1-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 5, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 60675]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19090]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER23-2716-000]

Moraine Sands Wind Power, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Moraine Sands Wind Power, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is September 18, 2023.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at https://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 may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (https://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. At this
time, the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

    Dated: August 29, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-19090 Filed 9-1-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 179 (Thursday, September 15, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56966-56967]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23298]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0425; Airspace Docket No. 11-ANM-9]

Amendment of Class D and Modification of Class E Airspace; Grand
Junction, CO

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies Class E airspace at Grand Junction, CO.
Additional controlled airspace is necessary to facilitate vectoring of
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) traffic from Grand Junction Regional
Airport to en route and enhances the safety and management of aircraft
operations at the airport. This action also amends Class D and Class E
airspace to update the airport name from Grand Junction, Walker Field.

DATES: Effective date, 0901 UTC, December 15, 2011. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR Part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On July 8, 2011, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice
of

proposed rulemaking to amend controlled airspace at Grand Junction, CO
(76 FR 40293). Interested parties were invited to participate in this
rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the
FAA. No comments were received.
    Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in
paragraph 5000, 6002, 6004 and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9V
dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15, 2011, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in that Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
Part 71 by modifying Class E airspace at Grand Junction Regional
Airport, Grand Junction, CO. Additional controlled airspace extending
upward from 1,200 feet above the surface is necessary to accommodate
vectoring IFR aircraft departing Grand Junction Regional Airport to en
route airspace. This action also amends Class D and Class E airspace to
update the airport name from Grand Junction, Walker Field, to Grand
Junction Regional Airport, Grand Junction, CO.
    The FAA has determined this regulation only involves an established
body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments
are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this
regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to
issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S.
Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 discusses the authority of the FAA
Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more
detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is
promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A,
Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with
prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to
ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This
regulation is within the scope of that authority as it creates
additional controlled airspace at Grand Junction Regional Airport,
Grand Junction, CO.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR Part 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9V, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15,
2011 is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D airspace.

* * * * *

ANM CO D Grand Junction, CO [Amended]

Grand Junction Regional Airport, CO
    (Lat. 39[deg]07'21'' N., long. 108[deg]31'36'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
7,400 feet MSL within a 4.7-mile radius of Grand Junction Regional
Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific
dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The
effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in
the Airport/Facility Directory.

Paragraph 6002 Class E airspace designated as surface areas.

* * * * *

ANM CO E2 Grand Junction, CO [Amended]

Grand Junction Regional Airport, CO
    (Lat. 39[deg]07'21'' N., long. 108[deg]31'36'' W.)

    Within a 4.7-mile radius of Grand Junction Regional Airport.
This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates
and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The
effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in
the Airport/Facility Directory.

Paragraph 6004 Class E airspace designated as an extension to a
Class D surface area.

* * * * *

ANM CO E4 Grand Junction, CO [Amended]

Grand Junction Regional Airport, CO
    (Lat. 39[deg]07'21'' N., long. 108[deg]31'36'' W.)
Grand Junction Localizer
    (Lat. 39[deg]07'04'' N., long. 108[deg]30'48'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 1.8 miles
each side of the Grand Junction Regional Airport Runway 11 ILS
localizer northwest course extending from the 4.7-mile radius of
Grand Junction Regional Airport to 7 miles northwest of the
localizer.

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ANM CO E5 Grand Junction, CO [Modified]

Grand Junction Regional Airport, CO
    (Lat. 39[deg]07'21'' N., long. 108[deg]31'36'' W.)
Grand Junction VOR/DME
    (Lat. 39[deg]03'34'' N., long. 108[deg]47'33'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within 7 miles northwest and 4.3 miles southeast of the Grand
Junction VOR/DME 247[deg] and 067[deg] radials extending from 11.4
miles southwest to 12.3 miles northeast of the VOR/DME, and within
1.8 miles south and 9.2 miles north of the Grand Junction VOR/DME
110[deg] radial extending from the VOR/DME to 19.2 miles southeast;
that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface
within a 33.1-mile radius of the Grand Junction VOR/DME beginning at
the 020[deg] bearing of the Grand Junction VOR/DME, clockwise to the
270[deg] bearing of the Grand Junction VOR/DME, and within a 63-mile
radius of the Grand Junction VOR/DME beginning at the 270[deg]
bearing of the Grand Junction VOR/DME, clockwise to the 020[deg]
bearing of the Grand Junction VOR/DME.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on September 1, 2011.
Robert Henry,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2011-23298 Filed 9-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


MEMORANDUM

National Volatile Organic Compound Emission

Standards for Aerosol Coatings

Review of the Technical Basis for use of the One-dimensional MIR Scale
in the National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Aerosol
Coatings

Prepared by:

Deborah Luecken

Office of Research and Development

National Exposure Research Laboratory

Atmospheric Modeling /Human Exposure and Atmospheric Sciences Division

Prepared for:

J. Kaye Whitfield

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Sector Policies and Programs Division

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

March 15, 2007

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENT ADVANCE \l 0 AL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL EXPOSURE RESEARCH LABORATORY

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

										Office of

									  Research and Development

						March 15, 2007

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Review of the Technical Basis for use of the One-dimensional
MIR Scale in the National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards
for Aerosol Coatings

FROM:	Deborah Luecken

Atmospheric Modeling /Human Exposure and Atmospheric Sciences Division
National Exposure Research Laboratory, ORD

TO:		J. Kaye Whitfield

		Project Lead,

		Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

		Sector Policies and Programs Division

		Natural Resources and Commerce Group

CC: 		J. David Mobley

		Associate Director, Atmospheric Modeling Division

		National Exposure Research Laboratory, ORD

		Larry Cupitt

		Associate Director, Human Exposure Research

		National Exposure Research Laboratory, ORD

I have reviewed the literature on reactivity to determine if it supports
the use of a reactivity-based control for aerosol coatings, and in
particular, the use of a single, one-dimensional, box model-based
Maximum Incremental Reactivity (MIR) scale for national applicability.
While I believe that we should continue to do more research work in this
area to ensure that the best possible metric/scale is being employed,
there’s evidence that, given what we already know, EPA can already
make a compelling case for considering reactivity as a basis for VOC
control. While no single scale will be a perfect predictor of ozone in
every location at every time, a single one-dimensional, box model-based
MIR scale, is remarkably consistent with the more complex,
three-dimensional, Air Quality Model-based scales.  The
three-dimensional scales are attractive for their robustness and general
applicability, but at the current time, the one-dimensional MIR scale
has several advantages.  We have a history of implementation and
scientific review, as well as existing product formulations using the
MIR, based on the 2001 CARB rule.  We have peer-reviewed values for over
800 compounds based on the box model MIR, but for only about 30 explicit
compounds from the three-dimensional models.   Because it is much easier
to implement, the box model-based MIR scale gives us a way to easily
incorporate updates to the chemical mechanism and information on new
chemical species that are not part of the existing 800 compounds.

In the following pages, I list four of the technical questions that we
need to address in order to proceed with use of one-dimensional MIR
values in a national regulation, and summarize how the scientific
literature addresses these issues.  Based on this review, I believe it
is reasonable to proceed with the regulation, with the caveat that we
allow the flexibility to modify the scale as the science improves.  I
include a more detailed discussion, plots, and references in an attached
report to this memo.

Question 1:  Does the mechanism used to derive MIRs accurately
characterize ozone formation from individual VOCs?

In general, the SAPRC99 chemical mechanism which has been used to
predict the reactivity of ozone formation for VOCs, and derive the MIRs,
has been shown to be a valid predictor of ozone formation under
controlled evaluation studies.  Ozone formation in the atmosphere is a
complex process and there is still some uncertainty in the mechanism
predictions.  While the mechanisms may underpredict ozone at low VOC/NOx
ratios, which are of most interest to this regulation, use of SAPRC99
minimizes this bias, and the bias errs on the side of being slightly
conservative.  There is some uncertainty in the detailed chemical
mechanisms used to calculate reactivities of individual VOCs, but for
the compounds used most often in aerosol coatings, this uncertainty is
estimated to be largely limited to categories 1 or 2.  I believe this is
equal to (probably less than) the uncertainties involved in overall
calculations of ozone changes due to mass reductions.

Question 2:  Is the MIR a reasonable way to define reactivity?

All of the different metrics that have been proposed, approximately 4
box model-based metrics and 8+ three-dimensional metrics, give generally
consistent predictions in the relative ranking of reactivities.  None of
the detailed studies performed to date have shown serious deficiencies
in the long-used MIR metric.  The aldehydes are sometimes outliers, but
these are not important components of aerosol coatings.

The MIR describes ozone formation in areas where ozone is most sensitive
to VOC emissions, in upwind areas with high emissions.  It is
complementary to NOx control programs which address ozone formation in
NOx-limited areas.  The box model-based MIR scale gives the largest
difference between the high reacting compounds and the lower reacting
compounds than any of the other scales.  On the negative side, this
allows a larger amount of overall mass to possibly be emitted in a
reactivity-limited solvent, as compared with an equal mass-restricted
solvent, which would benefit ozone in the immediate area, but may
increase ozone slightly downwind (see Question 4 for further
discussion).  On the positive side, it provides more incentive for
manufacturers to use low-reactivity chemicals in aerosol coatings –
the major goal of this policy.

In addition, the MIR has a long history of use and analysis, and is the
basis of some existing paint formulations under California law.  Given
the uncertainties inherent in any air quality modeling, is a reasonable
way to characterize reactivity.   The three-dimensional AQM metrics are
arguably more robust, but there are no detailed reactivity scales yet
available for all of the possible chemicals involved in aerosol coatings
using AQMs.

Question 3:  Does a single MIR scale account for potential spatial
variability across the United States?

Several three-dimensional modeling studies have shown that spatial
variations in reactivity are generally found to be small, and averaging
time used in calculation of the scale (whether 1 hour or 8 hours) makes
little difference in the values.  When viewed on a relative basis, as is
applicable for solvent mixtures, the one-dimensional, city-specific MIR
values are approximately the same for the 39 different cities studied.
This gives us confidence that one metric and scale can be used with
equal applicability throughout the country.

Question 4:  Is the large effective range of the MIR scale a potential
problem when replacing high reactivity compounds with lower reactivity
chemicals?

A major benefit as well as a concern with the use of MIR is its large
effective range.  The box model-based MIR scale gives the largest
difference between the high reacting compounds and the lower reacting
compounds.  This means that a substitution using MIR would result in a
larger permissible amount of mass than using another metric, i.e. the
MOIR.  Compared with an equal mass-restricted solvent, would benefit
ozone in the immediate area but may have some disbenefits downwind.

Current studies indicate that some increases in ozone due to increased
mass of low-reacting compounds are possible, but the studies have only
looked at very extreme cases (i.e. substitution of all VOCs with
equal-ozone amounts of ethane, tracking ozone formation downwind from
substitutions only in an urban area). While ozone could increase due to
these upwind substitutions, the increases tended to be much smaller (by
a factor of 12-20) than the magnitude of concurrent ozone decreases.
The substitutions had a larger effect on reducing the higher ozone
concentrations than they did on increasing downwind concentrations. Even
in these extreme cases, the benefits for ozone (reduction in ozone peak)
were significant.

Inherent in this rule is a reduction in ozone equivalent to a reduction
in mass, therefore the substitutions will be done on a less-than-equal
ozone basis, relative to the pre-rule mixture.  Realistic changes in
formulation, especially if limited to aerosol coatings are unlikely to
result in a noticeable increase in ozone downwind, given that downwind
areas are usually NOx-limited, so small amounts of additional VOCs
won’t influence ozone formation much.

More detailed and realistic studies are needed to determine whether any
potential increase in mass due to reactivity-based VOC limits are truly
a problem.