[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 115 (Wednesday, June 15, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36071-36074]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12880]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0453; FRL-9816-01-OCSPP]

Thiamethoxam; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
thiamethoxam in or on pineapples. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC
requested this tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective June 15, 2022. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before August 15, 2022,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0453, is available at
https://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs
Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection
Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg.,
Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room and for the OPP Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review
the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket
available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marietta Echeverria, Acting Director,
Registration Division (7505T), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460-0001; main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Office of the
Federal Register's e-CFR site at https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file
an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0453 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
August 15, 2022. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0453, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/where-send-comments-epa-dockets.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of August 24, 2021 (86 FR 47275) (FRL-8792-
02-

OCSPP) EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
1E8908) by Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC., P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro,
NC 27419-8300. The petition requested to establish a tolerance in 40
CFR part 180.565 for residues of the insecticide, Thiamethoxam {3-[(2-
chloro-5-thiazolyl)methyl]tetrahydro-5-methyl-N-nitro-4H-1,3,5-
oxadiazin-4-imine{time}  and its metabolite [N-(2-chloro-thiazol-5-
ylmethyl)-N'-methyl-N'-nitro-guanidine], in or on pineapple at 0.03
parts per million (ppm) and 0.05 ppm for pineapple, process residue.
That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by
Syngenta, the petitioner, which is available in the docket, https://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the
notice of filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition and in
accordance with its authority under FFDCA section 408(d)(4)(A)(i), EPA
is establishing the tolerances at different levels than requested. The
reason for these changes is explained in Unit IV.C.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    Tolerances for residues of thiamethoxam are listed in 40 CFR
180.565 and are expressed in terms of the combined residues of the
insecticide thiamethoxam and its metabolite CGA-322704. Metabolite CGA-
322704 is also the registered active ingredient clothianidin (tolerance
listings in 40 CFR 180.586). Clothianidin (hereinafter referred to as
CGA-322704) has a complete toxicological database and appears to have
effects in mammals that are different from those of thiamethoxam. A
separate risk assessment that addresses risks from CGA-322704 residues
resulting from the direct application of CGA-322704 (clothianidin), as
well as risks from residues of CGA-322704 coming from thiamethoxam uses
has been conducted, and there are no risk estimates of concern as a
result of the proposed tolerance for thiamethoxam residues in imported
pineapple. This document entitled, ``Clothianidin. Human Health Risk
Assessment to Address Exposure Associated with a New Tolerance for
Thiamethoxam'' can be found at https://www.regulations.gov in docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0453.
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified therein, EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and
other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has
sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on
aggregate exposure for thiamethoxam including exposure resulting from
the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of
exposures and risks associated with thiamethoxam follows.
    In an effort to streamline its publications in the Federal
Register, EPA is not reprinting sections that repeat what has been
previously published for tolerance rulemakings of the same pesticide
chemical. Where scientific information concerning a particular chemical
remains unchanged, the content of those sections would not vary between
tolerance rulemaking, and EPA considers referral back to those sections
as sufficient to provide an explanation of the information EPA
considered in making its safety determination for the new rulemaking.
    EPA has previously published tolerance rulemakings for
thiamethoxam, in which EPA concluded, based on the available
information, that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm would
result from aggregate exposure to thiamethoxam and established
tolerances for residues of that chemical. EPA is incorporating
previously published sections from that rulemaking as described further
in this rulemaking, as they remain unchanged.

A. Toxicological Profile

    For a discussion of the Toxicological Profile of thiamethoxam, see
Unit III.A. of the thiamethoxam tolerance rulemaking published in the
Federal Register of February 15, 2017 (82 FR 10712) (FRL-9957-00).

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    For a summary of the Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of
Concern for thiamethoxam used for human risk assessment, see Unit
III.B. of the February 15, 2017, thiamethoxam tolerance rulemaking.

C. Exposure Assessment

    Much of the exposure assessment remains the same although updates
have occurred to accommodate exposures from the petitioned-for
tolerances. These updates are discussed in this section; for a
description of the rest of the EPA approach to and assumptions for the
exposure assessment, please reference Unit III.C. of the February 15,
2017, rulemaking.
    EPA's dietary exposure assessments have been updated to include the
additional exposure from the new use of thiamethoxam on imported
pineapple. The acute assessment is based on tolerance-level residues
and assumes 100 percent crop treated (PCT); the acute assessment is
unrefined. The chronic assessment is based on average residues from
crop field trials (except for tolerance-level residues in pineapple
commodities) and assumes 100 PCT; the chronic assessment is partially
refined. The assessments were conducted using the Dietary Exposure
Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database
(DEEM-FCID) Version 4.02. EPA with 2005-2010 food consumption
information from the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA's)
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in
America, (NHANES/WWEIA).
    Anticipated residue and PCT information. Section 408(b)(2)(E) of
FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and information on the
anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in food and the actual
levels of pesticide residues that have been measured in food. If EPA
relies on such information, EPA must require pursuant to FFDCA section
408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after the tolerance is
established, modified, or left in effect, demonstrating that the levels
in food are not above the levels anticipated. For the present action,
EPA will issue such data call-ins as are required by FFDCA section
408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be
required to be submitted no later than 5 years from the date of
issuance of these tolerances.
    Drinking water exposure. EPA has revised the thiamethoxam drinking
water assessment since the February 15,

2017, final rule. Based on the Pesticide in Water Calculator's (PWC)
version 1.52, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of
thiamethoxam in groundwater are 65 parts per billion (ppb) for acute
exposures and 58 ppm for chronic exposures. Groundwater EDWCs were used
in the dietary assessment for all sources of drinking water.
    Cumulative exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires
that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a
tolerance, the Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the
cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other
substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.'' In 2016, EPA's
Office of Pesticide Programs released a guidance document entitled
``Pesticide Cumulative Risk Assessment: Framework for Screening
Analysis.'' The Agency has utilized this framework for thiamethoxam and
determined that thiamethoxam along with clothianidin, acetamiprid,
dinotefuran, imidacloprid, nithiazine and thiacloprid form a candidate
common mechanism group (CMG). This group of pesticides, referred to as
neonicotinoids, is considered a candidate CMG because they share
characteristics to support a testable hypothesis for a common mechanism
of action for neonicotinoids.
    Following this determination, the Agency conducted a screening-
level cumulative risk assessment consistent with the 2016 guidance
document. The current screening assessment indicates that cumulative
risk estimates for neonicotinoids are below the Agency's levels of
concern. A detailed description of the cumulative screening assessment
can be found in the Neonicotinoid Cumulative Screening Risk Assessment
Memo (M. Perron et al., DP460743, 3/01/2021). No further cumulative
evaluation is necessary for thiamethoxam.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    EPA continues to conclude that there are reliable data to support
the reduction of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) safety factor.
See Unit III.D. of the February 15, 2017, rulemaking for a discussion
of the Agency's rationale for that determination.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic pop- ulation adjusted
dose (cPAD). Short-, intermediate-, and chronic risks are evaluated by
comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure
to the appropriate points of departure to ensure that an adequate
margin of exposure (MOE) exists. For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure.
    Acute dietary risks are below the Agency's level of concern of 100%
of the aPAD; they are 12% of the aPAD for children 1 to 2 years old,
the population subgroup with the highest exposure. Chronic dietary
risks are below the Agency's level of concern of 100% of the cPAD; they
are 73% of the cPAD for children 1 to 2 years old, the population
subgroup with the highest exposure.
    EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water, and
residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 130 for adults, 160
for children older than 6 years old, and 340 for children less than 6
years old. Because EPA's level of concern for thiamethoxam is an MOE of
100 or below, short-term aggregate risks are not of concern. Because
there is no intermediate-term expected residential exposure, the
intermediate-term risk has not been assessed. Dietary exposure is the
only relevant route of exposure for chronic durations; therefore, the
chronic dietary risk is the same as the overall aggregate risk for
thiamethoxam and is not of concern. Thiamethoxam is classified as ``Not
likely to be carcinogenic to humans''; therefore, EPA does not expect
thiamethoxam exposures to pose an aggregate cancer risk.
    Therefore, based on the risk assessments and information described
above, EPA concludes there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will
result to the general population, or to infants and children, from
aggregate exposure to thiamethoxam residues. More detailed information
on this action can be found in the document entitled, ``Thiamethoxam.
Human Health Risk Assessment for Use on Imported Pineapple'' in the
docket ID number, EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0453.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    For a discussion of the available analytical enforcement method,
see Unit IV.A. of the February 15, 2017, rulemaking.

B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4).
    Codex has established an MRL for thiamethoxam in pineapple at 0.01
mg/kg which is different than the U.S. tolerance. At this time, the
Codex and EPA residue definitions are different (Codex's MRL is for the
parent compound, thiamethoxam only, while EPA's is thiamethoxam plus
metabolite CGA-322704); therefore, it is not possible to harmonize with
the Codex MRL.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    The tolerance on pineapple is being set at 0.04 ppm and pineapple,
process residue at 0.06 ppm instead of the proposed levels of 0.03 and
0.05, respectively. The petitioner used only thiamethoxam residues as
inputs for the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD) tolerance calculation procedure. Using both thiamethoxam and its
metabolite CGA-322704 for the input data set results in recommended
tolerances of 0.04 ppm for pineapple and 0.06 ppm for pineapple,
process residue.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, a tolerance is established for residues of thiamethoxam,
including its metabolites and degradates, in or on pineapple at 0.04
ppm and in or on pineapple, process residue at 0.06 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in
response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), or to Executive Order 13045,
entitled ``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not
contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it
require any special

considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal Actions
to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerances in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or Tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
Tribal Governments, on the relationship between the National Government
and the States or Tribal Governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides, and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: June 9, 2022.
Marietta Echeverria,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending
40 CFR chapter 1 as follows:

PART 180--TOLERANCES AND EXEMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE CHEMICAL RESIDUES
IN FOOD

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. In Sec.  180.565, amend paragraph (a) by designating the table as
``Table 1 to Paragraph (a)'' and adding in alphabetical order the
entries ``Pineapple \1\'' and ``Pineapple, process residue \1\'' to
read as follows:

Sec.  180.565   Thiamethoxam; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

                        Table 1 to Paragraph (a)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Parts per
                          Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
Pineapple \1\...............................................        0.04

                                * * * * *
Pineapple, process residue \1\..............................        0.06

                                * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no U.S. registrations for these commodities as of June 15,
  2022.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2022-12880 Filed 6-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 226 (Monday, November 27, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56067-56069]
[FR Doc No: 2017-25476]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82132; File No. SR-ISE-2017-100]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Remove Directed
Order Functionality

November 20, 2017.
    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 November 16, 2017, Nasdaq ISE, LLC (``ISE'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The

Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to remove Directed Order \3\ functionality on
ISE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A ``Directed Order'' is an order routed from an Electronic
Access Member to an Exchange market maker through the Exchange's
System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://ise.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
    Last year the Exchange filed to delay the implementation of the
Directed Order functionality in conjunction with a replatform to
INET.\4\ INET is the proprietary core technology utilized across
Nasdaq's global markets and utilized on The Nasdaq Options Market LLC
(``NOM''), Nasdaq PHLX LLC (``Phlx'') and Nasdaq BX, Inc. (``BX'')
(collectively, ``Nasdaq Exchanges''). ISE was migrated to INET
technology in 2017. With the migration, ISE delayed the implementation
of the Directed Order functionality to stage the re-platform to provide
maximum benefit to its Members while also ensuring a successful
rollout. At that time, the Exchange noted that the Exchange will
introduce the Directed Order functionality within one year from the
date of this filing, otherwise the Exchange will file a rule proposal
with the Commission to remove these rules. The Exchange filed the
initial rule change on February 23, 2017.\5\ The Exchange has
determined at this time not to offer Directed Order functionality. If
the Exchange determines to offer this functionality at a later date a
rule proposal will be filed at that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80100 (February 24,
2017), 82 FR 12269 (March 1, 2017) (SR-ISE-2017-15).
    \5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\6\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ 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
because the Exchange will remove rule text related to functionality
which will not be offered on ISE. The current rule text indicates the
functionality is not offered today. The Exchange believes that removing
Rule 811 from the Rulebook will avoid confusion as to whether this
functionality will be enabled in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe
that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intra-market
competition because the Exchange is not offering this functionality
today and believes there is no interest among Members for this
functionality.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change 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, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \8\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give 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.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-ISE-2017-100 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2017-100. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public

Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
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-ISE-
2017-100 and should be submitted on or before December 18, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-25476 Filed 11-24-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 151 (Tuesday, August 6, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38274-38275]
[FR Doc No: 2019-16837]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4446-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2019-0001]

Ponca Tribe of Nebraska; Major Disaster and Related
Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska (FEMA-4446-DR), dated June 17,
2019, and related determinations.

DATES: The declaration was issued June 17, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated June 17, 2019, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage to the lands associated with
the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska resulting from severe storms and
flooding during the period of March 13 to April 1, 2019, is of
sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster
declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists for
the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance and Hazard
Mitigation for the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska. Consistent with the
requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal
funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be
limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds
provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be
limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the
exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a
higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance
Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented
pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Constance C. Johnson-Cage, of FEMA
is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas have been designated as adversely affected by
this major disaster:

    The Ponca Tribe of Nebraska for Public Assistance.
    The Ponca Tribe of Nebraska is eligible to apply for assistance
under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA);

97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing
Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared
Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and
Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to
Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--
Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039,
Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Pete Gaynor,
Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2019-16837 Filed 8-5-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 76 (Thursday, April 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23528-23531]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9406]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66805; File No. SR-Phlx-2012-46]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Equity Option Fees

April 13, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\, and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that, on April 2, 2012, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend certain Options Transaction Charges
in Section II \3\ of the Exchange's Pricing Schedule entitled ``Equity
Options Fees'' and also offer a rebate on certain Customer orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Section II of the Pricing Schedule includes options
overlying equities, ETFs, ETNs, indexes and HOLDRs which are
Multiply Listed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqtrader.com/micro.aspx?id=PHLXfilings, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Section II of the Exchange's Pricing
Schedule to: (1) Increase the Professional \4\ Options Transaction
Charges for both Penny Pilot options \5\ and non-Penny Pilot options
\6\; and (ii) amend the non-Penny Pilot Broker-Dealer electronic
Options Transaction Charge in order to recoup costs associated with
supporting a larger number of options classes, option series and
overall transaction volume each of which has become larger in the past
few years.\7\ The Exchange also believes that increasing the Broker-
Dealer electronic Options Transaction Charge in non-Penny Pilot options
will allow the Exchange to compete more effectively by subsidizing
Customer rebates. In addition, the Exchange proposes to offer an
additional rebate on certain Customer orders to attract additional
Customer order flow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The term ``Professional'' means any person or entity that
(i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) places more
than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a
calendar month for its own beneficial account(s). See Rule
1000(b)(14).
    \5\ The Penny Pilot was established in January 2007; and in
October 2009, it was expanded and extended through June 30, 2012.
See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 55153 (January 23, 2007),
72 FR 4553 (January 31, 2007) (SR-Phlx-2006-74) (notice of filing
and approval order establishing Penny Pilot); 60873 (October 23,
2009), 74 FR 56675 (November 2, 2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-91) (notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness expanding and extending Penny
Pilot); 60966 (November 9, 2009), 74 FR 59331 (November 17, 2009)
(SR-Phlx-2009-94) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness
adding seventy-five classes to Penny Pilot); 61454 (February 1,
2010), 75 FR 6233 (February 8, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-12) (notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness adding seventy-five classes to
Penny Pilot); 62028 (May 4, 2010), 75 FR 25890 (May 10, 2010) (SR-
Phlx-2010-65) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness adding
seventy-five classes to Penny Pilot); 62616 (July 30, 2010), 75 FR
47664 (August 6, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-103) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness adding seventy-five classes to Penny Pilot);
63395 (November 30, 2010), 75 FR 76062 (December 7, 2010) (SR-Phlx-
2010-167) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness extending
the Penny Pilot); and 65976 (December 15, 2011), 76 FR 79247
(December 21, 2011) (SR-Phlx-2011-172) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness extending the Penny Pilot). See also
Exchange Rule 1034.
    \6\ Non-Penny Pilot refers to options classes not in the Penny
Pilot.
    \7\ The costs are associated with network infrastructure,
database and latency enhancements and regulatory systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange proposes to increase the Professional
Options Transaction Charges for both Penny Pilot options and non-Penny
Pilot options from $.20 per contract to $.25 per contract. The Exchange
also proposes increasing the Broker-Dealer Options Transaction Charge
in non-Penny Pilot options from $.50 per contract to $.60 per contract.
    The Exchange also proposes to amend Section II of the Pricing
Schedule to further incentivize members to transact Customer orders by
offering an increased rebate of $0.03 per contract on all
electronically-delivered Customer orders that: (i) Qualified for the
current $0.07 Customer rebate; \8\ and (ii) added liquidity in a non-
Penny Pilot option. The Exchange also proposes to modify the current
language in the Pricing Schedule pertaining to the $0.07 Customer order
rebate to make clear that the additional $0.03 Customer rebate must
first qualify for the $0.07 rebate to be eligible for the additional
rebate. The Exchange also proposes to amend certain existing text
related to the current $0.07 per contract rebate to further clarify the
text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Currently, the Exchange pays a rebate of $0.07 per contract
to members that execute an electronically-delivered Customer order
and transact an average daily volume of 50,000 Customer contracts or
greater in a given month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Pricing
Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \9\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \10\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees
and other charges among Exchange members and other persons using its
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to increase the Professional Options
Transaction Charges in both Penny Pilot and non-Penny Pilot options as
well as increase the non-Penny Pilot Broker-Dealer electronic Options
Transaction Charge is reasonable because of the greater costs incurred
by the Exchange associated with supporting a larger number of options
classes, option series and overall transaction volume. The Exchange
believes increasing the Professional Options Transaction Charges in
both Penny Pilot and non-Penny Pilot options from $.20 per contract to
$.25 per contract is reasonable because the $.05 per contract increase
would allow the Exchange to recoup the aforementioned costs while also
continuing to assess a Professional a rate that is equal to or lower
than a Broker-Dealer and Firm. Also, the increased Professional fees
are comparable with fees at other options

exchanges.\11\ The Exchange believes increasing the Broker-Dealer
electronic non-Penny Options Transactions Charge from $.50 per contract
to $.60 per contract is reasonable because the $.10 per contract
increase would allow the Exchange to recoup the aforementioned costs
while also subsidizing increased rebates for certain electronically-
delivered Customer orders. An increased Broker-Dealer electronic non-
Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charge allows the Exchange to compete
more effectively by subsidizing rebates offered on electronically-
delivered Customer orders, such as the rebate proposed herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See SR-CBOE-2012-032, a rule change recently filed by The
Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE'') to increase
both the voluntary professional and professional transaction fees
for equity options and index, ETF, ETN and HOLDRs options, excluding
OEX, XEO, SPXW and Volatility Indexes, from $0.20 to $0.25 per
contract. See also NYSE AMEX LLC's Fee Schedule, which assesses
professional customers a $0.25 per contract fee for manual
executions and a $0.23 per contract fee for electronic executions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to increase the Professional Options
Transaction Charges in both Penny Pilot and non-Penny Pilot options is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because Professionals would
continue to be assessed the same or lower fees as compared to Broker-
Dealers \12\ and Firms.\13\ Market Makers \14\ would be assessed the
same or lower fees as compared to Professionals,\15\ because Market
Makers have burdensome quoting obligations \16\ to the market which do
not apply to Professionals, Customers, Firms and Broker-Dealers.
Customers are not assessed Options Transactions Charges in either Penny
Pilot or non-Penny Pilot options because Customer order flow brings
liquidity to the market, which in turn benefits all market
participants. Broker-Dealers and Firms today pay higher fees as
compared to a Professional. The increased Professional Options
Transaction Charges in both Penny Pilot and non-Penny Pilot options
would in some cases equalize the fees paid by Professionals, Broker-
Dealer and Firms \17\ and make them uniform and in other cases the
Broker-Dealer and Firms would continue to pay higher fees as is the
case today.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Broker-Dealers are assessed a Penny Pilot Options
Transaction Charge of $.45 per contract for electronic orders and a
Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charge of $.25 for non-electronic
orders. Broker-Dealers would be assessed a proposed non-Penny Pilot
Options Transaction Charge of $.60 for electronic orders and are
currently assessed a non-Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charge of
$.25 for non-electronic orders.
    \13\ Firms are assessed a Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charge
of $.25 per contract for electronic orders and a Penny Pilot Options
Transaction Charge of $.25 for non-electronic orders. Firms are
assessed a non-Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charge of $.40 for
electronic orders and a non-Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charge
of $.25 for non-electronic orders.
    \14\ A ``Market Maker'' includes Specialists (see Rule 1020) and
Registered Options Traders (``ROTs'') (Rule 1014(b)(i) and (ii),
which includes Streaming Quote Traders (``SQTs'') (see Rule
1014(b)(ii)(A)) and Remote Streaming Quote Traders (``RSQTs'') (see
Rule 1014(b)(ii)(B)). Directed Participants are also Market Makers.
    \15\ Market Makers are assessed a Penny Pilot Options
Transaction Charge of $.22 per contract for electronic orders and a
Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charge of $.25 for non-electronic
orders. Market Makers are assessed a non-Penny Pilot Options
Transaction Charge of $.23 for electronic orders and a non-Penny
Pilot Options Transaction Charge of $.25 for non-electronic orders.
    \16\ See Exchange Rule 1014 entitled ``Obligations and
Restrictions Applicable to Specialists and Registered Options
Traders.''
    \17\ By increasing the Professional Options Transaction Charges
in both Penny Pilot and non-Penny Pilot options to $.25 per contract
would cause the rates assessed Professionals to be uniform to the
rates assessed Broker-Dealers for non-electronic transactions in
Penny Pilot options and non-electronic transactions in non-Penny
Pilot options as well as rates assessed Firms for electronic and
non-electronic transactions in Penny Pilot options and non-
electronic transactions in non-Penny Pilot options.
    \18\ By increasing the Professional Options Transaction Charges
in both Penny Pilot and non-Penny Pilot options to $.25 per contract
would cause the rates assessed Professionals to be lower than the
rates assessed Broker-Dealers for electronic transactions in Penny
Pilot options and electronic transactions in non-Penny Pilot options
(assuming the proposed new rate of $.60 per contract) and the rate
assessed Firms for electronic transactions in non-Penny Pilot
options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to increase the non-Penny Pilot Broker
Dealer electronic Options Transaction Charge is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because, currently, Broker-Dealers are assessed
higher fees as compared to Customers, Professionals, Market Makers and
Firms. Customers are not assessed Options Transaction Charges because
Customer order flow brings liquidity to the market, which, in turn,
benefits all market participants. Market Makers are assessed lower
Options Transaction Charges as compared to other market participants,
except Customers, because they have burdensome quoting obligations \19\
to the market which do not apply to Customers, Professionals, Firms and
Broker-Dealers. In addition, Market Makers are subject to Payment for
Order Flow Fees \20\ whereas Professionals, Firms and Broker-Dealers
are not subject to such fees.\21\ For example, a Market Maker
electronically transacting a Penny Pilot option contra a Customer order
would pay $.47 per contract and a Market Maker electronically
transacting a non-Penny Pilot option contra a Customer order would pay
$.92 [sic] per contract.\22\ With respect to Professionals, they have
access to more information and technological advantages as compared to
Customers and Professionals do not bear the obligations of Market
Makers. Also, Professionals engage in trading activity similar to that
conducted by Market Makers. For example, Professionals continue to join
bids and offers on the Exchange and thus compete for incoming order
flow. For these reasons, the Exchange believes that Professionals may
be priced higher than a Customer and may be priced equal to or higher
than a Market Maker. Professionals are currently assessed a $.20 per
contract Options Transaction Charge in non-Penny Pilot options, which
the Exchange is proposing to increase to $.25 per contract, as compared
to a Broker-Dealer that is currently assessed an electronic Options
Transaction Charge of $.50 per contract for non-Penny Pilot
options.\23\ The Exchange believes that increasing the Broker-Dealer
electronic non-Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charge to $.60

per contract for options does not misalign the current rate
differentials between a Broker-Dealer and a Professional because the
differential is only increasing by $.05 per contract and is comparable
to differentials at other options exchanges.\24\ Firms are currently
assessed different Options Transaction Charges as compared to Broker-
Dealers. Firms are assessed an electronic Options Transaction Charge of
$.40 per contract in non-Penny Pilot options as compared to the current
Broker-Dealer electronic Options Transaction Charge of $.50 per
contract in non-Penny Pilot options. The proposed rate differential as
between a Firm and Broker-Dealer of $.20 per contract, as proposed
herein, is lower than differentials at other options exchanges for such
market participants.\25\ The proposed rate differential as between a
Firm and Broker-Dealer of $.20 per contract in electronic non-Penny
Pilot options would be equivalent to the current rate differential
between a Firm and Broker-Dealer of $.20 per contract in electronic
Penny Pilot options.\26\ In addition, the Exchange believes that it is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to increase the Broker-Dealer
electronic non-Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charge to $.60 per
contract to subsidize Customer rebates because attracting Customer
order flow to the Exchange will benefit all market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See note 16.
    \20\ Payment for Order Flow Fees are $.25 per contract for
options that are trading in the Penny Pilot Program and $.70 per
contract for other equity options. See Section II of the Pricing
Schedule.
    \21\ Payment for Order Flow Fees are assessed on transactions
resulting from Customer orders and are available to be disbursed by
the Exchange according to the instructions of the Specialist units/
Specialists or Directed ROTs to order flow providers who are members
or member organizations, who submit, as agent, customer orders to
the Exchange or non-members or non-member organizations who submit,
as agent, Customer orders to the Exchange through a member or member
organization who is acting as agent for those Customer orders.
Specialists and Directed ROTs who participate in the Exchange's
payment for order flow program are assessed a Payment for Order Flow
Fee, in addition to ROTs. Therefore, the Payment for Order Flow Fee
is assessed, in effect, on equity option transactions between a
Customer and an ROT, a Customer and a Directed ROT, or a Customer
and a Specialist. A ROT is defined in Exchange Rule 1014(b) as a
regular member of the Exchange located on the trading floor who has
received permission from the Exchange to trade in options for his
own account. A ROT includes a SQT, a RSQT and a Non-SQT, which by
definition is neither a SQT or a RSQT. See Exchange Rule 1014(b)(i)
and (ii).
    \22\ In terms of effective rates, a Market Maker transacting a
Penny Pilot option contra a Customer would effectively pay on
average $.0586 per contract and a Market Maker transacting a non-
Penny Pilot option contra a Customer would effectively pay on
average $0.684 per contract. These effective rates apply to the fees
contained in Section II of the Pricing Schedule. Section I of the
Pricing Schedule entitled ``Rebates and Fees for Adding and Removing
Liquidity in Select Symbols'' only applies to the Select Symbols
listed in Section I.
    \23\ Section II of the Pricing Schedule contains electronic vs.
non-electronic Options Transaction Charges only for Market Makers,
Broker-Dealers and Firms.
    \24\ CBOE currently assesses a professional an equity options
fee of $.20 [sic] per contract and a Broker-Dealer electronic order
an equity options fee of $.45 per contract. See CBOE's Fees
Schedule.
    \25\ CBOE currently assesses a Clearing Trading Permit Holder
Proprietary an equity options fee of $.20 per contract and a Broker-
Dealer electronic order an equity options fee of $.45 per contract.
See CBOE's Fees Schedule. Similarly, the International Securities
Exchange, LLC (``ISE'') assesses a Firm Proprietary execution fee of
$.20 per contract/side and a Non-ISE Market Maker a fee of $.45 per
contract side.
    \26\ Currently, a Firm transacting an electronic Penny Pilot
options order pays $.25 per contract while a Broker-Dealer
transacting an electronic Penny Pilot options order pays $.45 per
contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that offering an increased rebate of $0.03
per contract on all Customer orders that qualified for the current
$0.07 Customer order rebate and also add liquidity in a non-Penny Pilot
option is reasonable because the Exchange is seeking to further
incentivize market participants to transact a greater number of
Customer orders in non-Penny Pilot options, which order flow should
benefit all market participants because of the increased liquidity such
orders bring to the market.
    The Exchange believes that offering an increased rebate of $0.03
per contract on all Customer orders that qualified for the current
$0.07 Customer order rebate and also add liquidity in a non-Penny Pilot
option is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all market
participants are eligible to receive the additional rebate once they
meet the volume threshold for Customer Orders. All market participants
would be uniformly paid the additional $0.03 per contract rebate on
qualifying Customer orders as long as those orders add liquidity in a
non-Penny Pilot option. The Exchange believes that requiring members to
transact an average daily volume of 50,000 Customer contracts or
greater in a given month to obtain the rebate is reasonable, equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because the volume threshold should
incentivize members to bring greater liquidity to the Exchange, thereby
benefitting all market participants. Similar to current fees on the
NASDAQ Options Market LLC (``NOM''), the Exchange is proposing to offer
a rebate based on a certain volume criteria.\27\ Similar to this
proposal, the CBOE offers a volume incentive program. CBOE credits each
Trading Permit Holder (``TPH'') a certain per contract amount based on
the volume of customer contracts the TPH executes electronically at
CBOE in multiply-listed option classes (excluding qualified contingent
cross trades).\28\ The Exchange's proposal to exclude PIXL and QCC
Orders from the rebate and volume threshold calculation is reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because PIXL and QCC Orders
have the opportunity to receive rebates today,\29\ and the Exchange
pays the rebate uniformly to its members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ NOM currently has a tiered rebate with certain volume
criteria for Customer orders in Penny Pilot Options. See Chapter XV,
Section 2 entitled ``NASDAQ Options Market--Fees.''
    \28\ See CBOE's Fees Schedule. CBOE offers a per contract credit
ranging from $.00 to $.20 per contract based on a certain volume
threshold which ranges from 0 to 375,001 plus customer contracts per
day.
    \29\ See Sections II and IV(A) of the Exchange's Pricing
Schedule. A PIXL Order will receive the rebate for adding liquidity
when executed against contra-side order(s) that respond to the PIXL
auction broadcast message as well as when executed against contra-
side quotes and unrelated orders on the PHLX book that arrived after
the PIXL auction was initiated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market, comprised of
nine exchanges, in which market participants can easily and readily
direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee and rebate
levels at a particular venue to be excessive. Accordingly, the fees
that are assessed and the rebates paid by the Exchange must remain
competitive with fees charged and rebates paid by other venues and
therefore must continue to be reasonable and equitably allocated to
those members that opt to direct orders to the Exchange rather than
competing venues.

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.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\30\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-Phlx-2012-46 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-Phlx-2012-46. This file
number should be included on the

subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and
review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The
Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site
(http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all
subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the
proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all
written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 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; 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-Phlx-2012-46 and should be submitted on or before May
10, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-9406 Filed 4-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


30, and 42 do not contain requirements for which the TSP area
designation is relevant; and
     The applicability of the relevant portion of the Clark
County rule section 41 (``Fugitive dust'') and the other county
fugitive dust rules sections 90 through 94 are expressed in terms of
the designated boundaries of the PM10 nonattainment area (or
area subject to a PM10 maintenance plan), and not in terms
of the boundaries of the TSP area.
    In summary, because the PSD PM10 increments apply in Las
Vegas Valley and because the deletion of the TSP nonattainment
designation for Las Vegas Valley would not automatically relax any
emissions limitation or control measure in the Nevada SIP, we find that
the TSP nonattainment designation is no longer necessary and can be
deleted. Based on the above discussion and evaluation, therefore, we
are proposing to delete the TSP nonattainment area designation for Las
Vegas Valley (HA 212) from the ``Nevada-TSP'' table in 40 CFR
81.329.

VIII. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment

    Under CAA section 110(k)(3), and for the reasons set forth above,
the EPA is proposing to approve NDEP's submittal dated September 7,
2012 of the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for Particulate
Matter (PM10), Clark County, Nevada (August 2012) (``Las Vegas Valley
PM10 Maintenance Plan'') as a revision to the Nevada SIP.
The EPA finds that the maintenance demonstration showing how the area
will continue to attain the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS for 10 years
beyond redesignation, and the contingency provisions describing the
actions that Clark County will take in the event of a future monitored
violation, meet all applicable requirements for maintenance plans and
related contingency provisions in CAA section 175A. The EPA is also
proposing to approve the motor vehicle emissions budgets in the Las
Vegas Valley PM10 Maintenance Plan (i.e., 141.14 tons per
day in 2008, 2015, and 2023) because we find they meet the applicable
transportation conformity requirements under 40 CFR 93.118(e).
    Second, under CAA section 107(d)(3)(D), we are proposing to approve
NDEP's request, which accompanied the submittal of the maintenance
plan, to redesignate the Las Vegas Valley PM10 nonattainment
area to attainment for the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. We are doing
so based on our conclusion that the area has met the five criteria for
redesignation under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E). Our conclusion in this
regard is in turn based on our proposed determination that the area has
attained the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS, that relevant portions of
the Nevada SIP are fully approved, that the improvement in air quality
is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions, that
Nevada has met all requirements applicable to the Las Vegas Valley
PM10 nonattainment area with respect to section 110 and part
D of the CAA, and based on our proposed approval as part of this action
of the Las Vegas Valley PM10 Maintenance Plan. Our proposed
determination that the area has attained the 24-hour PM10
NAAQS is based in part on our concurrence with Clark County DAQ that
the exceedances monitored in Las Vegas Valley on July 3, 2011 were
caused by a high wind exceptional event and our related exclusion of
the exceedances from the attainment determination.
    Third, EPA is proposing to approve revisions to Clark County
fugitive dust rules sections 41, and 90 through 93 that were submitted
on May 27, 2014 as a revision to the Nevada SIP because we find that
they ensure continued implementation of the rules after redesignation
of Las Vegas Valley to attainment and because they meet all other
applicable requirements. Proposing to do so is consistent with the
assumptions upon which the maintenance plan is based.
    Lastly, EPA is proposing to delete the area designation for Las
Vegas Valley for the revoked national standard for total suspended
particulate because the designation is no longer necessary.
    EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
document or on other relevant matters. We will accept comments from the
public on this proposal for the next 30 days. We will consider these
comments before taking final action.

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E)
are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not

impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those
imposed by State law. Redesignation to attainment does not in and of
itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the
applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have
been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions
of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40
CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to
approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the
Clean Air Act. Accordingly, these actions merely propose to approve a
State plan and redesignation request as meeting Federal requirements
and do not impose additional requirements beyond those by State law.
For these reasons, these proposed actions:
     Are not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and Executive Order 13563 (76 FR
3821, January 21, 2011);
     Do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Are certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not an economically significant regulatory action
based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rule does not have Tribal implications
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law. Nonetheless, EPA has
discussed the proposed action with the one Tribe, the Las Vegas Paiute
Tribe, located within the Las Vegas Valley PM10
nonattainment area.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.

    Dated: June 27, 2014.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2014-16575 Filed 7-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 206 (Tuesday, October 25, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73459-73460]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25705]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549-2736.

Extension:
    Rule 17a-3; SEC File No. 270-026, OMB Control No. 3235-0033.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (``OMB'') a request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information discussed below. The Code of Federal
Regulation citation to this collection of information is the following
rule: 17 CFR 240.17a-3.
    Rule 17a-3 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 establishes
minimum standards with respect to business records that broker-dealers
registered with the Commission must make and keep current. These
records are maintained by the broker-dealer (in accordance with a
separate rule), so they can be used by the broker-dealer and reviewed
by Commission examiners, as well as other regulatory authority
examiners, during inspections of the broker-dealer.
    The collections of information included in Rule 17a-3 are necessary
to provide Commission, self-regulatory organization and state examiners
to conduct effective and efficient examinations to determine whether
broker-dealers are complying with relevant laws, rules, and
regulations. If broker-dealers were not required to create these
baseline, standardized records, Commission, self-regulatory
organization and state examiners could be unable to determine whether
broker-dealers are in compliance with the Commission's antifraud and
anti-manipulation rules, financial responsibility program, and other
Commission, SRO, and State laws, rules, and regulations.
    As of April 1, 2016 there were 4,104 broker-dealers registered with
the Commission. The Commission estimates that these broker-dealer
respondents

incur a total burden of 2,763,566 hours per year to comply with Rule
17a-3.
    In addition, Rule 17a-3 contains ongoing operation and maintenance
costs for broker-dealers, including the cost of postage to provide
customers with account information, and costs for equipment and systems
development. The Commission estimates that under Rule 17a-3(a)(17),
approximately 41,143,233 customers will need to be provided with
information regarding their account on a yearly basis. The Commission
estimates that the postage costs associated with providing those
customers with copies of their account record information would be
approximately $13,577,267 per year (41,143,233 x $0.33).\1\ The staff
estimates that broker-dealers establishing liquidity, credit, and
market risk management controls pursuant to Rule 17a-3(a)(23) incur
one-time startup costs of $924,000, or $308,000 amortized over a three-
year approval period, to hire outside counsel to review the controls.
The staff further estimates that the ongoing equipment and systems
development costs relating to Rule 17a-3 for the industry would be
about $30,677,094 per year. Consequently, the total cost burden
associated with Rule 17a-3 would be approximately $44,562,361 per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Estimates of postage costs are derived from past
conversations with industry representatives and have been adjusted
to account for inflation and increases in postage costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17a-3 does not contain record retention requirements.
Compliance with the rule is mandatory. The required records are
available only to the staffs of the Commission, self-regulatory
organizations of which the broker-dealer is a member, and the states
during examination, inspections and investigations.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    The public may view the background documentation for this
information collection at the following Web site, www.reginfo.gov.
Comments should be directed to (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, or by sending an
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within
30 days of this notice.

    Dated: October 18, 2016.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-25705 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: September 25, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 185)]
[Notices]
[Page 55816-55817]
[DOCID:fr25se06-56]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54462; File No. SR-NASD-2006-107]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change Related to Thru Orders for Nasdaq's INET Facility

September 15, 2006.
    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 September 11, 2006, the National Association of Securities Dealers,
Inc. (``NASD''), through its subsidiary, The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc.
(``Nasdaq''), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by Nasdaq. Nasdaq has filed
the proposal pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective upon
filing with the Commission. 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).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Nasdaq proposes to introduce a new Thru order type for Nasdaq's
INET Facility that will allow users to direct that their order be
delivered by the INET system to the American Stock Exchange (``Amex'')
or New York Stock Exchange (``NYSE''), as appropriate. Nasdaq has
designated this proposal as non-controversial and has requested that
the Commission waive the 30-day pre-operative waiting period contained
in Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) under the Act.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new
language is italicized; proposed deletions are in [brackets].
* * * * *

4956. Routing

    (a) INET Order Routing Process
    (1) The INET Order Routing Process shall be available to
Participants from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Eastern Time, and shall route orders
as described below:
    (A) Routing Options.
    The System provides [eight] nine routing options for orders. Of
these eight, [five] six--DOT Immediate , DOT Alternative, DOT
Alternative 2, Reactive Only DOT, [and] DOT Nasdaq--and Thru DOT--are
available for orders ultimately sought to be directed to either the New
York Stock Exchange (``NYSE'') or the American Stock Exchange
(``AMEX''). The System also allows firms to send individual orders to
the NYSE Direct + System, and to elect to have orders not be sent to
the AMEX. The [eight] nine System routing options are:
    (i)-(viii) No Change.
    (ix) Thru DOT (``TDOT'')--under this option, orders are sent
directly to either the NYSE or AMEX, as directed by the entering party.
If unexecuted, the order (or unexecuted portion thereof) shall be
returned to the entering party. This option may only be used for orders
with time-in-force parameters of either DAY, IOC, or market-on-open/
close.
    (B) No Change.
* * * * *

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

    In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq 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. Nasdaq 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
    Nasdaq proposes to create a new order routing option for its INET
facility that would allow users to direct that their orders be
delivered by the INET system to the NYSE or the Amex, as appropriate.
Nasdaq notes that this direct delivery functionality already exists in
Nasdaq's Brut facility as the Thru Brut order \6\ and would provide
additional flexibility and functionality to INET system users that
desire to send orders to the NYSE or the Amex.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See NASD Rule 4903(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 15A of the Act,\7\ in general, and with
Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\8\ in particular, in that it is designed
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and to remove
impediments to a free and open market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing proposed rule change is subject to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder \10\
because the proposal: (i) Does not significantly affect the protection
of investors or the public interest; (ii) does not impose any
significant burden on

competition; and (iii) does not become operative prior to 30 days after
the date of filing or such shorter time as the Commission may designate
if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest;
provided that Nasdaq has given the Commission notice of its intent to
file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text
of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the
date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as
designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq has fulfilled the five-day pre-filing requirement. Nasdaq
has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The
Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because such waiver would provide users of Nasdaq's INET facility the
ability to utilize the proposed Thru DOT order type immediately, an
order type with the same functionality as an order type that is
currently available for use in Nasdaq's Brut facility. For these
reasons, the Commission designates the proposed rule change to be
effective and operative upon filing with the Commission.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For purposes only of accelerating the operative date of
this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's
impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of 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-NASD-2006-107 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2006-107. 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. Copies of the filing
also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal
office of the NASD. 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-NASD-2006-107 and should be submitted on or before October 16, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 06-8142 Filed 9-22-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 25 (Thursday, February 6, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6987-6988]
[FR Doc No: 2020-02277]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 33796]

Notice of Applications for Deregistration Under Section 8(f) of
the Investment Company Act of 1940

January 31, 2020.
    The following is a notice of applications for deregistration under
section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 for the month of
January 2020. A copy of each application may be obtained via the
Commission's website by searching for the file number, or for an
applicant using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. An order granting each
application will be issued unless the SEC orders a hearing. Interested
persons may request a hearing on any application by writing to the
SEC's Secretary at the address below and serving the relevant applicant
with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests
should be received by the SEC by 5:30 p.m. on February 25, 2020, and
should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of
an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to
Rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the
writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing
on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested.
Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification
by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
    Address: The Commission: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    For Further Information Contact: Shawn Davis, Assistant Director,
at<PHONE_NUMBER> or Chief Counsel's Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>; SEC,
Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office, 100 F Street
NE, Washington, DC 20549-8010.

Oppenheimer Limited-Term Government Fund [File No. 811-04563]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. The applicant has transferred its assets to
AIM Investment Securities Funds (Invesco Investment Securities Funds),
and on May 24, 2019 made a final distribution to its shareholders based
on net asset value. Expenses of $1,300,306.94 incurred in connection
with the reorganization were paid by the applicant's investment adviser
and the acquiring fund's

investment adviser, and/or their affiliates.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on November 4, 2019.
    Applicant's Address: 6803 South Tucson Way, Centennial, Colorado
80112.

Seligman Capital Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-01886]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. The applicant has transferred its assets to
Columbia Mid Cap Growth Fund, a series of Columbia Funds Series Trust
I, and on April, 8 2011, made a final distribution to its shareholders
based on net asset value. Expenses of $63,153 incurred in connection
with the reorganization were paid by the applicant.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on October 4, 2013, and
amended on November 14, 2019.
    Applicant's Address: 225 Franklin Street, Boston, Massachusetts
02110.

    For the Commission by the Division of Investment Management
pursuant to delegated authority.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-02277 Filed 2-5-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P