[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 143 (Thursday, July 25, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35900-35905]
[FR Doc No: 2019-15776]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-86412; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2019-057]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 4121

July 19, 2019.
    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 16, 2019, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II 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 Rule 4121 (Trading Halts Due to
Extraordinary Market Volatility) to enhance the re-opening auction
process for Nasdaq listed securities following trading halts due to
extraordinary market volatility.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://nasdaq.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 purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the re-opening
auction process for Nasdaq listed securities following trading halts
due to extraordinary market volatility (i.e., ``market-wide circuit
breakers'') to be similar to the process currently employed following a
Trading Pause initiated pursuant to the Plan to Address Extraordinary
Market Volatility (i.e., the ``Limit Up-Limit Down'' or ``LULD'' Plan).
In 2017, the Exchange amended its auction process for re-opening a
Nasdaq listed security following a Trading Pause initiated pursuant to
the LULD Plan.\3\ Specifically, the Exchange modified its rules such
that initial Auction Collars following a Trading Pause would be
calculated using a new methodology based on the Price Band that
triggered the Trading Pause, and instituted the process for extending
the auction and

further widening the collars if necessary to accommodate buy or sell
pressure outside of the collars then in effect. The Exchange believes
that these changes have been effective in facilitating a fair and
orderly market following Trading Pauses initiated pursuant to the Limit
Up-Limit Down Plan, and has decided to implement similar functionality
for trading halts in Nasdaq listed securities following the initiation
of market-wide circuit breakers.\4\ The Exchange believes that the
proposed changes would promote price formation and provide a more
consistent re-opening process for members and investors following such
trading halts, similar to the current implementation on NYSE Arca, Inc.
(``Arca'') and Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'').\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79876 (January 25,
2017), 82 FR 8888 (January 31, 2017) (SR-NASDAQ-2016-131).
    \4\ A market-wide circuit breaker is triggered if the price of
the S&P 500 Index declines by a specified amount compared to the
closing price for the immediately preceding trading day. See Rule
4121.
    \5\ Both Arca and BZX implemented similar processes for resuming
trading following non-LULD regulatory halts (which include trading
halts following market-wide circuit breakers). See Securities
Exchange Act Release Nos. 79846 (January 19, 2017), 82 FR 8548
(January 26, 2017) (SR-NYSEArca-2016-130); and 84927 (December 21,
2018), 83 FR 67768 (December 31, 2018) (SR-CboeBZX-2018-090).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today, trading in Nasdaq listed securities would resume on the
Exchange in most cases through a Halt Cross,\6\ including after a Level
1 or Level 2 market-wide circuit breaker trading halt initiated under
Rule 4121. In particular, Rule 4121(c)(i) provides that the re-opening
of trading following a Level 1 or Level 2 trading halt shall follow the
procedures set forth in Rule 4120. These procedures are in Rule
4120(c)(7), which provides, in relevant part, for a 5-minute Display
Only Period during which market participants may enter quotes and
orders in Nasdaq systems, at the conclusion of which trading will
immediately resume through the Halt Cross under Rule 4753.\7\
Additionally, the Exchange will extend the Display Only Period for an
additional 1-minute period if there is volatility during the Display
Only Period (i.e., an order imbalance in the security). The volatility
checks are governed under Rule 4120(c)(7)(C)(1) and (2), and provides
that the Display Only Period will be extended if: (i) The expected
cross price moves the greater of 5% or 50 cents, or (ii) all market
orders will not be executed in the cross. The Exchange now proposes to
amend this process such that for the resumption of trading after a
Level 1 or Level 2 market-wide circuit breaker trading halt, the
Exchange proposes to instead follow a process similar to that currently
applied for releasing a security following a Trading Pause initiated
under the LULD Plan, which is described in Rule 4120(c)(10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Halt Cross process is set forth in Rule 4753. As
discussed in more detail later in this filing, the Halt Cross does
not apply to the re-opening of a Nasdaq listed security following a
Trading Pause initiated under the LULD Plan, which instead re-opens
pursuant to Rule 4120(c)(10).
    \7\ The Exchange would then re-open the Nasdaq listed security
that was subject to the Level 1 or Level 2 market-wide circuit
breaker trading halt at an execution price determined pursuant to
the execution algorithm in Rule 4753(b)(2)(A)-(D), which sets forth
a series of tie-breakers for selecting the execution price of the
Halt Cross.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 4120(c)(10), which describes the current process for resuming
trading after a Trading Pause, provides for an initial auction period
and additional auction periods with widening price collars should the
security fail to conclude each auction period. For any such security
listed on Nasdaq, prior to terminating the pause, there is a 5-minute
initial Display Only Period during which market participants may enter
quotations and orders in that security in Nasdaq systems. During this
initial period, the Exchange also establishes the auction reference
price (hereinafter ``LULD Auction Reference Price''),\8\ as well as the
upper and lower auction collar (hereinafter, ``LULD Auction Collar'')
prices.\9\ The security is released at the end of the initial Display
Only Period unless the Exchange detects an order imbalance \10\ in the
security, in which case the initial Display Only Period is extended for
an additional five minutes, and the LULD Auction Collar prices are
further widened by 5% increments (or $0.15 for securities with a LULD
Auction Reference Price of $3 or less) in the direction of the order
imbalance.\11\ At the end of the first extended Display Only Period,
the security is released for trading unless there is an order imbalance
in the security, in which case the extended Display Only Period will be
further extended every five minutes in the manner described in Rule
4120(c)(10)(B) until the security is released for trading. The security
is released for trading at the first point there is no order imbalance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Rule 4120(c)(10)(A)(i).
    \9\ See Rule 4120(c)(10)(A)(ii). In contrast, price collars
would not be established for re-opening a Nasdaq listed security
after a Level 1 or Level 2 market-wide circuit breaker trading halt
today. As noted above, the Exchange would instead re-open at an
execution price determined pursuant to the execution algorithm in
Rule 4753(b)(2)(A)-(D). See supra note 8.
    \10\ For purposes of Rule 4120(c)(10), an order imbalance is
established if: (i) The calculated price at which the security would
be released for trading is outside the applicable Auction Collar
prices calculated under paragraphs (A), (B), or (C) of Rule
4120(c)(10); or (ii) all market orders would not be executed in the
cross. See Rule 4120(c)(10)(E).
    \11\ See Rule 4120(c)(10)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal
    The Exchange now proposes to implement this process for resuming
trading following a market-wide circuit breaker under Rule 4121 as
well. As noted above, the current re-opening process for a Level 1 or
Level 2 trading halt initiated under Rule 4121 does not have a
mechanism for calculating price collars and a process for widening the
collars if necessary to accommodate buy or sell pressure outside of the
collars then in effect. The Exchange therefore believes that its
proposal will facilitate a fair and orderly market following such
trading halts initiated pursuant to a Level 1 or Level 2 market-wide
circuit breaker that is designed to reduce the potential for
significant price disparity in post-auction trading. The proposed
process for re-opening a Nasdaq listed security under Rule 4121 would
be substantially similar to the re-opening process employed today for
Trading Pauses under Rule 4120(c)(10), with certain differences
discussed below, primarily related to the calculation of the halt
auction collars.
    Accordingly, the Exchange will provide in new paragraph (d) to Rule
4121 that a Level 1 or Level 2 trading halt initiated under this Rule
(``MWCB Halt'') shall be terminated when Nasdaq releases the security
for trading.\12\ For any such security listed on Nasdaq, prior to
terminating the MWCB Halt, there will be a 15-minute ``Initial Display
Only Period'' during which market participants may enter quotations and
orders in that security in Nasdaq systems. The Initial Display Only
Period will be 15 minutes in duration instead of the 5 minute initial
display only period currently employed for Trading Pauses under Rule
4120(c)(10) to coincide with the entire duration of a MWCB Halt.\13\
The Exchange believes that the proposed Initial Display Only Period
would provide additional time to attract offsetting interest, and would
help address order imbalances that may not be resolved within the
current 5-minute period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Rule 4121(c)(i) currently points to Rule 4120 for the re-
opening process following a MWCB Halt. The new re-opening process
will be set forth in proposed Rule 4121(d), so the Exchange will
delete this portion from the current Rule.
    \13\ See Rule 4121(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 4121(d)(1)(A) will provide that during the Initial
Display Only Period, the Exchange will also establish the ``Auction
Reference Price.'' The Auction Reference Price shall mean the Nasdaq
last sale price (either round

or odd lot) after 9:15 a.m. Eastern Time (``ET'') but prior to the MWCB
Halt and, if none, the prior trading day's Nasdaq Office Closing Price
(``NOCP''). The Exchange is not proposing to use the LULD Auction
Reference Price, which is based on the Price Band that triggered the
Trading Pause, as the Exchange believes that a different reference is
necessary for a re-opening process that is unrelated to the LULD
mechanism. The Exchange has chosen to use the last Nasdaq sale price
prior to the MWCB Halt (or if none, the prior trading day's NOCP) in
this circumstance as this price is reflective of the current market for
the halted security. The Exchange's proposal is similar to the current
implementation on Arca and BZX.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Arca Rule 7.35-E(a)(8)(A) and BZX Rule 11.23(a)(9). See
also SR-CboeBZX-2018-090 for discussion of similarities between
Arca's and BZX's auction reference prices for non-LULD regulatory
halts. The Exchange's proposed Auction Reference Price for MWCB
Halts is substantially similar to Arca's and BZX's auction reference
prices, except the Exchange will use the last Nasdaq sale price
prior to the MWCB Halt, as described above. The Exchange believes
that it is appropriate to use the price of a trade on the primary
listing market, i.e., Nasdaq, to set the reference price for
auctions in Nasdaq listed securities when such a trade has been
executed recently.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 4121(d)(1)(B) will describe how the Exchange would
calculate the upper and lower ``MWCB Auction Collar'' prices during the
Initial Display Period. Specifically, the initial upper and lower
collar prices would be determined as follows:
     The lower MWCB Auction Collar is derived by subtracting
from the Auction Reference Price 10% of the Auction Reference Price,
rounded to the nearest minimum price increment,\15\ or in the case of
securities with an Auction Reference Price of $5 or less, $0.50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The term ``minimum price increment'' means $0.01 in the
case of a System Security priced at $1 or more per share, and
$0.0001 in the case of a System Security priced at less than $1 per
share. See Rule 4107(k). Thus, for example, if adding 10% of the
Auction Reference Price to the MWCB Auction Collar would result in a
tenth of a penny, the Exchange would round down to the nearest penny
when the calculation results in one to four tenths of a penny, and
the Exchange would round up to the nearest penny when the
calculation results in five to nine tenths of a penny.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The upper MWCB Auction Collar is derived by adding to the
Auction Reference Price 10% of the Auction Reference Price, rounded to
the nearest minimum price increment, or in the case of securities with
an Auction Reference Price of $5 or less, $0.50.
    In contrast, the initial price collar thresholds currently used for
the LULD mechanism are applied only in the direction of the trading
that invoked the Trading Pause.\16\ In this case, because there would
not be a security-specific pricing direction reason for the MWCB Halt,
the Exchange believes that it is appropriate to apply the initial
thresholds on both sides of the Auction Reference Price. For example,
if the Nasdaq last sale price (either round or odd lot) after 9:15 a.m.
ET but prior to the MWCB Halt for a security is $100.00, then the lower
and upper initial MWCB Auction Collar prices would be $90 and $110--
i.e., 10% below and above the Nasdaq last sale price. This mirrors the
application of the initial halt auction collars on both Arca and BZX
today, except the Exchange's proposed MWCB Auction Collar threshold
amounts will be 10% of the Auction Reference Price (or $0.50 for
securities priced $5 or less).\17\ The Exchange believes that the wider
parameters proposed for MWCB Auction Collars are set at appropriate
levels that would allow the Exchange to re-open trading in securities
more quickly while still reducing the potential to re-open at a price
that is significantly away from the last traded price of the security.
Furthermore, the Exchange has traditionally been a listing venue for
equity stocks, while Arca and BZX have traditionally listed more ETFs.
ETFs track entire sectors, indices or other groups of assets, which can
mute the effect of price volatility of the ETF. The Exchange therefore
believes that the wider price bands proposed herein strikes an
appropriate balance between allowing the Exchange to return to normal
continuous trading in a measured, timely manner while accommodating the
potential higher volatility of individual stocks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Rule 4120(c)(10)(A)(ii).
    \17\ Both Arca and BZX employ auction collar thresholds
identical to the parameters currently used for LULD auction collars
(i.e., 5% of the auction reference price, or $0.15 for securities
with an auction reference price of $3 or less). See Arca Rule 7.35-
E(e)(7)(B)(ii) and BZX Rule 11.23(d)(2)(C)(i)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rules 4121(d)(2) and (d)(3) will specify the circumstances
when the Exchange would extend the Display Only Period for a MWCB Halt
re-opening process, and how the Exchange would adjust the MWCB Auction
Collars for each extension. In particular, at the conclusion of the
Initial Display Only Period, the security will be released for trading
unless, at the end of the Initial Display Only Period, Nasdaq detects
an order imbalance in the security.\18\ In that case, Nasdaq will
extend the Display Only Period for an additional 5-minute period
(``Extended Display Only Period''), and the MWCB Auction Collar prices
will be adjusted as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ As discussed below, an order imbalance under the proposed
re-opening process for MWCB Halts will be established in the same
manner as an order imbalance under the current LULD re-opening
process as set forth in Rule 4120(c)(10)(E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     If the Display Only Period is extended because the
calculated price at which the security would be released for trading is
below the lower MWCB Auction Collar price or all sell market orders
would not be executed in the cross, then the new lower MWCB Auction
Collar price is derived by subtracting 10% of the Auction Reference
Price, which was rounded to the nearest minimum price increment, or in
the case of securities with an Auction Reference Price of $5 or less,
$0.50, from the previous lower MWCB Auction Collar price, and the upper
MWCB Auction Collar price will not be changed.
     If the Display Only Period is extended because the
calculated price at which the security would be released for trading is
above the upper MWCB Auction Collar price or all buy market orders
would not be executed in the cross, then the new upper MWCB Auction
Collar price is derived by adding 10% of the Auction Reference Price,
which was rounded to the nearest minimum price increment, or in the
case of securities with an Auction Reference Price of $5 or less,
$0.50, to the previous upper MWCB Auction Collar price, and the lower
MWCB Auction Collar price will not be changed.
    At the conclusion of the Extended Display Only Period, the security
will be released for trading unless, at the end of the Extended Display
Only Period, Nasdaq detects an order imbalance in the security. In that
case, Nasdaq will further extend the Display Only Period, continuing to
adjust the MWCB Auction Collar prices every five minutes in the manner
described in Rule 4121(d)(2) until the security is released for
trading; provided, however, that Nasdaq will not adjust the MWCB
Auction Collar prices past 50% of the Auction Reference Price for any
security during any Extended Display Only Period. During any additional
Extended Display Only Period after the first Extended Display Only
Period, Nasdaq shall release the security for trading at the first
point there is no order imbalance.
    As proposed, the process for initiating extensions of the Display
Only Period for a MWCB Halt auction will be identical to the process
currently used for extending Trading Pauses, with only two differences
that relate to the calculation of the auction collars. First, for each
extension period, the MWCB Auction Collars would be widened in the
direction of the imbalance using the wider parameters described above
for the initial MWCB Auction Collar (i.e.,

by an additional 10% or $0.50 for securities with an Auction Reference
Price of $5 or less) as opposed to the parameters currently used to
widen LULD Auction Collars (i.e., by an additional 5% or $0.15 for
securities with a reference price of $3 or less). Second, the Exchange
would not adjust the MWCB Auction Collars past 50% of the Auction
Reference Price for any security during any Extended Display Only
Period, whereas under the current LULD mechanism, the price collars
would continue to be adjusted for each extension period.\19\ For
example, a security with an Auction Reference Price of $3 would have
initial lower and upper MWCB Auction Collar prices of $2.50 and $3.50.
If all buy market orders would not be executed in the cross at the end
of the Initial Display Only Period, the Exchange would extend the
Display Only Period and widen the upper MWCB Auction Collar price to
$4.00. The lower MWCB Auction Collar price would remain at $2.50. If
there continues to be any buy side imbalance at the end of the first
Extended Display Only Period, the Exchange would further adjust the
upper collar price to $4.50 (while keeping the lower collar at $2.50)
for the second extension period. To the extent there are subsequent
Extended Display Only Periods to accommodate buy side trading interest,
the Exchange would not adjust the upper MWCB Auction Collar past $4.50
(i.e., 50% of the Auction Reference Price), and would continue to use
this price threshold for the duration of the MWCB Halt, until the
security is released for trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Thus as proposed, if the upper or lower MWCB Auction Collar
is already adjusted by 50% of the Auction Reference Price for any
extension period, that price threshold will be used for the duration
of the MWCB Halt, until the security is released for trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As mentioned above, unlike the current implementation of auction
collars under LULD as well as similar MWCB auction collars on Arca and
BZX, the Exchange will not adjust the MWCB Auction Collars past 50% of
the Auction Reference Price. The Exchange recognizes that the proposed
50% limit for adjusting the MWCB Auction Collars may prevent the
transition to continuous trading, particularly in instances of extreme
price volatility that could result in increased Extended Display Only
Periods. On the other hand, however, if there was no limit on adjusting
the price collars, there is potential for extreme volatility resulting
in trades at prices far away from a security's fundamental value,
ultimately harming investors that are party to the trade. The Exchange
considered using the same logic as currently implemented under the LULD
mechanism (i.e., where there is no limit on adjusting the price
collars) and ultimately determined not to align its proposal in this
manner. The Exchange believes that it may be more appropriate to
continue adjusting price collars in the context of LULD where trading
is halted due to a period of extraordinary volatility in a single
security (as opposed to all securities under a MWCB Halt) because there
may be instances of a discrete event (such as the announcement of
material news) that ultimately impacts the value of the individual
security. A MWCB Halt, however, will be triggered during a period of
significant volatility across markets that may not correlate to the
fundamental value of a single security. As such, the Exchange believes
that by proposing to adjust the MWCB Auction Collars up to 50% of the
Auction Reference Price, an appropriate balance can be achieved in
favor of preventing extraordinary volatility that could result in
significant price disparity in post-auction trading.
    Proposed Rule 4121(d)(4) will specify that an order imbalance would
be established for purposes of the process under Rule 4121 as follows:
\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ This is the same manner in which an order imbalance is
established under the current re-opening process for Trading Pauses.
See Rule 4120(c)(10)(E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The calculated price at which the security would be
released for trading is above (below) the upper (lower) MWCB Auction
Collar price calculated under paragraphs (1), (2), or (3) of Rule
4121(d); or
     all market orders would not be executed in the cross.
    Proposed Rule 4121(d)(5) will describe how the MWCB Auction Collars
will function in the event of more than one trading halt initiated
under Rule 4121 in the same day. In the event of a Level 2 Market
Decline while a security is in a Level 1 MWCB Halt and has not been
released for trading, Nasdaq will recalculate the lower and upper MWCB
Auction Collar prices in the particular security in accordance with
paragraph (1)(B) of Rule 4121.\21\ In this instance, the Exchange will
start the calculation of the new upper and lower MWCB Auction Collar
prices using 10% of the Auction Reference Price, rounded to the nearest
minimum price increment, or $0.50 for securities with an Auction
Reference Price of $5 or less. The Exchange believes that the proposed
language would bring greater transparency to market participants in how
the Exchange would handle the calculation of MWCB Auction Collars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ As currently provided in Rule 4121(b)(i), the Exchange
would halt trading based on a Level 1 or Level 2 Market Decline only
once per day. Thus for example, if a Level 1 Market Decline were to
occur and trading were halted, following the re-opening of trading,
the Exchange would not halt the market again unless a Level 2 Market
Decline were to occur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to add new paragraph (e) to Rule 4121 to
describe how the Exchange will handle the publication of MWCB Halt
Information. Specifically, at the beginning of the Initial Display Only
Period and continuing through the resumption of trading, Nasdaq will
disseminate by electronic means an Order Imbalance Indicator \22\ every
second. The Exchange also proposes to make a related change by adding
new Rule 4753(a)(3)(G), which will provide that for purposes of a MWCB
Halt initiated pursuant to Rule 4121, the Order Imbalance Indicator
will include Auction Reference Prices and MWCB Auction Collars, as
defined in Rule 4121(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ As described in Rule 4753(a)(3), an ``Order Imbalance
Indicator'' is a message disseminated by electronic means containing
information about Eligible Interest and the price at which such
interest would execute at the time of dissemination.
    ``Eligible Interest'' is defined as any quotation or any order
that has been entered into the system and designated with a time-in-
force that would allow the order to be in force at the time of the
Halt Cross. See Rule 4753(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes a number of formatting clean-ups in Rule
4121. In light of the above changes, Rule 4121(d) will be renumbered as
Rule 4121(f). Finally, subparagraphs (i)-(iv) in Rule 4121(a) and
subparagraphs (i)-(ii) in Rule 4121(b) will be renumbered as
subparagraphs (1)-(4) and subparagraphs (1)-(2), respectively, for
greater consistency with the Rulebook.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\23\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\24\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the Act because it would amend the halt auction process following
a MWCB Halt to be more closely aligned with the process currently
implemented for halt auctions following a Trading Pause under the LULD
Plan. The Exchange amended its re-opening process following a Trading
Pause to better

account for buy or sell pressure by changing the manner in which
initial LULD Auction Collars are established, and widening the collars
as appropriate to accommodate trading interest submitted to participate
in the auction. The Exchange believes that these changes have been
generally successful in facilitating a fair and orderly process for re-
opening securities following a Trading Pause. The Exchange has
therefore decided to use a similar process for halt auctions following
a MWCB Halt. The Exchange believes that its proposal would benefit
investors by facilitating price discovery and promoting more
consistency in how the Exchange conducts the re-opening process
following a Trading Pause or a MWCB Halt.
    While the proposed re-opening process following MWCB Halts would
largely follow the re-opening process in place today for Trading
Pauses, there would be several notable differences. These differences
are primarily designed to ensure that suitable MWCB Auction Collars are
utilized for the re-opening process following MWCB Halts. For instance,
while an Auction Reference Price based on the Price Band that triggered
the Trading Pause continues to be appropriate in the context of the re-
opening process following Trading Pauses, the Exchange believes that a
different reference is necessary for the re-opening process for MWCB
Halts. The Exchange has chosen to use the Nasdaq last sale price and,
if none, the prior trading day's NOCP as the MWCB Auction Reference
Price in these circumstances as this price is reflective of the current
market for the halted security. Similarly, the Exchange believes that
it is appropriate to calculate both upper and lower MWCB Auction
Collars that are a specified percentage or dollar amount from this
reference price because MWCB Halts do not involve security specific buy
or sell pressure. These differences are similar to the application of
MWCB Auction Collars on Arca and BZX today, except for the parameters
used to calculate the price collars.\25\ The Exchange believes that the
wider parameters of 10% increments (or $0.50 for securities priced at
$5 or less) proposed above for MWCB Auction Collars when compared to
the parameters of 5% increments (or $0.15 for securities priced at $3
or less) currently used to calculate the LULD Auction Collars are set
at appropriate levels that would allow the Exchange to re-open trading
in securities more quickly while still reducing the potential for re-
opening at a price that is significantly away from the last traded
price of the security. Furthermore, the Exchange believes that it is
appropriate to stop widening the MWCB Auction Collar prices past 50% of
the Auction Reference Price to ensure that upon the resumption of
trading after an MWCB Halt, the security is priced at a reasonable
level from the Auction Reference Price.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See supra notes 14 and 17 above, with accompanying text.
    \26\ As noted above, this is different from the current
implementation of the price collars under the LULD mechanism where
the price collars continue to be adjusted for each extension period.
This also differs from the current implementation of non-LULD price
collars on Arca and BZX, which both mirror the LULD process in this
respect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Otherwise, the proposed re-opening process for MWCB Halts is
consistent with the current LULD re-opening process. Similar to the
current LULD re-opening process, the Exchange also believes that the
proposed process is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest because they are designed to facilitate price discovery
by ensuring that all market order interest could be satisfied in the
auction process following MWCB Halts. Furthermore, the Exchange
believes that the standardized procedures to extend MWCB Halt auctions
an additional five minutes are appropriate because this would provide
additional time to attract offsetting liquidity. If at the end of such
extension, market orders still cannot be cannot be satisfied within the
applicable collars, or if the re-opening price would be outside of the
applicable collars, the Exchange would extend the halt auction process
an additional five minutes. The Exchange believes that extending the
auction in these circumstances would protect investors and the public
interest by reducing the potential for significant price disparity in
post-auction trading. With each such extension, the Exchange believes
that it is appropriate to widen the price collar threshold on the side
of the market on which there is buying or selling pressure as market
conditions may prevent an order imbalance from being resolved within
the prior auction collars.
    The Exchange also believes it is appropriate to add language
clarifying how the MWCB Auction Collars will function in the event of
more than one trading halt initiated under Rule 4121 in the same day.
The proposed changes would increase transparency in how the Exchange
would handle the calculation of MWCB Auction Collars, and is therefore
consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors.
The Exchange likewise believes that specifying how it will handle the
publication of MWCB Halt information will bring greater transparency
around the operation of the Exchange's auction process.

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. The proposed rule change is
designed to provide for a measured and transparent process for re-
opening Nasdaq listed securities after a MWCB Halt that is similar to
the current re-opening process following a Trading Pause initiated
under the LULD Plan and the process already implemented on Arca and BZX
for non-LULD regulatory halts.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be 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-NASDAQ-2019-057 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2019-057. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
    Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2019-057 and
should be submitted on or before August 15, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\27\
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-15776 Filed 7-24-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES Memorandum SUBJECT: Biological and Economic Impact Analysis of Methyl Parathion on Sweetpotatoes FROM: Nikhil Mallampalli, Entomologist Herbicide and Insecticide Branch Tim Kiely, Economist Economic Analysis Branch Biological and Economic Analysis Division ( 7503C)

THROUGH: David Brassard, Senior Entomologist Arnet Jones, Chief Herbicide and Insecticide Branch Arthur Grube, Senior Economist David Widawsky, Chief Economic Analysis Branch TO: Laura Parsons, Chemical Review Manager Susan Lewis, Chief Reregistration Branch 1 Special Review and Reregistration Division ( 7508C)

Peer Review Date: August 21, 2002 SUMMARY Methyl parathion is used on sweetpotatoes ( Ipomoea batatas) under a Special Local Needs ( SLN) label in Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. The main target pest of concern in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama is the sweetpotato weevil. There is zero tolerance for weevil infested tubers, and these states have quarantined infested sweetpotato growing regions in so called " red tag" areas. Frequent insecticide applications, along with cultural practices intended to sanitize 2 fields and harvest, are required for the harvest from the " red tag" areas to be certified as " weevil free". In all the states that have the SLN label, other soil inhabiting insects are also controlled by methyl parathion, though perhaps to a lesser extent in Arkansas and Texas. These include larvae of the whitefringed beetle and cucumber beetle, which also damage tubers and reduce harvest quality. While cultural practices will probably eliminate the danger of harvest rejection due to weevil contamination, the loss of methyl parathion could result in a decrease in harvest quality from these regions, since it would create a gap in control of migrating beetles and weevils during the growing season. This will be more likely after risk mitigation and concomitant reductions in applications go into effect for endosulfan, which is also used for the same purposes as methyl parathion in sweetpotato. These impacts may be particularly acute in Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi, where sweetpotatoes appear to be colonized by these pests more frequently during the growing season. For these insects, only phosmet and endosulfan have a residual activity similar to that of methyl parathion. While these are not the only alternative insecticides available to growers, BEAD believes that growers will not be able to replace all of the methyl parathion applications effectively over the growing season. If methyl parathion is not available for control of these insects, economic analysis suggests that growers could lose as much as $ 1,106 in per acre net cash returns, and total losses in the states involved could be as high as $ 17.3 million. The estimated losses arise from the lower price received for the sweetpotatoes harvested due to increased pest damage without methyl parathion available for use, and from using higher cost insecticides in place of methyl parathion.

LIMITATIONS AND SCOPE OF ANALYSIS The scope of this analysis includes an examination of potential regional level impacts associated with lack of availability of methyl parathion in sweetpotato production. This mitigation scenario is in response to the high health risks to mixers, loaders and applicators as identified by the Health Effects Division of the Office of Pesticide Programs. This analysis does not attempt to address impacts associated with mitigation efforts targeted at workers reentering fields treated with methyl parathion, or potential mitigation for various environmental risks ( i. e., risk mitigation for risks to terrestrial plants and organisms or water contamination).

There are limitations to this assessment. The impacts estimated by this analysis only represent potential short term   1 to 2 years   impacts on the sweetpotato production system. Assumptions about yield and quality losses associated with the various scenarios are based on the best professional judgement of BEAD analysts when estimates were not available from other sources. The basis for these assumptions is knowledge acquired from reviewing available USDA crop profiles, state crop production guides, discussions with university extension and research entomologists knowledgeable in sweetpotato production, and other sources listed. Production of sweetpotato is a very complex system that can be affected by many parameters ( e. g., weather). BEAD's ability to quantitatively capture the wide array of events that could unfold given each hypothetical scenario listed above is very limited. The economic analyses are based on crop budgets prepared by University Extension Specialists, which do not always include the exact combination of pesticides considered in BEAD's scenarios. This analysis will focus solely on operation costs, ignoring overhead and other opportunity costs, which can be difficult to measure and are beyond the scope of this exercise. Thus, net cash returns overstate actual 3 profits to the grower.

CROP PRODUCTION AND VALUE There are an average of 90,400 acres of sweetpotatoes harvested per year in the U. S., producing nearly 675,000 tons of sweetpotatoes valued at more than $ 215 million. Table 1 summarizes sweetpotato production statistics for the U. S. and the major producing states and regions. The major states of production are North Carolina, Louisiana, California and Mississippi. Together they account for more than 92% of total U. S. sweetpotato production. The major U. S. production region is the Southern Region, which produces more than 40% of total U. S. sweetpotato production.

Table 1. Sweetpotato Production Statistics by State1 State Area Harvested ( Acres) Yield ( tons / acre) Production ( tons) Percent of Total U. S. Production Price ($/ ton) Value of Production ($ 1,000)

U. S. 90,400 7.4 673,300  322 217,000 Southern Region 39,000 7.0 273,900 41% 307 84,200 AL 3,100 7.4 22,900 3% 332 7,600 LA 23,000 7.1 163,300 24% 283 46,200 MS 12,900 6.8 87,700 13% 347 30,400 CA 10,200 12.0 122,400 18% 555 67,900 NC 34,000 7.3 248,200 37% 224 55,600 TX 4,600 2.8 12,900 2% 335 4,300 Other States 2 2,600 6.1 15,900 2% 316 5,000 1. Based on USDA/ NASS Agricultural Statistics, 1998 2000. 2. Other states include: AR ( 164 acres harvested in 1997), GA, NJ, SC, VA.

USE AND USAGE OF METHYL PARATHION ON SWEETPOTATOES The estimated usage of methyl parathion on sweetpotatoes is summarized in Table 2. Approximately 17% of the U. S. sweetpotato acreage is treated with methyl parathion and nearly 17,000 pounds of methyl parathion are applied. The states where methyl parathion is being used on sweetpotatoes include Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi. Each state treats an estimated 40% of their 4 sweetpotato acreage with methyl parathion ( see Table 2). The estimated usage in Mississippi and Alabama is based on usage estimates for Louisiana due to the similarities in sweetpotato target pests and methyl parathion use patterns in the three states. The available data do not indicate that methyl parathion is used on sweetpotatoes in Arkansas or Texas.

Table 2. Methyl Parathion Usage on Sweetpotatoes.

State Acres Harvested Acres Treated Percent Crop Treated Pounds Active Ingredient Applied U. S. 90,400 15,640 1 17% 16,560 1 Southern Region 39,000 15,640 1 40% 16,560 1 Alabama 3,100 1,240 40% 2 1,860 Louisiana 23,000 9,200 40% 2 6,900 Mississippi 12,900 5,200 40% 2 7,800 Source: Personal communication with A. Hammond, 2002 ( Louisiana only). 1. Total for the U. S. and Southern Region based on the sum of usage for three states. There is no information available on the usage of methyl parathion in any other states. 2. Estimates of percent of crop treated for Mississippi and Alabama are based on estimates of usage in Louisiana. Due to the similarities in sweetpotato target pests and methyl parathion use patterns in the Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama, usage estimates for Mississippi and Alabama are based on usage estimates for Louisiana.

INSECT PESTS TARGETED BY METHYL PARATHION, AND POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES In sweetpotato, methyl parathion is available only in Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas under a Special Local Needs ( SLN) registration. It is used to control the sweetpotato weevil ( Colas formicarius elegantulus), the white fringed beetle ( Graphognathus spp.), and the cucumber beetle ( Diabrotica spp.). Of these, the sweetpotato weevil is arguably the most critical pest, in that the industry requires tubers to be certified free of this introduced, tropical insect if the harvest originates from potentially infested regions ( A. Hammond, personal communication). To achieve this certification, Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi ( where weevil populations have occurred most often) have designated " red tag" areas within their growing regions where insecticide sprays must be made at 7 10 day intervals in fields where weevil adults have been detected in pheromone traps that growers are required to maintain ( A. Hammond and R. Poret, personal communication). In Mississippi, a large portion of the sweetpotato acreage has been moved to the northern part of the state, which is not under quarantine ( A. Hammond, personal communication). BEAD believes that the current and future threat posed by the sweetpotato weevil is highest in Louisiana, where a significant acreage ( approximately 10,000 acres) still exists in the quarantined areas. In northern parts of the state, spraying for weevils is done if 4 or more weevils are found in a trap ( A. Hammond, personal communication). The weevil is capable of causing great destruction to tubers, both by direct feeding and by reducing the quality of the yield, which tastes bitter even after weevils have left. Both adults and larvae can cause 5 damage ( adults can also reduce yield if they feed uncontrolled on foliage). However, larvae are considered the most injurious stage; even low numbers can reduce sweetpotato quality and marketable yield ( USDA 2001a). They can also be serious pests of stored tubers, and thus must be prevented from entering the harvest.

This insect persistently occurs south of a line that roughly parallels Interstate 20 across Louisiana and Mississippi. Infestations are occasionally found as far as 20 miles north of this line. The insect is a limiting factor in commercial sweetpotato production south of I 20, so this area is under a quarantine. The insect is the most economically important arthropod pest of sweetpotatoes worldwide ( USDA 2001b). Isolated populations have also been found in Texas and along the Arkansas border ( NAPIS 2000). Cultural practices can often suppress or prevent weevil infestations. These practices include removal of tubers and harvest debris from fields, which removes overwintering sites the weevil can use, and preventive spraying of storage areas with phosmet ( USDA 2001a, b). These practices usually rid the harvest of weevil contamination, though they do not guarantee that tubers will not be damaged during the growing season ( A. Hammond, personal communication, USDA 2001b). In southern parts of Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi, where weevil populations are highest, the presence of wild host plants in the genus Ipomoea ( e. g., morning glory) appear to foster more frequent infestation of sweetpotato fields during the growing season ( A. Hammond, personal communication).

The other insects targeted are also potentially serious sources of damage. Whitefringed beetle grubs feed on roots and cause irregular scars and holes in tubers. Cucumber beetle grubs eat small holes in tubers and form irregular cavities under the skin ( Averre et al. 1997). White fringed beetle, cucumber beetles, and weevils all feed on foliage as adults, though it is the larvae that do the economically significant damage. However, this habit means they can be affected by foliar insecticide sprays.

Foliar insecticide sprays for these insects are made after scouting reveals the presence of adults or larvae, a practice common to all the sweetpotato production in these states. No effective biological control agents are commercially available for any of the insects targeted by methyl parathion ( USDA 2001b). There is some research underway that is examining the feasibility of soil inhabiting nematodes for use against the grubs, but these organisms are unlikely to substitute for insecticides in the near future. Adult weevils and beetles are probably preyed upon by birds and large, predatory insects, but BEAD found no evidence that these are effective control agents.

Endosulfan, phosmet, and carbaryl are all sometimes used for the same purpose as methyl parathion in sweetpotatoes. Endosulfan and phosmet are approximately equal to methyl parathion in effectiveness against the target insects mentioned here ( Story et al. 2001), but frequent sprays of multiple chemicals are often required to suppress these insects across the growing season ( typically May to July). Of these, methyl parathion appears to be the longest lasting foliar insecticide available ( Hammond et al. 2001, Seal 2001, Story et al. 2001). Thus, endosulfan and phosmet may not be able to adequately substitute for methyl parathion, despite their comparable efficacy. Louisiana and Mississippi also acquired bifenthrin, a synthetic pyrethroid, under an emergency exemption this year. However, only two applications are allowed per season, and BEAD is unable to assess its efficacy relative to that of methyl parathion.

It should also be noted that carbaryl is often reserved for use against other insect pests ( e. g., 6 leafhoppers) that can unexpectedly become problems during the growing season ( USDA 2001b). The number of methyl parathion applications per season used across Louisiana is estimated to be 4  8, with 8 being more typical in the " red tag" areas ( A. Hammond, R. Poret, personal communication). Since growing conditions and pest pressures are similar, BEAD assumes a similar level of methyl parathion use in Alabama and Mississippi. Since the growing season is typically 12 weeks long and foliar insecticidal sprays are usually made on a weekly basis ( A. Hammond, R. Poret, personal communication), these figures suggest that methyl parathion forms the largest component of these insecticide applications.

BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS OF ELIMINATING METHYL PARATHION IN SWEETPOTATO PRODUCTION BEAD believes there may be an increase in tuber damage in southern parts of Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi due to sweetpotato weevil damage, if methyl parathion is removed from the set of insecticides used to manage this insect. Reductions in quality will probably also occur in most of the other sweetpotato growing regions due to diminished control of white fringed and cucumber beetle grubs. In general, this would result in more of the harvest being assigned sub premium grades, which fetch much lower prices than top graded tubers.

Populations of the white fringed and cucumber beetles appear to be on the rise in sweetpotatoes in Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi. They are often major pests in these states ( USDA 2001b). This may be due to an increase in nearby soybean and pasture acreage ( A. Hammond, personal communication). These areas provide good habitat for fostering large numbers of these insects, which are highly mobile as adults and easily move into soybean plants to feed and lay eggs.

If methyl parathion use is unavailable, growers will be forced to turn to some combination of the available alternatives. BEAD believes that they will probably increase their use of carbaryl, endosulfan, and phosmet. Endosulfan and phosmet will be used as much as possible since they are known to be similar to methyl parathion in terms of efficacy. Phosmet can only be applied a maximum of five times per season. Endosulfan use will also be reduced from three to two applications per season due to risk mitigation included in its recent reregistration. This will create a need for additional use of another insecticide. For this, growers will probably use carbaryl ( despite some evidence of lower efficacy), because they are familiar with the product and can target sporadic infestations of other insects also on its label. Furthermore, this would allow some rotation of insecticidal chemistries to offset resistance evolution in the insect pests. Since this insecticide combination is not likely to offer the same level of control as methyl parathion, BEAD concludes an increase in tuber damage is probable.

Methyl parathion use in Texas and Arkansas is either currently nonexistent or at a low level that does not warrant formal reporting ( see Table 2). Texas extension service publications indicate that soilinhabiting grubs ( including white fringed and cucumber beetles) are usually kept under adequate control with the application of chlorpyrifos to the ground at planting ( Holloway et al. 2000). However, these publications do list methyl parathion also as an alternative insecticide option for beetle adults, grubs, and other foliage feeding insects ( Sparks 1997, Holloway et al. 2000). 7 If populations of these insects increase in the future, growers in this state may also need to rely more heavily on methyl parathion. Since Arkansas sweetpotato habitat and growing conditions are likely to be similar to that of Texas, BEAD presumes that the situation regarding these insects is likely to be similar also. Soybean is widely grown in the same areas as sweetpotato in both states, so an increase in populations of these insects remains a possibility. The other target of methyl parathion applications, the sweetpotato weevil, is rarely reported in these states. Therefore, BEAD believes it will not increase in importance as a pest in these regions if this insecticide is restricted.

ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF ELIMINATING METHYL PARATHION IN SWEETPOTATO PRODUCTION The per acre dollar impact of the unavailability of methyl parathion on sweetpotatoes is estimated in Table 3. As described above, impacts are expected in the Southern Region of the U. S., which includes the states of Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Methyl parathion is critical for the control of sweetpotato weevil and white fringed and cucumber beetles in this region. Table 3 lists the production, price, gross revenues, operating costs and net cash returns for sweetpotatoes in the Southern Region for two scenarios ( the " base" and " alternative" scenarios), and the percentage change in each of these items between the two scenarios. The base scenario assumes that methyl parathion is still available for use on sweetpotatoes, and the alternative scenario assumes that methyl parathion is not available for use on sweetpotatoes. Under the alternative scenario, it is assumed that without methyl parathion available for use, growers would apply some combination of carbaryl, endosulfan and phosmet in an attempt to control the pests targeted with methyl parathion applications, and to avoid a complete loss of the crop. Impacts are measured in terms of the percentage change in per acre net cash returns between the base and alternative scenarios, where per acre net cash returns are equal to per acre gross revenues minus per acre total operating costs.

Losses in sweetpotato yields in the Southern Region are not expected if methyl parathion is not available for use. However, if methyl parathion is unavailable on sweetpotatoes, growers in the Southern Region could face reductions in the quality of their harvested sweetpotatoes due to increased pest damage as a result of inadequate season long control of sweetpotato weevils and white fringed and cucumber beetles. The quality of the sweetpotatoes harvested could drop from U. S. one to U. S. two grade, which carries with it a 50% drop in the price received. The price received would fall from $ 308 per ton to $ 154 per ton, and gross revenues would decline to $ 1,078 per acre from $ 2,156 per acre ( see Table 3).

Without methyl parathion available for use on sweetpotatoes, growers in the Southern Region could also face an increase of $ 28 per acre ( or 140%) in pesticide control costs due to the increased cost of the alternatives to methyl parathion for the control of sweetpotato weevils and white fringed and cucumber beetles ( see Table 3). The analysis assumes that at least four applications of methyl parathion are made per season to control these pests in the Southern Region, and that four applications of a combination of carbaryl, phosmet, and endosulfan would be made to replace methyl parathion. ( Since phosmet is the most expensive of the three alternatives to methyl parathion, we assume that no more than two of the applications would be made with phosmet). 8 The $ 28 per acre increase in pesticide control costs would result in a 2% increase in total per acre operating costs. This increase in per acre costs when combined with the decline in per acre gross revenues of $ 1,078, results in a decline in per acre net cash returns of 180%. Per acre net cash returns would decline from $ 615 per acre to net losses of $ 491 per acre ( see Table 3).

This assessment is a worst case scenario. More than likely, not every sweetpotato harvested on each acre would suffer losses in grade, and not every acre harvested would incur increased insect control costs. However, in the worst case, without the use of methyl parathion, growers could face these per acre losses and cost increases.

Table 3. Per Acre Gross Returns, Production Costs and Net Returns to Sweetpotato Growers in the Southern U. S. with In season Control of Sweetpotato Weevils and White fringed and Cucumber beetles.

Base Scenario:

methylparathion Alternative:

carbaryl/ phosmet / endosulfan % Change Between Base and Alternative Scenarios production ( tons/ acre) 7 7 0%

price ($/ ton) 308 154  50%

gross revenues ($/ acre) 2,156 1,078  50%

insecticide costs ($/ acre)

methyl parathion 1 carbaryl/ phosmet/ endosulfan 2 20 48 140%

other insecticides 53 53 other operating costs ($/ acre) 1,468 1,468 total operating costs ($/ acre) 1,541 1,569 2%

net cash returns ($/ acre) 615  491  180%

Source: USDA, Auburn University and Alabama A& M University, Louisiana State University, Mississippi State University.

1. The estimated cost of methyl parathion is $ 5 per acre. The assessment assumes an average of four applications of methyl parathion per acre per season to control sweetpotato weevil and white fringed and cucumber beetles.

2. The estimated cost of carbaryl and endosulfan is $ 9 per acre, and phosmet is $ 15 per acre. The assessment assumes two applications of a combination of carbaryl and endosulfan and two applications of phosmet to replace the four applications of methyl parathion.

The impacts if methyl parathion is not available for sweetpotato production in Alabama, 9 Louisiana, and Mississippi, as well as in the Southern Region, are estimated in Table 4. An estimated 40 % of the acreage grown in each state in the Southern Region is treated with methyl parathion for the control of sweetpotato weevils and white fringed and cucumber beetles, and the impact as described above is assumed to occur on every treated acre. This results in a total impact ranging from $ 1.4 million in Alabama to $ 10.2 million in Louisiana. Losses for the Southern Region could be as high as $ 17.3 million, which is 20 % of the total value of sweetpotato production in the region ( see Table 4) ( and 8 % of the total value of sweetpotato production in the U. S.).

As mentioned above, this assessment is a worst case scenario. It is not expected that every acre previously treated with methyl parathion would suffer these losses without methyl parathion, but information was not available at the time of the assessment to indicate the likelihood of the losses per farm. These estimated losses serve as an upper bound of the impacts of the lack of availability of methyl parathion on sweetpotatoes.

Table 4. State and Total Impacts of No Longer Having Methyl Parathion Available for Use on Sweetpotato in the Southern Region.

State Acres Impacted1 Cost Increase ($/ acre) 2 Gross Revenue Decrease ($/ acre) 3 Total Impact4 ($ 1000) Total value of Production ($ 1000) Total Impact as a % of Total Value of Production Alabama 1,240 28 1,078 1,371 7,600 18%

Louisiana 9,200 28 1,078 10,175 46,200 22%

Mississippi 5,200 28 1,078 5,751 30,400 19%

Southern6 Region 15,640 28 1,078 17,297 84,200 20%

1. Acres Impacted is the number of acres treated in the state ( see Table 2).

2. Cost Increase is an estimate of the increase in production costs due to increases in the cost of chemical control ( see Table 3).

3. Gross Revenue Decrease is the estimated decline in per acre gross revenues due to a reduction in the quality of the sweetpotatoes harvested ( see Table 3).

4. Total impact is equal to the acres impacted multiplied by the sum of the per acre cost increase and the per acre gross revenue decrease ( e. g. the total impact in Alabama = ( 1,240 acres) x ( 28 + 1,078)).

5. Total Impact as a % of Total Value of Production is equal to the total impact divided by the total value of production.

6. The Southern Region impact is a sum of impacts in the 3 states listed. 10 IMPACT SUMMARY Methyl parathion is critical for the control of the sweetpotato weevil and white fringed and cucumber beetles on sweetpotatoes in the Southern Region of the U. S. ( Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi). If it is unavailable for use in sweetpotatoes, growers in the Southern Region could face losses of up to $ 1,106 in per acre net cash returns from losses in the quality of the sweetpotatoes harvested ( i. e., a reduction in the price received), and increases in the cost of pest control from using higher cost alternatives to methyl parathion in an effort to avoid complete crop loss from infestations of sweetpotato weevils and white fringed and cucumber beetles. Losses in the Southern Region could be as high as $ 17.3 million.

SOURCES Auburn University and Alabama A& M University. Sweetpotatoes: Estimated Costs and Returns Per Acre. 1999.

Averre, C. W., K. A. Sorenson, and L. G. Wilson. 1997. Know and Manage Sweetpotato Pests. North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service, Raleigh, NC.

Dr. Abner Hammond. Professor and Specialist. Department of Entomology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA.

Hammond, A. M., R. Story, A. Diagne, and M. J. Murray. 2001. Residual activity of foliar applied insecticides on sweetpotato insects, 1997. Arthropod Management Tests, Vol 26, article # L9.

Holloway, R. L., K. D. Hale, and D. T. Smith. 2000. Texas Crop Profile: Sweetpotatoes. Pub. E 22 of the Texas Agricultural Extension Service, Texas A& M University, College Station, TX.

Louisiana State University. Projected Costs for Selected Louisiana Vegetable Crops: 1997 Season.

Mississippi State University. Vegetables: 1999 Planning Budgets.

NAPIS ( National Agricultural Pest Information System) 2000. Database available on the Web at: http:// www. ceris. purdue. edu/ napis/ pests/ spw/ index. html.

National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy. U. S. Pesticide Use Database.

Mr. Ray Poret, President. Louisiana Sweetpotato Growers Association.

Seal, D. 2001. Effectiveness of various insecticides in controlling the sweetpotato weevil, 1999. Arthropod Management Tests, Vol. 26, article # E83.

Sparks, A. N. 1997. Texas Guide for Controlling Insects on Commercial Vegetable Crops. Pub. B 1305 of the Texas Agricultural Extension Service, Texas A& M University, College Station, TX.

Story, R., A. M. Hammond, A. Diagne, and M. J. Murray. 2001. Residual activity of foliar applied insecticides on sweetpotato insects, 1996. Arthropod Management Tests, Vol 26, article # L10.

USDA 1999. Crop Profile for Sweetpotatoes in Mississippi. Available on the Web at: http:// www. pmcenters. org/ CropProfiles/ index. html. 11 USDA 2001a. Crop Profile for Sweetpotatoes in Louisiana. Available on the Web at: http:// www. pmcenters. org/ CropProfiles/ index. html.

USDA 2001b. Pest Management Strategic Plan for Sweetpotatoes in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey, North Carolina, and South Carolina. USDA/ OPMP workshop publication. Available at http:// pestdata. ncsu. edu/ pmsp/ index. cfm.

USDA. 2001 Agricultural Statistics.


                                 ATTACHMENT 5

                     Selected SNUR Case History Abstracts

                   HEXACHLORONORBORNADIENE (CAS # 2432-99-7)
      also known as HEX-BCH.

   6 TOXICITY

::	Extremely persistent compound with a great tendency to bioaccumulate.
 Slow biodegradation.
      Very toxic to fish.
      Possible analogue to known carcinogens.

II.	REFERRING OFFICE'S CONCERNS/NEEDS

      ::	Monitor: its manufacture, importation, and processing; intended end uses, and potential worker exposure and environmental releases.
      Once production levels reach a certain point, EPA will reconsider its decision not to text HEX-BCH.

III.	USES

A.	Past and Ongoing
      Commercial batch manufacture and processing.
      Intermediate in the production of isodrin which is an intermediate in the production of
      endrin (both pesticides).

B.	Small Business
      Capable of production by a small firm.

IV.	REGULATORY BACKGROUND

 Listed on the Preliminary Assessment Information Rule.  (One-time reporting only).
 Listed on the section 8(d) model health and safety data reporting rule (40 CFR Part 716).
 Local limit on its discharge in a public treatment system.  Limit based on plant's treatment capacity and not on human health or environmental risk.
V.	RECOMMENDATION/RATIONALE: Section 8(a) rule for ongoing uses and significant new use rule for non-ongoing uses.

      Well documented high toxicity concern.
      Small businesses potential.
      Satisfies referring office's needs.
      No federal regulation exists to provide a governmental entity with an opportunity to
       evaluate potential human and environmental exposures to HEX-BCH from its
      manufacture, importation, processing, and intended end use; and to protect human beings
      and the environment from potentially adverse exposures before they occur.
                    METHYL N-BUTYL KETONE (CAS # 591-78-6)

      also known as MBK.

   6 TOXICITY

           ::            Causes central and peripheral neuropathy in humans.  Nerve damage is irreversible at concentrations as low as 50 ppm.
 Absorbed readily through the skin.
      Eye and skin irritant.
      Limited evidence suggests testicular atrophy.

II.	REFERRING OFFICE'S CONCERNS/NEEDS

      ::	Monitor: its resumption of commercial manufacture, importation, and processing; intended end uses, and potential worker and consumer exposure.

III.	USES

A.	Past

      Commercial manufacture, importation and processing.
      Solvent in lacquers, sealers, varnish removers, oils, fats, and waxes.  (i.e., consumer products).

B.	Ongoing
      Importation for toxicological research and development.

C.	Small Business
      Capable of production by a small firm.

IV.	REGULATORY BACKGROUND

         * Occupational Safety and Health Administration standard (8 hour Time Weighted Average (TWA) 100 ppm).
         * American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists TWA 5 ppm.  No binding effect.
         * National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health TWA 5 ppm.  No binding effect.

V.	RECOMMENDATION/RATIONALE: Significant new use rule.

      Well documented high toxicity concern.
      Small businesses potential.
      Satisfies referring office's needs.

      No federal regulation exists to provide a governmental entity with an opportunity to
      evaluate potential human and environmental exposures to MBK from its manufacture,
       importation, processing, and intended end use; and to protect human beings and the
       environment from potentially adverse exposures before they occur.
                           URETHANE (CAS  # 51-79-6)

      Urethane is a name commonly but improperly applied to high molecular weight polyurethanes used as foams, elastomers, and coatings.  These products are not made from the urethane, and do not generate urethane upon decomposition.

 I.	TOXICITY

            ::	Urethane is well established as a carcinogen.  Malignant tumors have occurred in many species of animals following the administration of urethane by the oral, inhalation, topical, subcutaneous, and intraperitoneal routes.  Urethane is also a transplacental carcinogen that readily traverses the placenta and affects the fetus.
 Toxic fumes when heated; liver toxin; bone marrow depressant.

II.	REFERRING OFFICE'S CONCERNS/NEEDS

      ::	Monitor: its resumption of manufacture, importation, and processing; intended end uses, and potential worker and consumer exposure.

III.	USES

A.	Past
      Commercial manufacture, importation and processing.
      Intermediate in the production of N-hydroxymethyl derivatives, which are useful as cross-linking agents for imparting wash-and-wear properties to fabrics.
      Human medicine: sclerosing agent for varicose veins and hemorrhoids, anti-neoplastic agent, hypnotic, treatment of chronic leukemia, and multiple myeloma.
      Pharmaceutical intermediate.

B.	Ongoing
      Toxicological research.

C.	Small Business
      Capable of production by a small firm.

IV.	REGULATORY BACKGROUND

      Banned by the Food and Drug Administration as an active and inactive ingredient in drugs.  FDA also prohibited the use of a food preservative that produces urethane when it is used tin acidic beverages.
      Designated by EPA as a Toxic Hazardous Waste #238.
 Listed as a Hazardous material under the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act.

V.	RECOMMENDATION/RATIONALE: Significant new use rule.

      Well documented high toxicity concern.
      Small businesses potential.
      Satisfies referring office's needs.
      No federal regulation exists to provide a governmental entity with an opportunity to
       evaluate potential human and environmental exposures from urethane's manufacture,
      importation, processing, and intended end use; and to protect human beings and the
      environment from potentially adverse exposures before they occur.

      The consequences of not collecting this information is to allow, without EPA review,
      human and environmental exposures to toxic chemical substances.
                    PENTABROMOETHYLBENZENE (CAS  # 85-22-3)

      also known as PEB.

   I. TOXICITY
	::	Carcinogenicity observed in other structurally related compounds having a
                        polyhalogenated aromatic moiety.
 Persistent compound with a great tendency to bioaccumulate.
      Slow biodegradation.

II.	REFERRING OFFICE'S CONCERNS/NEEDS

      ::	Monitor: its resumption of commercial manufacture, importation, and processing; intended end uses, and potential worker exposure and environmental release.
      If production is to be reinstated, EPA will reconsider its decision not to test HEX-BCH.

III.	USES

A.	Past and Ongoing
      Has been used in the past as an additive-type flame retardant.
      No known ongoing uses.

B.	Small Business
      Capable of production by a small firm.

V.	REGULATORY BACKGROUND

      The Interagency Testing Committee designed PEB for priority consideration in its 15th report.
      Listed on the section 8(d) model health and safety data reporting rule (40 CFR Part 716).
 Listed on the Preliminary Assessment Information Rule.  (40 CFR Part 712).
 Proposed, pursuant to section 4(a)(1)(A) findings, that chemical fate and environmental effects testing be performed.
 Proposed Test Rule withdrawn due to termination of all known manufacture and processing operations.

V.	RECOMMENDATION/RATIONALE: Significant new use rule.

      Structurally analogous to substances of carcinogenic concern.
      Small businesses potential.
      Satisfies referring office's needs.
      No federal regulation exists to provide a governmental entity with an opportunity to
      evaluate potential human and environmental exposures to PEB from its manufacture, importation, processing, and intended end use; and to protect human beings and the environment from potentially adverse exposures before they occur.


[Federal Register: June 3, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 107)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 31610-31611]
[DOCID:fr03jn08-6]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[USCG-2008-0337]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Arthur Kill, Staten Island, NY
and Elizabeth, NJ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations; request for
comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a new
temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the
Arthur Kill (AK) Railroad Bridge across Arthur Kill at mile 11.6
between Staten Island, New York and Elizabeth, New Jersey. This
deviation is necessary to test a new operating rule for the bridge that
will help determine the most equitable and safe solution to facilitate
the present and anticipated needs of navigation and rail traffic. This
deviation requires the AK Railroad Bridge to remain in the open
position but allows the bridge owner/operator to schedule bridge
closure periods after consultation with the marine community.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 12:01 a.m. on June 1, 2008
through November 21, 2008. Comments must be received by September 19,
2008.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2008-0337 and are available online
at http://www.regulations.gov. They are also available for inspection
or copying at two locations: the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, and
the First Coast Guard District, Battery Park Building, One South
Street, New York, NY 10004 between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Gary Kassof, Bridge Branch, (212)
668-7165.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Arthur Kill Railroad Bridge (AK RR) has
a vertical clearance of 31 feet at mean high water and 35 feet at mean
low water in the closed position. The owner of the bridge, New York
City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC), began a bridge
rehabilitation program approximately 10 years ago, as part of the
region's Full Freight Access Initiative. Background about the AK RR and
the bridge owner's rehabilitation efforts may be found at 72 FR 12981
(Mar. 20, 2007). The operating rule for this bridge found at 33 CFR
117.747 is no longer applicable or necessary as it pertains to the AK
RR because the AK RR has been maintained in the open position for the
past 20 years due to the cessation of all railroad train traffic over
the bridge.

Initial Test Deviation

    On March 20, 2007, we published a temporary deviation entitled
``Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Raritan River, Arthur Kill, and
Their Tributaries, NJ'' in the Federal Register (72 FR 12981). The
temporary deviation concerned a test operating schedule for the bridge
needed to help determine a bridge operating schedule that would
accommodate present and anticipated rail operations while continuing to
provide for the present and anticipated needs of navigation. This
deviation from the operating regulations was authorized under 33 CFR
117.35.

Revised Deviation

    On June 8, 2007 we published a cancellation of the test deviation
which had begun on April 9, 2007, and published a revised test schedule
that was anticipated to better reflect actual rail and marine needs (72
FR 31725). The length of bridge closure periods has consistently been
well under 30 minutes thereby minimizing the impact upon the marine
community.

Deviation in Place Since November 2007

    Since November 24, 2007, the bridge has operated under a further
revised operating schedule which authorized four daily (Monday through
Friday) unscheduled bridge closures. This schedule relied exclusively
upon coordination of all bridge closures by the Coast Guard (Vessel
Traffic Service--New York). This is no longer a function or service
that the Coast Guard can sustain.

Temporary Deviation To Be Established

    Therefore, a new bridge operation schedule expected to provide
bridge closure opportunities that will meet present and future rail
operations while satisfying the needs of navigation will be tested.
This new schedule relies upon advance notification of bridge closure
periods by the bridge owner or operator and coordination and
communication among the various port partners.
    Approximately 21 deep draft vessels, 16 coastal tankers, 240 tugs
and 200 barges transit the AK RR weekly. Since the bridge remains in
the open position except for the passage of trains most vessel passages
are through an open lift span. The bridge closes approximately twenty
five to thirty times weekly for the passage of trains. Coordination
with port partners including pilots, tug and barge operators has been
ongoing since the commencement of bridge rehabilitation and continues
presently. A variety of factors, such as daily tide variations, the
present and anticipated needs of navigation, and train scheduling, will
be evaluated during this temporary test deviation.
    The schedule considered in this notice would provide daily,
unscheduled, bridge closures up to thirty minutes in duration.
    This temporary deviation requires the AK RR to remain in the open
position at all times except during periods when it is closed for the
passage of rail traffic. Conrail, the bridge operator, has established
a dedicated hot line at<PHONE_NUMBER> for coordination of anticipated
bridge closures. Tide restrained, deep draft vessels shall call the hot
line daily to advise of expected times of vessel transit through the AK
RR. The bridge may not close for the passage of trains during any high
tide period (2 hours before until \1/2\ hour after predicted high tide
at The Battery, New York) if deep draft, tide restrained vessels have
advised Conrail of their intent to transit under the bridge. At least
90 minutes prior to a bridge closure the bridge owner or operator shall
broadcast notice (minimum range of 15 miles) on channel 13/16, VHF-FM
of its intent to close the bridge for up to thirty minutes. The Coast
Guard shall be informed via call to VTS-NY at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Each day
one bridge closure of up to 45 minutes in duration is authorized to
allow multiple train movements across the bridge. Vessels shall plan
their transits around the announced closure period(s); however a
request for up to a 30 minute delay in the bridge closure to allow
navigation to meet tide or current requirements shall be granted if
requested within 30 minutes after the initial bridge closure broadcast
is made. Requests to delay the bridge closure received after the
initial 30 minutes may be granted by the bridge operator. The bridge
owner/operator shall repeat the bridge closure notice via marine radio
at 15 minute intervals until 15 minutes prior to the intended closure
at which time notice of bridge closure will be broadcast every five
minutes and once again as bridge begins to close and appropriate sound
signal given. In the event of bridge operational failure, the bridge
owner or operator shall notify the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, New
York immediately and shall ensure that a repair crew is on scene at the
bridge no later than 45 minutes after the bridge fails to operate and
that repair crew shall remain at the bridge until the bridge has been
restored to normal operations or raised and locked in the fully open
position.
    This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under
33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: May 21, 2008.
Gary Kassof,
Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E8-12396 Filed 6-2-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 77474]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30047]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER15-621-000]

Pacific Crest 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 Pacific Crest Power, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability is January 6, 2015.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 17, 2014.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-30047 Filed 12-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P