<EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE
PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER  (1/1/2010)>

<EPA Registration Division contact: Kathryn Montague Product Manager 23
(703) 305- 1243>

<INSTRUCTIONS:  Please utilize this outline in preparing the pesticide
petition.  In cases where the outline element does not apply, please
insert “NA-Remove” and maintain the outline. Please do not change
the margins, font, or format in your pesticide petition. Simply replace
the instructions that appear in green and brackets, i.e., “[insert
company name],” with the information specific to your action.>

<TEMPLATE:>

<[Nichino America, Inc.]>

<[Pesticide Petition No. xxxxxx]>

<	EPA has received a pesticide petition (PP # xxxxxx) from Nichino
America, Inc. 4550 New Linden Hill Road Suite 501 Wilmington, DE 19808
proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.585>

<>

<	1. by establishing a tolerance for residues of the herbicide,
pyraflufen-ethyl [ethyl
2-chloro-5-(4-chloro-5-difluoromethoxy-1-methyl-1H-pyrazol-3-yl)-4-fluor
ophenoxyacetate] and its acid metabolite, E-1
[2-chloro-5-(4-chloro-5-difluoromethoxy-1-methyl-1H-pyrazol-3-yl)-4-fluo
rophenoxyacetic acid], expressed in terms of the parent, in or on the
following raw agricultural commodities: almond hulls at 0.02 parts per
million (ppm) and nuts, tree group 14 at 0.01 parts per million (ppm),
pistachio at 0.01  parts per million (ppm), fruit, pome fruit group 11
at 0.01 parts per million (ppm), fruit, stone fuit group 12 at 0.01
parts per million (ppm), pomegranates at 0.01 parts per million (ppm),
olives at 0.01 parts per million (ppm), grapes at 0.01 parts per million
(ppm), and hops at 0.05 parts per million (ppm).

>

<	2. to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for
“NA-Remove”>

<EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information
regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of  FDDCA;
however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted
data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition.
Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.>

<A. Residue Chemistry>

<	1. Plant metabolism. The qualitative nature of the residues of

pyraflufen-ethyl (ET-751) in corn, soybeans, and wheat and pasture grass
is adequately understood. The metabolism of pyraflufen-ethyl has been
studied in cotton, wheat, and potato. Metabolism in the plant involves
ester hydrolysis, de-methylation on the pyrazole ring and further
degradation of the phenoyxyacetate moiety to bound polar metabolites.
The nature of the residue is adequately understood and the residues of
concern are the parent, pyraflufen-ethyl, and the acid metabolite, E-1,
only.

>

<2. Analytical method. Aqueous organic solvent extraction, column clean
up, and quantitation by gas chromatography is used to measure and
evaluate the chemical residues.

>

<	3. Magnitude of residues. Several residue trials were conducted in
almonds, pecans, apples, pears, grapes, and hops to satisfy the required
EPA region locations.   Based on these data, it is proposed that the
Agency establish new tolerances in  almond hulls at 0.02 ppm, nuts, tree
group 14 at 0.01 ppm, pistachio at 0.01 ppm, fruit, pome fruit group 11
at 0.01 ppm, fruit, stone fuit group 12 at 0.01 ppm, pomegranates at
0.01 ppm, olives at 0.01 ppm, grapes at 0.01 ppm, and hops at 0.05 ppm.

>

    	4. Magnitude of the residue in animals.--i. Ruminants. The results
of the meat and milk 28-day feeding study conclude that no finite
residues of the parent, ET-751 or the metabolites E-9, and E-15 can be
detected in milk at a dose level of 10 ppm, and that no residues of
either ET-751, E-5, or E-9, are detected in muscle, liver or fat
tissues, and low level residues of 0.0534 ppm in kidney tissues.  These
results concur with those of an earlier ruminant metabolism study (MRID
45283005) at a dose of 10 ppm. Although the results of this livestock
feeding study indicates that no finite residues could be detected in
meat and milk commodities from the anticipated dietary burdens, we are
using an anticipated residue value in milk calculated to be of 0.007
ppm.

    ii. Poultry. The maximum poultry dietary burden results from a diet

comprised of cotton meal, corn grain, corn milled byproducts, soybean
seed, soybean meal, soybean hulls, wheat grain, and wheat milled
byproducts for a total dietary burden that is significantly lower than
the levels that would require the proposal of tolerances in poultry.
This conclusion is based on the exaggerated rate metabolism studies
carried out on pyraflufen-ethyl and its acid metabolite. Therefore, an
exemption from tolerances in poultry meat, meat byproducts, fat, and

eggs under 40 CFR 180.6(a)(3) and (b) is proposed as it is not possible
to establish with certainty whether finite residues will be incurred,
but there is no reasonable expectation of finite residues.

<B. Toxicological Profile>

<	1. Acute toxicity.  [Insert text.] “NA-Remove”>

<	2. Genotoxicty. [Insert text.] “NA-Remove”>

<	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. [Insert text.]
“NA-Remove”>

<	4. Subchronic toxicity. [Insert text.] “NA-Remove”

>

<	5. Chronic toxicity. [Insert text.] “NA-Remove”

	EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of
major identifiable subgroups of consumers,

including infants and children. The nature of the toxic effects caused
by pyraflufen-ethyl as well as the no observed adverse effect level
(NOAEL) and the lowest

observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies reviewed
are discussed in the Federal Register of April 30, 2003 (  HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/EPA-PEST/2003/April/Day-30/p10264.htm"  68 FR 23046
) (FRL-7300-9).

>

<	6. Animal metabolism.  The qualitative nature of the residues of
pyraflufen-ethyl and its acid metabolite, E-1, in animals is adequately
understood. Pyraflufen-ethyl is rapidly absorbed, metabolized, and
excreted to feces and urine, with greater than 90% of the administered
dose excreted within 24 hours in rats. Based on metabolism studies with
goats, hens, and rats, there is no reasonable expectation that
measurable pyraflufen-ethyl-related residues will occur in meat, milk,
poultry, or eggs from the proposed use.

>

<	7. Metabolite toxicology. No toxicologically significant metabolites
were detected in plant or animal metabolism studies for cotton,
potatoes, or mandarine oranges.

>

<	8. Endocrine disruption. Chronic, lifespan, and multigenerational

bioassays in mammals and acute and subchronic studies on aquatic
organisms and wildlife did not reveal any endocrine effects for
pyraflufen-ethyl. Any endocrine related effects would have been detected
in this comprehensive series of required tests. The probability of any
such effect due to agricultural uses of pyraflufen-

ethyl is negligible.

>

<C. Aggregate Exposure>

<	1. Dietary exposure. Acute dietary risk assessments are performed for
a food-use pesticide, if toxicological study has indicated the
possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a one-day
or single exposure.  No adverse effect attributable to a single exposure
(dose) was observed in oral toxicity studies, including the
developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits.  Therefore, EPA did
not identify an acute dietary endpoint and an acute dietary assessment
was not performed.  Chronic dietary risk analyses was conducted to
estimate potential pyraflufen-ethyl residues in/on the following crops:
almond, beechnut, Brazil nut, butternut, cashew, chestnut, chinquapin,
filbert, hickory nut, macadamia nut, pecans, walnuts, pistachio, apple,
crabapple, loquat, mayhaw, pear, oriental pear, quince, apricot, sweet
cherry, tart cherry, nectarine, plum, Chickasaw, Damson plum, Japanese
plum, plumcot, fresh prune, pomegranates, olives, grapes and hops and
anticipated residues in milk of 0.007 ppm, using Dietary Exposure
Evaluation Model Software with the Food Commodity Intake Database
(DEEM-FCID).  These estimates assuming tolerance level residues in the
established and proposed commodities except corn, cottonseed, potato,
soybean seeds, and wheat grains had nondetectable residues.  Exposure
estimates to water were based on modeling with FIRST and SCI-GROW.

>

<	i. Food. The chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD) for the

general population, based on residues at the tolerance levels and ½ of
the combined LOQs for  the parent and metabolites for corn, soybeans,
potato, wheat, and cotton. A default processing factor of 6.5 X for dry
potato, 1.5x for corn syrup, an experimental processing factor of 0.6x
for cotton seed oil and calculated milk value of 0.007 ppm.  One hundred
percent crop treated (%CT) was assumed for all crop commodities.  The
new crops will incrementally utilize <1% of the cPAD of 0.2 mg/kg/day
for the U.S. population and <1% of cPAD for children (1-6 years).

>

<	ii. Drinking water. The residue of concern in drinking water was
determined to be pyraflufen-ethyl.  Based on the FIRST and SCI-GROW
models, the EECs of pyraflufen-ethyl for acute exposures are estimated
to be 1247 parts per trillion (ppt) for surface water and 1.8 ppt for
ground water. The EECs for chronic exposures are estimated to be 281 ppt
for surface water and 1.8 ppt for ground water.

	2. Non-dietary exposure. EPA calculated the non-dietary exposure
scenarios in the Federal Register May 12, 2004 (69 FR 26305)
(FRL-7358-2). Pyraflufen-ethyl is registered in several non-food sites,
including airports, commercial plants, nurseries and ornamental
plantings; established ornamental turf; railroad, roadside, and utility
rights-of-ways, and other similar non-crop areas.

>

<>

<D. Cumulative Effects>

<Pyraflufen-ethyl belongs to the protox inhibitor class of compounds,
and chemically is a 3-phenylpyrazole. The herbicidal activity of protox
inhibitors is due to the inhibition of protoporphyrinogen IX oxidase.
All relevant toxicological data has been provided to EPA. Chemicals with
a similar mode of action, i.e., the protox inhibitors, have different
chemical structures compared to pyraflufen-ethyl. Although other protox
inhibitors have a similar herbicidal mode of action, there is no
information available to suggest that these compounds exhibit a similar
toxicity profile in the mammalian system. We are aware of no information
to indicate or suggest that pyraflufen-ethyl has any toxic effects on
mammals that would be cumulative with those of any other chemical. Since
pyraflufen-ethyl is relatively non-toxic, cumulative effects of residues
and other compounds are not anticipated. Therefore, for the purposes of
this Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) document, there should be no
consideration of cumulative risk that would require assessment.

>

<E. Safety Determination>

<U.S. population.

i.  Acute risk. No adverse effect attributable to a single exposure
(dose) of pyraflufen-ethyl was observed in the oral toxicity studies,
including the developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits.
Therefore, an acute reference dose was not established and no acute risk
is expected.

ii. Chronic Risk.  Based on the chronic toxicity data, the cPAD for
pyraflufen-ethyl is considered to be 0.172 mg/kg/day. This value is
based on the NOAEL of 17.2 mg/kg/day observed in the chronic rat feeding
study and a safety (uncertainty) factor of 100, the worse case estimate
of chronic dietary exposure of pyraflufen-ethyl from cotton, potatoes,
corn, soybean, and wheat, almond, beechnut, Brazil nut, butternut,
cashew, chestnut, chinquapin, filbert, hickory nut, macadamia nut,
pecans, walnuts, pistachio, apple, crabapple, loquat, mayhaw, pear,
oriental pear, quince, apricot, sweet cherry, tart cherry, nectarine,
plum, Chickasaw, Damson plum, Japanese plum, plumcot, fresh prune,
pomegranates, olives, grapes and hops and calculated value of 0.007 ppm
in milk will utilize less than 1% of the cPAD for the general U.S.
population. EPA generally has no concern for exposures below 100% of the
RfD because the RfD represents the level at or below which daily
aggregate dietary exposure over a lifetime will not pose appreciable
risks to human health. The complete and reliable toxicity data and the
conservative chronic exposure assumptions support the conclusion that
there is a reasonable certainty of no harm from dietary (food) exposure
to pyraflufen-ethyl and the acid metabolite residues. Moreover, as
exposure to residues of pyraflufen-ethyl and the acid metabolite via
water is negligible, there is a reasonable certainty of no harm from
aggregate exposure to pyraflufen-ethyl and the acid metabolite residues.

iii.  Cancer Risk.  Cancer risk was calculated by the EPA in the Federal
Register May 12, 2004 (69 FR 26305) (FRL-7358-2) for both food and
water.  This assessment substantially overstates risk because it is
based on the assumption that all commodities covered by pyraflufen-ethyl
tolerances contain tolerance level residues.  The cancer risk estimate
was in the range of 1 in 1 million and does not exceed the Agency’s
level of concern for exposure from either food or water sources.

>

<	2. Infants and children. The chronic dietary exposure of
pyraflufen-ethyl and the acid metabolite from corn, soybeans, and wheat
and calculated value in milk will utilize < 1% of the cPAD for children
(1-6 years). Exposure to potential residues in drinking water is
expected to be negligible.  In the Federal Register May 12, 2004 (69 FR
26305) (FRL-7358-2) after calculating DWLOCs and comparing them to the
EECs for surface and ground water, EPA does not expect the aggregate
exposure to children to exceed the Agency’s level of concern.>

There is no evidence of increased susceptibility of rat or rabbit
fetuses following in utero exposure in the developmental studies with
pyraflufen-ethyl.  There is no evidence of increased susceptibility of
young rats n the reproduction study with Pyraflufen-ethyl.  EPA
concluded there are no residual uncertainties for pre- and/or post-natal
exposure.

<F. International Tolerances>

<	There are no Codex maximum residue level established for residues of
pyraflufen-ethyl and the acid metabolite, E-1, expressed in terms of
parent on any crops.

>

 PAGE

 PAGE   2


[Federal Register: June 8, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 108)]
[Notices]
[Page 27220-27222]
[DOCID:fr08jn09-117]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60020; File No. SR-CBOE-2009-034]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change Related to Trades for Less Than $1

June 1, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on May 27, 2009, the Chicago Board Options

Exchange, Incorporated (``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed
rule change as described in Items I and II, which Items have been
prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-
controversial'' proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange is proposing to extend its program that allows
transactions to take place at a price that is below $1 per option
contract until June 1, 2010. The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.org/Legal), at
the Exchange's Office of the Secretary and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
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 those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    An ``accommodation'' or ``cabinet'' trade refers to trades in
listed options on the Exchange that are worthless or not actively
traded. Cabinet trading is generally conducted in accordance with the
Exchange Rules, except as provided in Exchange Rule 6.54, Accommodation
Liquidations (Cabinet Trades), which sets forth specific procedures for
engaging in cabinet trades. Rule 6.54 currently provides for cabinet
transactions to occur via open outcry at a cabinet price of $1 per
option contract in any options series open for trading in the Exchange,
except that the Rule is not applicable to trading in option classes
participating in the Penny Pilot Program. Under the procedures, bids
and offers (whether opening or closing a position) at a price of $1 per
option contract may be represented in the trading crowd by a Floor
Broker or by a Market-Maker or provided in response to a request by a
PAR Official/OBO, a Floor Broker or a Market-Maker, but must yield
priority to all resting orders in the PAR Official/OBO cabinet book
(which resting cabinet book orders may be closing only). So long as
both the buyer and the seller yield to orders resting in the cabinet
book, opening cabinet bids can trade with opening cabinet offers at $1
per option contract.
    The Exchange has temporarily amended the procedures through May 29,
2009 to allow transactions to take place in open outcry at a price of
at least $0 but less than $1 per option contract.\5\ These lower priced
transactions are traded pursuant to the same procedures applicable to
$1 cabinet trades, except that (i) bids and offers for opening
transactions are only permitted to accommodate closing transactions in
order to limit use of the procedure to liquidations of existing
positions, and (ii) the procedures are also available for trading in
option classes participating in the Penny Pilot Program.\6\ The
Exchange believes that allowing a price of at least $0 but less than $1
better accommodates the closing of options positions in series that are
worthless or not actively traded, particularly due to recent market
conditions which have resulted in a significant number of series being
out-of-the-money. For example, a market participant might have a long
position in a call series with a strike price of $100 and the
underlying stock might now be trading at $30. In such an instance,
there might not otherwise be a market for that person to close-out the
position even at the $1 cabinet price (e.g., the series might be quoted
no bid).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 59188 (December 30,
2008), 74 FR 480 (January 6, 2009)(SR-CBOE-2008-133)(adopting the
amended procedures on a temporary basis through January 30, 2009)
and 59331 (January 30, 2009), 74 FR 6333 (February 6,
2009)(extending the amended procedures on a temporary basis through
May 29, 2009).
    \6\ Currently the $1 cabinet trading procedures are limited to
options classes traded in $0.05 or $0.10 standard increment. The $1
cabinet trading procedures are not available in Penny Pilot Program
classes because in those classes an option series can trade in a
standard increment as low as $0.01 per share (or $1.00 per option
contract with a 100 share multiplier). Because the temporary
procedures allow trading below $0.01 per share (or $1.00 per option
contract with a 100 share multiplier), the procedures are available
for all classes, including those classes participating in the Penny
Pilot Program.
    \7\ As with other accommodation liquidations under Rule 6.54,
transactions that occur for less than $1 are not to be disseminated
to the public on the consolidated tape. In addition, as with other
accommodation liquidations under Rule 6.54, the transactions are
exempt from the Consolidated Options Audit Trail (``COATS'')
requirements of Exchange Rule 6.24, Required Order Information.
However, the Exchange maintains quotation, order and transaction
information for the transactions in the same format as the COATS
data is maintained. In this regard, all transactions for less than
$1 must be reported to the Exchange following the close of each
business day. The rule also provides that transactions for less than
$1 will be reported for clearing utilizing forms, formats and
procedures established by the Exchange from time to time. In this
regard, the Exchange initially intends to have clearing firms
directly report the transactions to The Options Clearing Corporation
(``OCC'') using OCC's position adjustment/transfer procedures. This
manner of reporting transactions for clearing is similar to the
procedure that CBOE currently employs for on-floor position transfer
packages executed pursuant to Exchange Rule 6.49A, Transfer of
Positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of the instant rule change is to extend the operation
of these temporary procedures through June 1, 2010, so that the
procedures can continue without interruption while CBOE considers
whether to seek permanent approval of the temporary procedures.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act \8\ and the rules and regulations thereunder and, in
particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\9\
Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \10\ requirements that the rules of
an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of
trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts, to remove
impediments to and to perfect the mechanism for a free and open market
and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and
the public interest. The Exchange believes that allowing for
liquidations at a price less than $1 per option contract better
facilitates the closing of options positions that are worthless or not
actively trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE 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.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposal.

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

    Because the foregoing rule does not (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest, provided that the self-regulatory organization
has given the Commission written notice of its intent to file the
proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the date of
filing of the proposed rule change or such shorter time as designated
by the Commission,\11\ the proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Exchange has fulfilled this requirement.
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) of the Act,\14\ a proposal does not become
operative for 30 days after the date of its filing, or such shorter
time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection
of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that
the Commission waive the 30-day operative date so that the pilot may
continue without interruption while the Exchange considers whether to
seek permanent approval of the temporary procedures. The Exchange
believes that acceleration of the operative date will continue to allow
for the orderly closing of option positions that are worthless or not
actively traded. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day
operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest, and thus designates the proposal as operative upon
filing.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Id.
    \15\ \\ For purposes only of waiving the operative date of this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f). See also 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(59).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2009-034 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2009-034. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the CBOE. 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-CBOE-2009-034 and
should be submitted on or before June 29, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-13209 Filed 6-5-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P