[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 71 (Thursday, April 13, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22506-22509]
[FR Doc No: 2023-07734]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-97266; File No. SR-BOX-2023-10]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fee
Schedule on the BOX Options Market LLC Facility To Establish a New
Qualified Contingent Cross (``QCC'') Growth Rebate

April 7, 2023.
    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 March 31, 2023, BOX Exchange LLC (``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 Exchange filed the proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(2) 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)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change to amend the Fee Schedule to
establish a new Qualified Contingent Cross (``QCC'') Growth Rebate on
the BOX Options Market LLC (``BOX'') options facility. While changes to
the fee schedule pursuant to this proposal will be effective upon
filing, the changes will become operative on April 3, 2023. The text of
the proposed rule change is available from the principal office of the
Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the
Exchange's internet website at https://rules.boxexchange.com/rulefilings.

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 the Fee Schedule for trading on BOX
to establish a new Qualified Contingent Cross (``QCC'') Growth Rebate.
    Currently, BOX assesses $0.20 per contract to Broker Dealers and
Market Makers for both the Agency Order and contra order of a QCC
transaction. Public Customers and Professional Customers are not
assessed a QCC Transaction Fee. Further, rebates are paid on all
qualifying orders pursuant to Section IV.D.1 of the BOX Fee Schedule.
Specifically, a QCC Rebate is paid to the Participant that entered the
order into the BOX system when at least one party to the QCC
transaction is a Broker Dealer or Market Maker. The Participant
receives a per contract rebate on QCC transactions according to the
tier achieved. Volume thresholds will be calculated on a monthly basis
by totaling the Participant's QCC Agency Order volume on BOX. The
Exchange notes that the QCC Rebate is intended to incentivize the
sending of more QCC Orders to BOX.
    The QCC Rebate tier structure is as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             QCC Agency order volume on      Rebate 1 (per       Rebate 2 (per
                   Tier                            BOX (per month)             contract)           contract)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.........................................  0 to 1,499,999 contracts....             ($0.14)             ($0.22)
2.........................................  1,500,000 to 2,499,999                    (0.16)              (0.24)
                                             contracts.
3.........................................  2,500,000 to 3,499,999                    (0.16)              (0.25)
                                             contracts.

4.........................................  3,500,000+ contracts........              (0.17)              (0.27)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to establish Section IV.D.1.b., QCC
Growth Rebate.\5\ Specifically, the Exchange proposes that if a
Participant's QCC Agency Order volume on BOX achieves Tier 3 of the QCC
Rebate in the month AND the Participant's total QCC volume combined
with total QOO volume exceeds 11 million contracts per month, then the
Participant will qualify for the rebates in Tier 4 of the QCC Rebate
(``QCC Growth Rebate qualifications''). Strategy QOO Orders and
Strategy QCC Orders will not be counted toward the QCC Growth rebate
volume. Further, the Exchange proposes that Participants are entitled
to one QCC Rebate in a given month, which would be the greater of the
QCC Rebate in Section (a) or the QCC Growth Rebate detailed in Section
(b), but not both.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Additionally, the Exchange proposes to retitle the current
QCC Rebate as Section IV.D.1.a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the proposed change is a competitive
response as a similar QCC Growth Rebate currently exists at another
options exchange.\6\ Further, the Exchange believes that the proposal
will encourage Participants to send increased QCC and QOO order flow to
BOX in order to achieve a higher rebate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Nasdaq Phlx LLC (``Phlx'') Pricing Schedule and
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 96990 (February 27, 2023), 88 FR
13477 (March 3, 2023)(SR-PHLX-2023-06).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, the Exchange is proposing to amend Section IV.D.2 to make
changes that reflect the addition of Section IV.D.1.a. and Section
IV.D.1.b. to the BOX Fee Schedule.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and Section
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among BOX Participants and other persons using its facilities
and does not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers
or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to establish a new QCC Growth Rebate is
reasonable because this rebate will provide additional incentives for
BOX Participants to engage in substantial amounts of trading activity
which would serve to bring additional open outcry liquidity to the
Trading Floor and additional QCC order flow to BOX. This incentive may
also encourage Participants to begin sending such order flow to BOX for
the opportunity to earn this rebate.
    As discussed above, the Exchange notes that a similar QCC Growth
Rebate currently exists at another exchange. At Phlx, in order to
qualify for the QCC Growth Tier Rebate, a member's or member
organization's total floor transaction, and electronic QCC Orders and
Floor QCC Orders volume must exceed 12,500,000 contracts in a given
month. In addition to the aforementioned criteria, the member's or
member organization's respective Phlx House Account must execute QCC
transaction volume of 250,000 or more contracts in excess of the
member's or member organization's QCC transaction volume in January
2023. For members or member organizations with no QCC transaction
volume in January 2023, the QCC transaction volume, in their respective
Phlx House Account, must be 250,000 or more contracts in a given month.
Additionally, Phlx offers an alternative to qualify for the QCC Growth
Tier Rebate. Specifically, if a member's or member organization's Open
Outcry Floor Transaction volume in a given month exceeds 500,000
contracts and a member's or member organization's respective Phlx House
Account executes QCC transaction volume of 2,500,000 or more contracts
in excess of the member's or member organization's QCC transaction
volume in January 2023, the member or member organization will qualify
for the QCC Growth Tier Rebate. BOX is proposing a similar structure in
that a BOX Participant will qualify for the QCC Growth Rebate if the
Participant achieves Tier 3 of the current QCC Rebate structure (QCC
Agency Order volume on BOX is 2,500,000 to 3,499,999 contracts in a
given month) AND the Participant's QCC and QOO volume exceeds 11
million contracts in the given month. The Exchange believes that the
proposed QCC Growth Rebate qualifications are reasonable because they
offer Participants an additional opportunity to achieve a higher QCC
rebate. Additionally, the Exchange's proposal to establish a new QCC
Growth Rebate is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because any
Participant may qualify for this rebate.\8\ All BOX Participants may
enter order flow to obtain a QCC Growth Rebate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange notes that all BOX Participants may transact an
options business electronically or on the BOX Trading Floor with a
registered Trading Permit. BOX Participants may transact business on
the Trading Floor through a Floor Broker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposal will create an incentive for
Participants to bring liquidity to BOX--both electronically and on the
Trading Floor. The Exchange believes that if the proposed incentive is
effective, then an ensuing increase in trading activity on BOX will
improve the quality of the market overall to the benefit of all market
participants. Further, to the extent this proposal attracts new
Participant volume to BOX, all market participants should benefit
through increased liquidity and more trading opportunities. The
Exchange believes this proposal is designed to increase participation
on BOX and reward those Participants for the unique role they play in
ensuring a robust market.
    The Exchange believes that combining a Participant's total QCC and
QOO volume to count toward the QCC Growth Rebate is not a novel idea.
On NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American''), Floor Brokers qualify for
rebates by achieving billable manual volume of combined manual
transactions and QCC transactions.\9\ Similarly, the Exchange proposes
to combine a Participant's QOO and QCC volume in order to qualify for
the proposed QCC Growth Rebate. As discussed herein, the Exchange
believes this structure will incentivize Participants to direct order
flow to BOX--both electronically and on the BOX Trading Floor--in order
to take advantage of the proposed rebate, thus resulting in increased
liquidity and trading opportunities to the benefit of all market
participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See NYSE American Fee Schedule. The Exchange notes that
while the concept of combining electronic and floor volume is not
novel, the details of NYSE American's Floor Broker rebate program
differ from what BOX is proposing herein. Specifically, the volume
qualifications and the per contract rebates on NYSE American are
different from BOX's proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's exclusion of QCC and QOO strategy transactions is
reasonable as Strategy QCC transactions are not currently assessed a
fee and Strategy QOO transactions are subject to the fee cap and
rebates detailed in Section V.D of the BOX Fee Schedule. The Exchange

also notes that another exchange excludes strategy transactions from
their respective QCC Growth Rebate.\10\ Further, the exclusion of
strategy transactions from the QCC Growth Rebate is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory as this exclusion will be uniformly applied to
all Participant types.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Phlx Pricing Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes this proposal to pay Participants the greater
of the QCC Rebate in proposed Section IV.D.1.a or the QCC Growth Rebate
in proposed Section IV.D.1.b in a given month, but not both QCC
Rebates, is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory
because BOX is simply offering another way for Participants to qualify
for rebates that already exist today and BOX would uniformly only pay
the greater of the two QCC Rebates.

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 proposal does not impose an undue burden on inter-market
competition. The Exchange believes its proposal remains competitive
with other options markets and will offer market participants with
another choice of where to transact its business. The Exchange notes
that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market
participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels
at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities
available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment,
the Exchange must continually adjust its fees and rebates to remain
competitive with other exchanges. Because competitors are free to
modify their own fees and rebates in response, and because market
participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the
Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market
may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
    The proposed changes do not impose an undue burden on intra-market
competition. In terms of intra-market competition, the Exchange does
not believe that its proposals will place any category of market
participant at a competitive disadvantage. The Exchange believes that
the proposed QCC Growth Rebate will encourage market participants to
send a greater amount of QCC orders and QOO Orders to BOX for execution
in order to obtain greater rebates and lower their costs. Further, the
proposed QCC Growth Rebate should incentivize a greater amount of floor
transactions on BOX, thereby allowing BOX to compete more effectively
with other options floor models. The Exchange again notes that any
market participant may send an order to a BOX Floor Broker for
execution on BOX's Trading Floor. The Exchange believes that the
additional liquidity will enhance the quality of BOX's market and
increase certain trading opportunities on BOX's Trading Floor.
    The Exchange's proposal to establish the QCC Growth Rebate does not
impose an undue burden on competition, rather is it pro-competitive in
that would serve to increase liquidity on BOX, thus rendering BOX a
more attractive and vibrant venue to market participants. The QCC
Growth Rebate Qualifications do not impose an undue burden on
competition because, as discussed above, all Participants may qualify
for the QCC Growth Rebate. Further, the QCC Growth Rebate
Qualifications do not impose an undue burden on competition because the
proposal is designed to increase participation on BOX and reward those
Participants for providing increased order flow to BOX to the benefit
of all market participants.
    The Exchange's exclusion of strategy transactions does not impose
an undue burden on competition as the exclusion will be uniformly
applied to all Participant types. Lastly, the Exchange's proposal to
pay Participants the greater of the QCC Rebate in Section IV.D.1.a or
the QCC Growth Rebate in Section IV.D.1.b in a given month, but not
both QCC Rebates, does not impose an undue burden on competition
because BOX is simply offering another way for Participants to qualify
for rebates that already exist today and BOX would uniformly only pay
the greater of the two QCC Rebates.

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 Exchange Act \11\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\12\ because it establishes or changes a due, or fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the rule
change if it appears to the Commission that the action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
would otherwise further 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 (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-BOX-2023-10 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2023-10. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change.

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-BOX-2023-10, and should be
submitted on or before May 4, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-07734 Filed 4-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Chapter V, Page 1 of 6 Chapter V. Next Steps This chapter discusses the steps needed to finalize the Level II models ( Version 2.0) along with some of the steps necessary to move toward implementation of these models, such as training and outreach. The chapter concludes with ideas for building partnerships with organizations outside of OPP to refine the Level II models. Several projects, which focus on reducing some of the uncertainties associated with the models, are discussed as well.

A. Finalizing the Level II Models ( Version 2.0)

After receiving the SAP's comments and recommendations, OPP will consider and incorporate them, as appropriate, and further develop and refine the models. Finalizing the Level II models will involve the following steps:

° Terrestrial Level II Model  Conduct further sensitivity analysis to define the relationship of the input parameters to the estimates of risk. The inhalation and puddle modules of the model will also be calibrated with existing data.

° QA/ QC Plan  Complete documenting the models according to EFED's internal QA/ QC guidance and procedures to ensure that models are properly documented and of adequate quality to assess the effects of pesticides on fish and wildlife with specified levels of reliability. This includes the selection of the appropriate standards by which the level of model performance can be judged ( e. g., does the model calculate aerobic half life as it was designed to do). This internal QA/ QC guidance has been approved by the OPP Quality Assurance Manager and is currently in use in EFED ( Appendix L).

° Beta Testing  Conduct beta testing, focusing on rigorous case studies which will test all of the features and components of the models. In these studies, different pesticide examples will be used with varying amounts of data and levels of risk. The results of beta testing will also be compared for consistency, and the adequacy of the instructions for using the model will be evaluated. Participants will include EFED scientists, but may be expanded to other OPP divisions and other EPA offices to provide an outside perspective.

° Model Maintanance  Develop procedures and mechanisms for maintaining the models. As the models are used, additional modifications may be necessary.

B. Training Training for risk assessors and risk managers is critical to implementing the Level II models. Risk assessors will need to know how and when to conduct a Level II probabilistic assessment and how to develop a transparent, clear, consistent and reasonable risk characterization. Risk managers will also need to participate in training to ensure they fully Chapter V, Page 2 of 6 understand the basic components of the models, the resulting risk characterization, and when probabilistic assessments should be conducted.

1. Risk Assessors Training will include background information on the use of risk assessment software, basic and advanced statistics, and how to conduct a probabilistic assessment. Once the background courses have been completed, training will focus on the use of the Level II models. The course will include a training manual/ user's guide, which will be the primary source of information for using the Level II models. This comprehensive guide will include an overview of the model and the various modules, system resource requirements, guidance regarding input parameters, reporting results, and other related topics. The training will include case studies and a risk assessment exercise.

Training will also include information on developing a robust risk characterization for communicating the key findings of the assessment, strengths and weaknesses, and a description of the uncertainties and assumptions. Emphasis will be placed on developing risk characterizations that are transparent, clear, consistent, and reasonable.

Training for scientists outside of OPP has been discussed and may include short courses at professional meetings such as the Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.

2. Risk Managers The Division plans to provide briefings that include an overview and demonstration workshops. The workshops may include an overview of Level II models and case studies to illustrate how the models work with a comparison to the probabilistic assessments conducted for human health.

It is critical that a discussion of risk characterization be included in both briefings and workshops. Risk managers need to thoroughly understand this final component of the risk assessment process because it synthesizes the conclusions and provides a summary of assumptions, scientific uncertainties, and the strengths and weaknesses of the analysis.

3. Risk Assessors and Risk Managers A workshop focusing on when to conduct a probabilistic assessment using the Level II models is also being planned. Workshop participants will use a problem formulation case study and participate in a planning dialogue which considers management goals and options, the scope and complexity of the risk assessment, timeframe, and available resources. To maximize the benefit of this workshop, risk managers and risk assessors, who are both critical to the problem formulation stage of a risk assessment, will be invited to participate. Chapter V, Page 3 of 6 C. Outreach Outreach is an essential element in implementing a probabilistic approach to ecological risk assessment. Keeping other government agencies, academia, contract laboratories, environmental advocacy groups, and industry informed provides an open and transparent process. One of the key tools that OPP will use to inform the public is the following Web site for this initiative.

http:// www. epa. gov/ oppefed1/ ecorisk/ index. htm Access to the Level II models and presentations to professional societies will be available on this Web site. In the near future, OPP plans to expand the Web site to include an overview of the screening level assessment, which is conducted at Level I.

To inform the states and other stakeholders, OPP plans to provide updates on the Level II models to the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee and the State FIFRA Issues Research and Evaluation Group. OPP is also planning a series of briefings for other federal agencies, such as the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U. S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Another outreach venue will be the EPA Probabilistic Risk Assessment Colloquium, which will occur later this year and involve other EPA offices such as the Office of Water, Office of Research and Development, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, and EPA Regions.

To ensure maximum scientific exchange and discussion, the Agency plans to participate in nationally recognized professional meetings, such as the Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry as well as international workshops, such as the European Workshop on Probabilistic Risk Assessments for the Environmental Effects of Plant Protection Products ( EUFRAM), and meetings with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development ( OECD) Ad Hoc Risk Assessment Advisory Body, and Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency.

D. Building Partnerships and Future Directions By continuing to build on existing partnerships, OPP will be better positioned to refine the Level II models and create synergies with other Agency programs to reach common goals. For example, OPP has been collaborating with EPA's Office of Research and Development ( ORD) on several projects of interest, which focus on reducing significant model uncertainties. Both offices plan to participate in a meeting with the SAP in the future to discuss the progress and findings of these projects and receive feedback on future directions. OPP also hopes to expand its collaboration efforts to include other agencies and stakeholders as well.

1. Addressing Uncertainties Related to Effects Characterization Chapter V, Page 4 of 6 a. Extrapolation Research for Predicting Toxicological Responses Currently the Level II Aquatic Model uses standardized aquatic toxicity tests and a classical statistical method ( e. g., normal distribution of Log LC50' s) to determine species sensitivity distributions. A key area of uncertainty results when not enough data are available to use a classical statistical method. The extrapolation methods currently available are limited and a comprehensive review of newer data sets is needed to establish more realistic and less uncertain extrapolation factors.

In response to this need, ORD began to work on identifying and compiling a collection of data sets on acute and chronic toxicity, across chemical modes of action, to aquatic species that would be relevant and applicable to the standardized aquatic toxicity tests currently used to support pesticide registration. These data sets have been identified, and the distribution of toxicity across taxa and the inter and intra species variability in toxicity is being evaluated for its utility to establish distributions for relevant taxa.

ORD's Aquatic Stressors Research Plan ( EPA 600 R 02 074), which describes ORD research supporting EPA's Office of Water ( OW), includes similar or identical approaches for developing methods for extrapolating chemical toxicity data across endpoints, life stages and species. Integration of ORD's research related to reducing extrapolation uncertainties across program offices will result in greater harmonization of general approaches and the state of thescience techniques applied within OPP and OW. Additional harmonization in the development and application of extrapolation methods and tools will result from OPP's collaboration with ORD and OW scientists in an on going effort to revise the OW's guidelines for deriving ambient water quality criteria.

b. Advancing Techniques for Assessing Risk of Pesticides A major area of uncertainty not currently addressed by the terrestrial Level II model is avian reproduction impairment. This area of uncertainty has been discussed since ECOFRAM was convened early in the initiative. During the ECOFRAM deliberations and in subsequent discussion, there was a consensus that the current avian reproduction test would need to be redesigned for use in probabilistic assessments. These tests need to provide a dose response relationship based on the ingested daily dose instead of the current use of hypothesis testing to determine dietary concentration.

ORD has been examining the overall approach for evaluating pesticide effects on avian reproduction and what laboratory testing can and cannot provide. OPP will be working with ORD to discuss their findings regarding technical issues involved with methods for defining doseresponse relationships, what information is needed to address questions about the magnitude of pesticide effects to wild birds, and the potential for modified avian reproduction tests to achieve these goals. Chapter V, Page 5 of 6 In the future, assessment techniques will also need to be explored for addressing mortality and chronic effects to mammals and amphibians.

2. Addressing Exposure Uncertainties a. Database of Regional Small Surface Water Body Characteristics An area of uncertainty in the exposure component of the aquatic Level II model concerns the input values for the model. These values include watershed size, volume, depth, pH, and other key characteristics that influence the representation or extrapolation of the exposure model for these waters. To reduce this uncertainty and to improve the accuracy of exposure predictions, field data are needed. Once the data are collected, a database of regional small surface water body ( e. g., depressional wetlands, temporary and permanent pools and ponds) characteristics will be developed.

In response to this need, ORD is exploring a census and landscape indicator approach for deriving these input values for small surface water bodies in specific hydrological landscapes in the Midwest. This project is part of a larger landscape indicator approach for pesticides and nutrients in stream water and in streambed sediments and aquatic biological conditions in selected small streams in specific hydrological landscapes in the Midwest. Although limited in scale, the data generated should provide useful empirical information to refine components of the exposure model and potentially provide a method( s) to extrapolate these characteristics and their distributions on a broad scale.

b. Initial Application Date The aquatic Level II model will be refined to incorporate an initial application date as a uniform distribution rather than a single input date. This change will be incorporated to reduce the uncertainty about application date due to the sensitivity of the exposure output to the selection of the initial application day. For example, random selection of the initial application date, within a two week window for three pesticides with different environmental half lives, resulted in differences between the smallest and highest annual peak for a given year of 3.8 fold for a relatively non persistent to moderately persistent pesticides and only about 1.4 fold for a persistent pesticide.

c. Development of Uncertainty and Extrapolation Factors for Metabolism Rate Constants for Use in Modeling Generally limited data are available to estimate the metabolic rate constants for input into OPP's runoff and surface water models, which leads to high uncertainty in the results of the modeling. As a result, extrapolation and uncertainty factors are used. However, they are based on a fairly limited data set and a formal evaluation of the underlying distributions or effect of the number of studies on the magnitude of uncertainty has not been conducted. Analyses of a large Chapter V, Page 6 of 6 data base of rate constants needs to be evaluated to determine the nature of the distributions of each kind of metabolism data. The magnitude of the variability in each type of data, the amount of uncertainty incurred by using a limited number of data sets, and the nature of the correlations between study types also need to be evaluated. The results of these analyses will be used to reevaluate the extrapolation and uncertainty factors currently used.

3. Predictions of Population Dynamics Risk managers, who determine how a pesticide will be regulated, are interested in receiving information concerning the probability and magnitude of population impacts from the use of a pesticide. Working in collaboration with OPP, ORD will develop tools that will provide risk managers with spatially explicit, population level risk assessments. These tools will allow the Agency to ( 1) extrapolate toxicological data across species and exposure scenarios of concern, ( 2) predict population level responses and for identifying the responses at the individual level that have the greatest influence on a population response, ( 3) assess the relative risk of chemical and non chemical stressors on populations across large areas, and ( 4) refine exposure estimates to provide spatially explicit, probabilistic exposure models.


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 6, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 2216]
[FR Doc No: 2019-01159]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Project No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
King Mountain Upton Wind, LLC..........................       EG19-1-000
SR Millington, LLC.....................................       EG19-2-000
R-WS Antelope Valley Gen-Tie, LLC......................       EG19-3-000
Phoebe Energy Project, LLC.............................       EG19-4-000
Fluvanna Wind Energy 2, LLC............................       EG19-5-000
Conemaugh Power Pass-Through Holders LLC...............       EG19-6-000
Keystone Power Pass-Through Holders LLC................       EG19-7-000
GRP Madison, LLC.......................................       EG19-8-000
GRP Franklin, LLC......................................       EG19-9-000
North Rosamond Solar, LLC..............................      EG19-10-000
Indian Mesa Wind, LLC..................................      EG19-11-000
Woodward Mountain Wind, LLC............................      EG19-12-000
Gateway Energy Storage, LLC............................      EG19-13-000
Carson Hybrid Energy Storage LLC.......................      EG19-14-000
Lockett Windfarm LLC...................................      EG19-15-000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Take notice that during the month of December 2018, the status of
the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators became
effective by operation of the Commission's regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a)
(2018).

    Dated: January 9, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-01159 Filed 2-5-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: June 20, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 118)]
[Notices]
[Page 35474-35475]
[DOCID:fr20jn06-78]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53978; File No. SR-NYSE-2006-42]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
and Amendment No. 1 Relating to American Depositary Receipt Fees

June 13, 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 May 25, 2006, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' 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 NYSE. NYSE has
designated the proposed rule change as a ``non-controversial'' rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective upon
filing with the Commission. On June 12, 2006, NYSE submitted Amendment
No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\5\ The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended,
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii)
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \5\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange eliminated proposed changes
to the title of Section 103.00 of the Listed Company Manual and
corrected typographical errors in the rule text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NYSE proposes to amend Section 103.04 of the Exchange's Listed
Company Manual relating to sponsored American Depositary Receipts
(``ADRs'') to eliminate the requirement that certain services must be
provided without charge. The text of the proposed rule change, as
amended, is set forth below. Proposed new language is underlined;
proposed deletions are [bracketed].
* * * * *
Listed Company Manual
* * * * *
103.00 Non-U.S. Companies
* * * * *
103.04 Sponsored American Depository Receipts or Shares (``ADR[']s'')
    In order to list ADRs, the Exchange requires that such ADRs be
sponsored. Foreign private issuers [Non-U.S. companies] sponsor their
ADR[']s by entering into a[n] deposit agreement with an American
depository bank to provide, [without charge to the ADR holders,] such
services as cash and stock dividend payments, transfer of ownership,
and distribution of company financial statements and notices, such as
shareholder meeting material. This agreement is a required supplement
to the basic Listing Agreement. (See [Para.] Section 901.00 for the
text of the Listing Agreements.)
    [Non-U.S. companies electing to sponsor their ADR's are often
interested in putting their names and products prominently before the
American public. This may result in a direct relationship with American
investors, customers and suppliers. An Exchange listing requires that a
company sponsor its ADR'S.]
* * * * *

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

    In its filing with the Commission, NYSE included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change, as
amended, 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. NYSE 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 D
    NYSE proposes to amend Section 103.04 of the Exchange's Listed
Company Manual (the ``Manual''). Section 103.04 currently requires that
the depositary agreement entered into between a non-U.S. company and an
American depository bank must provide that services such as cash and
stock dividend payments, transfer of ownership, and distribution of
company financial statements and notices, such as shareholder meeting
material, be provided to ADR holders free of charge. The Exchange
proposes to eliminate this requirement.
    The Exchange represents that Section 103.04 of the Manual dates
from a time when companies listed ordinary shares in their home market
and ADRs on NYSE. Historically, when an issuer listed a sponsored ADR
security, trading would occur both in the underlying security in the
home country and in the ADRs on the Exchange. As a result, the Exchange
states, conversions between the underlying security and the ADR
provided significant revenue for the depositary bank. In addition, at
that time, the Exchange asserts, the market for depositary services was
less competitive and institutional investors played a more limited role
in influencing issuer and bank practices.
    The Exchange asserts that today, however, depositary receipts have
become a preferred method of equity financing and are listed on
exchanges around the world. Moreover, the Exchange represents that it
is now not unusual for issuers from developing markets, such as China
and other Asian countries, to list ADRs in the United States without
also listing the underlying securities in their home market. The
Exchange represents that because no other U.S. or overseas market
limits the fees that depositary banks can charge ADR holders, it
believes that the practical effect of Section 103.04 of the Manual is
to increasingly foreclose the Exchange as a listing market for Asian
issuers. As a result of a lack of potential conversion revenue, the
Exchange argues that the effect of Section 103.04 of the Manual is to
place the depositary bank at an economic disadvantage if the issuer
lists its ADRs on the Exchange. Thus, the Exchange believes that NYSE's
limitation on the fees that can be

charged to ADR holders has become an impediment to intermarket
competition both within the United States and with international
listing venues.
    Moreover, NYSE notes that fees applicable to ADR holders are
clearly disclosed in the company's registration statement when a
company registers its ADRs and the underlying securities with the
Commission in connection with listing on a U.S. market. The deposit
agreement, which sets forth the applicable fees, is also required to be
filed as an exhibit to the company's registration statement and to the
depositary bank's registration statement on Form F-6.
    NYSE also believes that the competition among the depositary banks
in the sponsored ADR market serves to regulate the fees that banks
charge to ADR holders. In light of these developments, the Exchange no
longer feels that it is necessary or appropriate for NYSE to regulate
fees for ADR holders.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the statutory basis for the proposed
rule change, as amended, is the requirement under Section 6(b)(5) of
the Act \6\ that an exchange have rules that are designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to, and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    NYSE has designated the foregoing rule change, as amended, as a
``non-controversial'' rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii)
of the Act \7\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder \8\ because the rule
change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors
or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on
competition; or (iii) become operative for 30 days from the day 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. The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the
five-day pre-filing requirement and the 30-day operative delay period
for ``non-controversial'' proposals and make the proposed rule change,
as amended, effective and operative upon filing. The Commission hereby
grants the request. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day
operative delay for the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest because other
national securities exchanges do not have similar restrictions on
depositary bank fees in their listing standards.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \9\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the
Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ For purposes of calculating the 60-day period within which
the Commission may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change, as
amended, under Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, the Commission
considers the period to commence on June 12, 2006, the date on which
NYSE submitted Amendment No. 1. See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-NYSE-2006-42 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-NYSE-2006-42. 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 such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of NYSE. 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-NYSE-2006-42 and should be submitted on or before July 11, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-9606 Filed 6-19-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 7 (Tuesday, January 12, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1438-1439]
[FR Doc No: 2016-00341]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0973]

Random Drug Testing Rate for Covered Crewmembers for 2016

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of minimum random drug testing rate.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has set the calendar year 2016 minimum random
drug testing rate at 25 percent of covered crewmembers.

DATES: The minimum random drug testing rate is effective January 1,
2016 through December 31, 2016. Marine employers must submit their 2015
Management Information System (MIS) reports no later than March 15,
2016.

ADDRESSES: Annual MIS reports may be submitted by electronic submission
to the following Internet address: http://homeport.uscg.mil/Drugtestreports.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this notice,
please contact Mr. Patrick Mannion, Drug and Alcohol Program Manager,
Office of Investigations and Casualty Analysis (CG-INV), U.S. Coast
Guard Headquarters, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard requires marine employers to
establish random drug testing programs for covered crewmembers on
inspected and uninspected vessels in accordance with 46 CFR 16.230.
Every marine employer is required by 46 CFR 16.500 to collect and
maintain a record of drug testing program data for each calendar year,
and submit this data by 15 March of the following year to the Coast
Guard in an annual MIS report.
    Each year, the Coast Guard will publish a notice reporting the
results of random drug testing for the previous calendar year's MIS
data and the minimum annual percentage rate for

random drug testing for the next calendar year. The purpose of setting
a minimum random drug testing rate is to assist the Coast Guard in
analyzing its current approach for deterring and detecting illegal drug
abuse in the maritime industry.
    The Coast Guard announces that the minimum random drug testing rate
for calendar year 2016 is 25 percent. The Coast Guard may increase this
rate if MIS data indicates a qualitative deficiency of reported data or
the positive random testing rate is greater than 1.0 percent in
accordance with 46 CFR 16.230(f)(2). MIS data for 2015 indicates that
the positive rate is less than one percent industry-wide (0.87
percent).
    For 2016, the minimum random drug testing rate will continue at 25
percent of covered employees for the period of January 1, 2016 through
December 31, 2016 in accordance with 46 CFR 16.230(e).

    Dated: January 6, 2016.
Verne B. Gifford, Jr.,
Captain, USCG, Director of Inspections and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2016-00341 Filed 1-11-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P