[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 139 (Friday, July 19, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43115-43118]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17378]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0023; FRL-9392-9]

Receipt of Several Pesticide Petitions Filed for Residues of
Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of filing of petitions and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces the Agency's receipt of several
initial filings of pesticide petitions requesting the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or
on various commodities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 19, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number and the pesticide petition number (PP) of interest as shown
in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (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 http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. Additional
instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more
information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A contact person, with telephone
number and email address, is listed at the end of each pesticide
petition summary. You may also reach each contact person by mail at
Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (BPPD) (7511P) or
Registration Division (RD) (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001.

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:
    [emsp14]Crop production (NAICS code 111).
    [emsp14]Animal production (NAICS code 112).
    [emsp14]Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
    [emsp14]Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a

particular entity, consult the person listed at the end of the
pesticide petition summary of interest.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides
discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

II. What action is the Agency taking?

    EPA is announcing its receipt of several pesticide petitions filed
under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),
21 U.S.C. 346a, requesting the establishment or modification of
regulations in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in
or on various food commodities. The Agency is taking public comment on
the requests before responding to the petitioners. EPA is not proposing
any particular action at this time. EPA has determined that the
pesticide petitions described in this document contain the data or
information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not
fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or
whether the data support granting of the pesticide petitions. After
considering the public comments, EPA intends to evaluate whether and
what action may be warranted. Additional data may be needed before EPA
can make a final determination on these pesticide petitions.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of each of the petitions
that are the subject of this document, prepared by the petitioner, is
included in a docket EPA has created for each rulemaking. The docket
for each of the petitions is available online at http://www.regulations.gov.
    As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), EPA
is publishing notice of the petition so that the public has an
opportunity to comment on this request for the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food
commodities. Further information on the petition may be obtained
through the petition summary referenced in this unit.

New Tolerance

    1. PP 2E8083. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0791). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), IR-4 Project Headquarters, 500 College Rd.
East, Suite 201 W., Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to establish
tolerances in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the herbicide linuron,
(3-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-1-methoxy-1-methylurea), and its metabolites
convertible to 3,4-dichloroaniline, calculated as linuron, in or on
cilantro, dried leaves at 27 parts per million (ppm); cilantro, fresh
leaves at 3.0 ppm; coriander, seed at 0.01; dill, oil at 4.8 ppm; dill,
seed at 0.3 ppm; dillweed, dried leaves at 7.1 ppm; dillweed, fresh
leaves at 1.5 ppm; horseradish at 0.05 ppm; parsley, dry leaves at 8.3
ppm; parsley, leaves at 3.0 ppm; and pea, dry, seed at 0.08 ppm.
Adequate enforcement methods are available for the determination of
linuron in plant and animal commodities. A gas chromatography/mass
spectroscopy (GC/MS) detection method involves hydrolysis of linuron
and all metabolites by alkaline reflux to 3,4-dichloroaniline, followed
by distillation of the 3,4-dichloroaniline into an acid solution. A
second method involves extraction of linuron and metabolites using
methanol and clean-up of the extract by using an ENVI-Carb solid phase
extraction (SPE) column, elution of linuron and its metabolites using
methanol followed by methanol-toluene, and concentration of the eluate.
The eluate is dissolved in methanol, filtered, and analyzed for linuron
and its metabolites using reversed phase high pressure liquid
chromatography (HPLC) with MS/MS detection. Contact: Laura Nollen,
(RD),<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    2. PP 3E8170. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0235). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), IR-4 Project Headquarters, 500 College Rd.
East, Suite 201 W., Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to establish
tolerances in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the insecticide
chlorantraniliprole, 3-bromo-N-[4-chloro-2-methyl-6-[(methylamino)-
carbonyl]phenyl]-1-(3-chloro-2-pyridinyl)-1H-pyrazole-5-carboxamide, in
or on fruit, stone, group12, except cherry, chickasaw plum, and damson
plum at 4.0 ppm; nut, tree, group 14-12 at 0.04 ppm; papaya at 4.0 ppm;
passionfruit at 4.0 ppm; onion, green, subgroup 3-07B at 3.0 ppm; and
spice, subgroup19B at 40 ppm. Since chlorantraniliprole and its
metabolic degradates are not of toxicological concern, analytical
methods are not applicable. Contact: Laura Nollen, (RD), (703) 305-
7390, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. PP 2F8131. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0035). E.I. du Pont de Nemours and
Co., 1007 Market St., Wilmington, DE 19898, requests to establish
tolerances in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the herbicide
rimsulfuron, in or on sorghum, forage; sorghum, grain; and sorghum,
stover at 0.01 ppm. The analytical method DuPont-32277 using reversed-
phase high-performance liquid chromatography with electrospray
ionization and tandem mass

spectroscopy (HPLC/ESI-MS/MS) detection is used to measure and evaluate
the chemical rimsulfuron. Contact: Mindy Ondish, (RD),<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    4. PP 2F8132. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0034). E.I. du Pont de Nemours and
Co., 1007 Market St., Wilmington, DE 19898, requests to establish
tolerances in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the herbicide
nicosulfuron, in or on sorghum, forage at 0.4 ppm; sorghum, grain at
0.8 ppm; and sorghum, stover at 0.05 ppm. The analytical method DuPont-
32277 using reversed-phase HPLC/ESI-MS/MS detection is used to measure
and evaluate the chemical nicosulfuron and its metabolite, IN-V9367.
Contact: Mindy Ondish, (RD),<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    5. PP 3F8179. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0476). Dow AgroSciences, LLC, 9330
Zionsville Rd., Indianapolis, IN 46268, requests to establish a
tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the insecticide
methoxyfenozide, including its metabolites and degradates. Compliance
with the tolerance levels is to be determined by measuring only the
active ingredient: Methoxyfenozide, (3-methoxy-2-methylbenzoic acid 2-
(3,5-dimethylbenzoyl) -2-(1,1-dimethylethyl) hydrazide), in or on
pineapple at 0.7 ppm. The proposed tolerance is supported by magnitude
of residue studies in pineapple. Liquid chromatography-mass
spectroscopy (LC-MS/MS) detection methodology is available for
tolerance enforcement. Contact: Olga Odiott, (RD),<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Amended Tolerance

    1. PP 2E8083. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0791). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), IR-4 Project Headquarters, 500 College Rd.
East, Suite 201 W., Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to amend the
tolerance in 40 CFR 180.184(c) by deleting the regional tolerance for
residues of the herbicide linuron, (3-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-1-methoxy-1-
methylurea) and its metabolites convertible to 3,4-dichloroaniline,
calculated as linuron, in or on parsley, leaves at 0.25 ppm. Contact:
Laura Nollen, (RD),<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    2. PP 3F8152. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0411). Bayer CropScience, 2 TW
Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, requests to amend the
tolerance in 40 CFR 180.608 for residues of the insecticide
spirodiclofen, 3-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-2-oxo-1-oxaspiro[4,5]dec-3-en-4-
yl ester 2,2-dimethylbutanoate, in or on citrus, oil from 20 ppm to 35
ppm. Adequate analytical methodology using LC/MS/MS detection is
available for enforcement purposes. Contact: Rita Kumar, (RD), (703)
308-8291, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. PP 3F8161. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0477). BASF Corporation, 26 Davis
Dr., P.O. Box 13528, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3528, requests to
amend the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.666 for residues of the insecticide
fluxapyroxad (BAS 700 F), 1H-pyrazole-4-carboxamide,3-(difluoromethyl)-
1-methyl-N-(3',4',5'-trifluoro[1,1'-biphenyl]-2-yl)-, its metabolites,
and degradates, in or on fruit, stone, group 12 from 2.0 ppm to 3.0
ppm. Independently validated analytical methods have been submitted for
analyzing residues of parent fluxapyroxad (BAS 700 F) plus metabolites
M700F008, M700F048, and M700F002 with appropriate sensitivity in/on
fruit, stone, group 12 crops, represented by cherry, peach, and plum
for which tolerances have been established. Contact: Olga Odiott, (RD),
(703) 308-9369, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
New Tolerance Exemption

    1. PP 2E8094. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0265). The Clorox Company (Clorox),
1221 Broadway, Oakland, CA 94612-1888, requests to establish an
exemption from the requirement of tolerance for residues of saturated
aliphatic acyclic linear primary alcohols, aldehydes, and acids, under
40 CFR 180.940, when used as pesticide inert ingredients (fragrances)
in pesticide formulations used on food-contact surfaces when applied/
used in indoor residential settings at a maximum rate of 0.025%.
Because Clorox is petitioning for an exemption from the requirement of
a tolerance, an enforcement analytical method is not needed. Contact:
David Lieu, (RD),<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    2. PP 2E8116. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0286). OhSo Clean, Inc., 315 Pacific
Ave., San Francisco, CA 94111, requests to establish an exemption from
the requirement of a tolerance for residues of copper sulfate
pentahydrate (Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number (CAS No.)
7758-99-8), under 40 CFR 180.940(a), when used as a pesticide inert
ingredient in antimicrobial pesticide formulations applied to food-
contact surfaces in public eating places, dairy processing equipment,
and food processing equipment and utensils. An analytical method is not
required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is establishing an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical
limitation. Contact: David Lieu, (RD),<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. PP 2F7998. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0102). Linde Electronics and
Specialty Gases, One Greenwich St., Suite 100, Stewartsville, NJ 08886,
requests to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance
for residues of the insecticide ethyl formate in or on fumigated
agricultural commodities. The GC analytical method is available to EPA
for the detection and measurement of the pesticide residues. Contact:
Cheryl Greene, (BPPD),<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    4. PP 3F8149. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0253). Bayer CropScience LP,
Biologics, P.O. Box 12014, 2 T.W. Alexander Dr., Research Triangle
Park, NC 27709, requests to establish an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of the insecticide Streptomyces
microflavus, strain AQ 6121, in or on all agricultural commodities. The
petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because it is
expected that, when used as proposed, Streptomyces microflavus, strain
AQ 6121, would not result in residues of toxicological concern.
Contact: Michael Glikes, (BPPD),<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    5. PP IN-10547. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0444). Oro-Agri, Inc., 990 Trophy
Club Dr., Trophy Club, TX 76262, requests to establish an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of sweet orange peel
tincture (CAS No. 8028-48-6) under 40 CFR 180.910 for pre- and post-
harvest crops when used as a pesticide inert ingredient (surfactant and
fragrance) when contained at concentrations up to 10% in pesticide
formulations and applied to agricultural crops, pre-plant through post-
harvest. The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because
this information is not required for the establishment of a tolerance
exemption. Contact: Lisa Austin, (RD),<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    6. PP IN-10553. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0284). Syngenta Crop Protection,
LLC, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419[hyphen]8300, requests to
establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues
of polyurethane[hyphen]type polymers (CAS Nos.
1161844[hyphen]26[hyphen]3, 1161844[hyphen]30[hyphen]9,
1161844[hyphen]43[hyphen]4, 1161844[hyphen]51[hyphen]4,
1161844[hyphen]53[hyphen]6, 693252[hyphen]31[hyphen]2,
162993[hyphen]60[hyphen]4, and 630102[hyphen]86[hyphen]2), under 40 CFR
180.960, when used as a pesticide inert ingredient (carrier) in or on
raw agricultural commodities and

food products. Tolerance exemption descriptors for polymers produced by
the reaction of either 1,6[hyphen]hexane-diisocyanate;
2,4,4[hyphen]trimethyl[hyphen]1,6[hyphen] hexanediisocyanate;
5[hyphen]isocyanato[hyphen]1[hyphen]
(isocyanatomethyl)[hyphen]1,3,3[hyphen]trimethyIcyclohexane
(isophoronediisocyanate); 4,4'[hyphen] methylene[hyphen]bis[hyphen]1,
1'[hyphen]cyclohexanediisocyanate;
4,4'[hyphen]methylene[hyphen]bis[hyphen]1,1'benzyldiisocyanate; or
1,3[hyphen]bis[hyphen](2[hyphen]isocyanatopropan[hyphen]2[hyphen]yl)benz
ene with polyethylenglycol and end[hyphen]capped with one or a mixture
of more than one of octanol, decanol, dodecanol, tetradecanol,
hexadecanol, octadecanol, and octadec[hyphen]9[hyphen]enol or
polyethyleneglycol ethers of octanol, decanol, dodecanol, tetradecanol,
hexadecanol, octadecanol, and octadec[hyphen]9[hyphen]enol. An
analytical method to determine the molecular weight of the polymer is
dynamic light scattering. The petitioner believes no analytical method
is needed because this information is not required for the
establishment of a tolerance exemption. Contact: William D. Cutchin,
(RD),<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    7. PP IN-10559. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0383). Evonik Goldschmidt Corp.,
P.O. Box 1299, Hopewell, VA 23860, requests to establish an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of 2,5-furandione,
polymer with ethenylbenzene, hydrolyzed, 3-(dimethylamino)propyl imide,
imide with polyethylene-polypropylene glycol 2-aminopropyl Me ether,
2,2'-(1, 2-diazenediyl)bis[2-methylbutanenitrile]- initiated, minimum
number average molecular weight (in AMU) 5,816 (CAS No. 1062609-13-5),
under 40 CFR 180.960, when used as a pesticide inert ingredient
(functioning as a dispersant) in pesticide formulations. The petitioner
believes no analytical method is needed because this information is not
required for the establishment of a tolerance exemption. Contact: David
Lieu, (RD),<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    8. PP IN-10565. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0467). Huntsman Corp., 8600
Gosling Rd., The Woodlands, TX 77381, requests to establish an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of
cumenesulfonic acid and its ammonium, calcium, magnesium, potassium,
sodium, and zinc salts with no limits when used as pesticide inert
ingredients (surfactants, related adjuvants of surfactants) in
pesticide formulations under 40 CFR 180.920 and 180.930, in or on all
the raw agricultural commodities, including the following with Chemical
Abstracts Service Registry Numbers (CASRNs): Benzenesulfonic acid, 4-
(1-methylethyl)-, sodium salt (15763-76-5); benzenesulfonic acid, 4-(1-
methylethyl)- (16066-35-6); benzenesulfonic acid, 4-(1-methylethyl)-,
potassium salt (164524-02-1); benzenesulfonic acid, (1-methylethyl)-,
potassium salt (28085-69-0); benzenesulfonic acid, (1-methylethyl)-,
sodium salt (1:1) (28348-53-0); benzenesulfonic acid, 2(or 4)-(1-
methylethyl)- (28631-63-2); benzene, (1-methylethyl)-, monosulfo
deriv., sodium salt (1:1) (32073-22-6); benzenesulfonic acid, (1-
methylethyl)-, ammonium salt (1:1) (37475-88-0); benzenesulfonic acid,
(1-methylethyl)- (37953-05-2); benzenesulfonic acid, (1-methylethyl)-,
magnesium salt (90959-88-9). Prior to the submission of this petition
to add cumenesulfonate CASRNs, the EPA reapproved toluenesulfonate and
xylenesulfonate hydrotropes in the EPA Decision Documents dated 9/14/
2006 and 6/30/2006. The combined documents are available at http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/inerts/xylenesulfonic.pdf. Huntsman Corp. is
relying on the information in that combined EPA Decision Document to
support this petition which includes a chemistry that was also in the
Screening Information Data Set (SIDS) Initial Assessment Report for
hdrotropes. The SIDS hydrotropes category included cumenesulfonates,
toluenesulfonates, and xylenesulfonates. In fact, cumenesulfonate data
was used to support the reassessment of the toluenesulfonates and
xylenesulfonates in the EPA Decision Document. Huntsman Corp. does not
expect the addition of these cumenesulfonate CASRNs to result in
additional exposure or risk, and no new data is being submitted with
this petition. The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed
because this information is not required for the establishment of a
tolerance exemption. Contact: William D. Cutchin, (RD),<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Amended Tolerance Exemption

    1. PP IN-10544. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0210). Akzo Nobel Surface
Chemistry, LLC, 525 West Van Buren, Chicago, IL 60607-3823, requests to
amend an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance under 40 CFR
180.920, 180.930, or 180.960, for residues of [alpha]-alkyl-[omega]-
hydroxypoly (oxypropylene) and/or poly(oxyethylene) polymers where the
alkyl chain contains a minimum of six carbons, and alkyl-w-hydroxypoly
(oxypropylene) and/or poly (oxyethylene) polymers where the alkyl chain
contains a minimum of six carbons, minimum number average molecular
weight (in AMU) 1,100 in or on the raw agricultural commodity growing
crops at no limitation. An analytical method is not required for
enforcement purposes since the Agency is establishing an exemption from
the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.
Contact: William D. Cutchin, (RD),<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    2. PP IN-10551. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0381). Akzo Nobel Surface
Chemistry, LLC, 909 Mueller Dr., Chattanooga, TN 37406, requests to
revise an existing exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for
modified acrylic polymers in 40 CFR 180.960. Akzo Nobel Surface
Chemistry, LLC, is requesting that the exemption be revised to include
lauryl methacrylate by inserting lauryl methacrylate after hydroxyethyl
acrylate and before the following text ``and its sodium, potassium,
ammonium, monoethanolamine and triethanolamine salts; the resulting
polymer having a minimum number average molecular weight (in amu),
1200.'' This entry begins with the following: Styrene, copolymers with
acrylic acid. The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed
because this information is not required for the establishment of a
tolerance exemption. Contact: Mark Dow, (RD),<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
List of Subjects

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

    Dated: July 11, 2013.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2013-17378 Filed 7-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 12, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 69)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 18402]
[DOCID:fr12ap10-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0831; Airspace Docket No. 09-ANM-13]

Amendment of Class E Airspace; North Bend, OR

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action will modify Class D airspace at Southwest Oregon
Regional Airport, North Bend, OR, to allow aircraft at Sunnyhill
Airport to arrive and depart outside Class D airspace. This action is
necessary for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules
(IFR) aircraft utilizing both airports.

DATES: Effective date, 0901 UTC, June 3, 2010. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On November 9, 2009, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking to establish additional controlled
airspace at North Bend, OR (74 FR 57616). Interested parties were
invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written
comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.
    Class D airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000 of
FAA Order 7400.9T signed August 27, 2009, and effective September 15,
2009, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class
D airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in that Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by modifying the Class D airspace area at North Bend, OR.
Controlled airspace is needed extending upward from the surface to and
including 2,500 feet MSL within a 4.2-mile radius of Southwest Oregon
Regional Airport, excluding that airspace within a 1.5-mile radius of
Sunnyhill Airport. The exclusion will allow aircraft at Sunnyhill
Airport to arrive and depart outside the Class D airspace. This rule
will enhance IFR operations at both airports.
    The FAA has determined this regulation only involves an established
body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments
are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this
regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to
issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S.
Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 discusses the authority of the FAA
Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more
detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is
promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A,
Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with
prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to
ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This
regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies
controlled airspace at Southwest Oregon Regional Airport, North Bend,
OR.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9T, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, signed August 27, 2009, and effective September 15,
2009, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D airspace.

* * * * *

ANM OR D North Bend, OR [Modified]

Southwest Oregon Regional Airport, OR
    (Lat. 43[deg]25'01'' N., long. 124[deg]14'49'' W.)
Sunnyhill Airport, OR
    (Lat. 43[deg]28'59'' N., long. 124[deg]12'10'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2,500 feet MSL within a 4.2-mile radius of the Southwest Oregon
Regional Airport, excluding that airspace within a 1.5-mile radius
of Sunnyhill Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during
the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to
Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously
published in the Airport/Facility Directory.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on April 5, 2010.
Robert E. Henry,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2010-8193 Filed 4-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 15, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16001-16002]
[FR Doc No: 2023-05289]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 4639-033]

Ampersand Christine Falls Hydro, LLC; Notice of Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Subsequent Minor License.
    b. Project No.: 4639-033.
    c. Date filed: September 29, 2021.
    d. Applicant: Ampersand Christine Falls Hydro, LLC (Ampersand).
    e. Name of Project: Christine Falls Hydroelectric Project
(Christine Falls Project or project).
    f. Location: On the Sacandaga River near the Village of Speculator,
Hamilton County, New York. The project does not occupy any federal
land.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Sayad Moudachirou, Licensing Manager,
Ampersand Christine Falls Hydro LLC, 717 Atlantic Avenue, Suite 1A,
Boston, MA 02111, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email:
[email protected]; and Mr. Jason Huang, Asset Manager,
Ampersand Christine Falls Hydro LLC, 717 Atlantic Avenue, Suite 1A,
Boston, MA 02111, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email:
[email protected].
    i. FERC Contact: Andy Bernick at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
[email protected].
    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests: 60 days
from the issuance date of this notice.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
motions to intervene and protests using the Commission's eFiling system
at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. For assistance, please
contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-
3676 (toll free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY). In lieu of electronic
filing, you may submit a paper copy. Submissions sent via the U.S.
Postal Service must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A,
Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be
addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852. All
filings must clearly identify the project name and docket number on the
first page: Christine Falls Hydroelectric Project (P-4639-033).
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.
    k. This application has been accepted but is not ready for
environmental analysis.
    l. The Christine Falls Project consists of the following existing
facilities: (1) a 15-foot-high, 152.6-foot-long concrete gravity dam
(includes both abutments), with 3-foot-high wooden flashboards
installed along the crest of the 135-foot-long spillway; (2) a
reservoir with a surface area of 1.1 acres and a storage capacity of 4-
acre feet at a normal water surface elevation of 1,699.7 feet National
Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD29); (3) an intake structure; (4)
a 613-foot-long steel penstock with a diameter of 6 feet that
bifurcates into 3-foot-diameter, 45-foot-long and 4-foot-diameter, 32-
foot-long penstocks; (5) a brick and concrete powerhouse containing two
turbine-generator units (i.e., one 275-kilowatt (kW) unit and one 575-
kW unit) with a total capacity of 850 kW; (7) a tailrace with a depth
of 21 feet; (8) a 610-foot-long bypassed reach; (9) a 185-foot-long
underground transmission line connecting the generating units to a
1,000-kilovolt-ampere step-up transformer; (10) a 9,315-foot-long,
4.16/13.2-kilovolt underground transmission line from the transformer
to a point of interconnection; and (11) appurtenant facilities.
    The Christine Falls Project is operated in a run-of-river mode,
with a minimum flow of 25 cubic feet per second (cfs) into the bypassed
reach during the months of March, April, and May, and a minimum flow of
10 cfs during the remainder of the year. The project has an average
annual generation of 2,478 megawatt-hours.
    Ampersand proposes to operate the project in a strict run-of-river
mode with an impoundment level fluctuation limit of 3 inches from the
dam crest or flashboards when in place. As described

in its October 11, 2022, settlement agreement with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, American Whitewater, and the New York State Council of
Trout Unlimited, Ampersand proposes the following changes to project
operation and facilities: (1) providing two seasonal minimum flow
regimes over the spillway and through the bypass gate: (a) a 15 cubic
feet per second (cfs) minimum flow or inflow, whichever is less, from
June 1 to October 31, and (b) a 35 cfs minimum flow or inflow,
whichever is less, from November 1 to May 31; (2) installing trash
racks with 1-inch clear spacing or the equivalent (e.g., an overlay-
type system) whereby approach velocities are less than or equal to 2
feet per second, as measured 1 foot in front of the trash racks; and
(3) installing and maintaining a year-round downstream fish passage
structure. Ampersand also proposes to remove the existing 9,315-foot-
long transmission line from the project, stating that the line also
provides power to the project from the grid and thus should not be
considered a primary transmission line.
    m. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested individuals an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (www.ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. At this time, the Commission has suspended access to
the Commission's Public Access Room due to the proclamation declaring a
National Emergency concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19),
issued by the President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC
at [email protected] or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    n. Anyone may submit a protest or a motion to intervene in
accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18
CFR 385.210, 385.211, and 385.214. In determining the appropriate
action to take, the Commission will consider all protests filed, but
only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any protests
or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
deadline date for the particular application.
    All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title
``PROTEST'' or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE;'' (2) set forth in the heading
the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005.
Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the
applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served
upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular
application.
    o. Procedural schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following schedule. Revisions to the schedule will be made as
appropriate.

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue Scoping Document 1 for comments.....  March 2023.
Scoping Document 1 comments due...........  April 2023.
Issue Scoping Document 2 (if necessary)...  May 2023.
Issue Notice of Ready for Environmental     May 2023.
 Analysis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: March 9, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-05289 Filed 3-14-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


     UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

                             OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFTEY
AND POLLUTION PREVENTION

RE:  	Meeting with American Chemistry Council (ACC), North American Modern Building Alliance (NAMBA) and EPA to discuss risk management for cyclic aliphatic bromide cluster (HBCD)

List of Documents
 Meeting Summary
 Attendees
Meeting Summary
On August 17th, 2021, EPA held a conference call with the American Chemistry Council (ACC) and the North American Modern Building Alliance (NAMBA) to discuss risk management options for cyclic aliphatic bromide cluster (HBCD).

Attendees
EPA:
Tanya Mottley
Erik Winchester
Robert Courtnage
Timothy Lehman
Sarah Cox
Sharay Dixon
Sue Slotnick
Doug Parsons
Brian Symmes

ACC and NAMBA:
David Mann
Christina Franz
Julie Panko
Suzanne Hartigan
Walter Reiter
John Heinze


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 25, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50534-50541]
[FR Doc No: 2019-20706]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87014; File No. SR-BOX-2019-27]

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 (``BOX'') Facility To Establish
BOX Connectivity Fees for Participants and Non-Participants Who Connect
to the BOX Network

September 19, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on September 5, 2019, BOX Exchange LLC (the ``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 on
the BOX Options Market LLC (``BOX'') facility. 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 http://boxexchange.com.

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 VI. (Technology Fees) of the
BOX Fee Schedule to establish BOX Connectivity Fees for Participants
and non-Participants who connect to the BOX network. Connectivity fees
will be based upon the amount of bandwidth that will be used by the
Participant or non-Participant. Further, BOX Participants or non-
Participants connected as of the last trading day of each calendar
month will be charged the applicable Connectivity Fee for that month.
The Connectivity Fees will be as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Connection type                       Monthly fees
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-10 Gb Connection......................  $1,000 per connection.
10 Gb Connection..........................  $5,000 per connection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Exchange also proposes to amend certain language and numbering in
Section VI.A to reflect the changes discussed above. Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to add the title ``Third Party Connectivity Fees''
under Section VI.A. Further, the Exchange proposes to add Section
VI.A.2, which details the proposed BOX Connectivity Fees discussed
above. Finally the Exchange is proposing to remove Section VI.C. High
Speed Vendor Feed (``HSVF''), and reclassify the HSVF as a Port Fee.
    The Exchange initially filed the proposed fees on July 19, 2018,
designating the proposed fees effective July 1, 2018. The first
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on August 2, 2018.\5\ The Commission received one comment letter on the
proposal.\6\ The proposed fees remained in effect until they were
temporarily suspended pursuant to a suspension order (the ``Suspension
Order'') issued by the Division of Trading and Markets, which also
instituted proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove
the proposed rule change.\7\ The Commission subsequently received one
further comment letter on the proposed rule change, supporting the
decision to suspend and institute proceedings on the proposed fee
change.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83728 (July 27,
2018), 83 FR 37853 (August 2, 2018) (SR-BOX-2018-24).
    \6\ See Letter from Tyler Gellasch, Executive Director, The
Healthy Markets Association, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary,
Commission, dated August 23, 2018 (``Healthy Markets Letter'').
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-84168 (September
17, 2018).
    \8\ See Letter from Theodore R. Lazo, Managing Director and
Associate General Counsel, and Ellen Greene, Managing Director,
Financial Services Operations, Securities Industry and Financial
Markets Association, dated October 15, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the Suspension Order, the Exchange timely filed a
Notice of Intention to Petition for Review \9\ and Petition for Review
to vacate the Division's Order,\10\ which stayed the Division's
suspension of the filing. On November 16, 2018 the Commission granted
the Exchange's Petition for Review but discontinued the automatic
stay.\11\ The Exchange then filed a statement to reiterate the
arguments set for in its petition for review and to supplement that
petition with additional information.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Letter from Amir Tayrani, Partner, Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP, dated September 19, 2018.
    \10\ See Petition for Review of Order Temporarily Suspending BOX
Exchange LLC's Proposal to Amend the Fee Schedule on BOX Market LLC,
dated September 26, 2018.
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84614. Order
Granting Petition for Review and Scheduling Filing of Statements,
dated November 16, 2018. Separately, the Securities Industry and
Financial Markets Association filed an application under Section
19(d) of the Exchange Act challenging the Exchange's proposed fees
as alleged prohibitions or limitations on access. See In re
Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, Admin. Proc.
File No. 3-18680 (Aug. 24, 2018). The Commission thereafter remanded
that denial-of-access proceeding to the Exchange while
``express[ing] no view regarding the merits'' and emphasizing that
it was ``not set[ting] aside the challenged rule change[ ].'' In re
Applications of SIFMA & Bloomberg, Exchange Act Rel. No. 84433, at 2
(Oct. 16, 2018) (``Remand Order''), available at https://www.sec.gov/litigation/opinions/2018/34-84433.pdf. The Division's
Suspension Order is inconsistent with the Commission's intent in the
Remand Order to leave the challenged fees in place during the
pendency of the remand proceedings and singles out the Exchange for
disparate treatment because it means that the Exchange--unlike every
other exchange whose rule changes were the subject of the Remand
Order--is not permitted to continue charging the challenged fees
during the remand proceedings.
    \12\ See Letter from Amir Tayrani, Partner, Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP, dated December 10, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange subsequently refiled its fee proposal on November
30th, 2018. The proposed fees were noticed and again temporarily
suspended pursuant to a suspension order issued by the Division of
Trading and Markets, which also instituted proceedings to determine
whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.\13\ The
Commission received two comment letters supporting the decision to
suspend and institute proceedings on the proposed fee change.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84823 (December 14,
2018), 83 FR 65381 (December 20, 2018) (SR-BOX-2018-37).
    \14\ See Letters from Tyler Gellasch, Executive Director, The
Healthy Markets Association (``Second Healthy Markets Letter''), and
Chester Spatt, Pamela R. and Kenneth B. Dunn Professor of Finance,
Tepper School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University (``Chester
Spatt Letter''), to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated
January 2, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange again refiled its fee proposal on February 13, 2019.
The proposed fees were noticed and again temporarily suspended pursuant
to a suspension order issued by the Division of Trading and Markets,
which also instituted proceedings to determine whether to approve or
disapprove the proposed rule change.\15\ The Commission received four
comment letters supporting the decision to suspend and institute
proceedings on the proposed fee change.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85201 (February 26,
2019), 84 FR 7146 (March 1, 2019)(SR-BOX-2019-04).
    \16\ See Letters from Theodore R. Lazo, Managing Director and
Associate General Counsel, SIFMA (``Second SIFMA Comment Letter''),
Tyler Gellasch, Executive Director, Healthy Markets Association
(``Third Healthy Markets Letter''), Stefano Durdic, Former Owner of
R2G Services, LLC, and Anand Prakash.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 29, 2019, the Commission issued its Order Disapproving
each

iteration of the BOX Proposal (``BOX Order''). In the BOX Order, the
Commission highlighted a number of deficiencies it found in three
separate rule filings by BOX to establish BOX's connectivity fees that
prevented the Commission from finding that BOX's proposed connectivity
fees were consistent with the Act.
    On May 21, 2019 the Division of Trading and Markets released new
Guidance on SRO Rule Filings Relating to Fees. The Exchange then
refiled the proposed fees on June 26, 2019 to incorporate the new
guidance released by the Commission.
    The Commission received two comment letters on BOX's June 26, 2019
Proposal.\17\ The Third SIFMA Comment Letter did not request that the
Commission suspend BOX's Proposal, but rather requested that the
Commission ``carefully consider whether BOX provided sufficient
evidence to satisfy the applicable statutory standards.'' The Fourth
Healthy Markets Letter walks through the procedural history of the BOX
and MIAX filings and urges the Commission to propose reforms with
regard to immediately effective rule filings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Letter from Theodore R. Lazo, Managing Director and
Associate General Counsel, SIFMA, dated August 5, 2019 (``Third
SIFMA Comment Letter'') and Letter from Tyler Gellasch, Executive
Director, Healthy Markets Association, dated August 5, 2019
(``Fourth Healthy Markets Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is again re-filing the fee proposal (``the Proposal'')
to further bolster its cost-based discussion to support its claim that
the Proposal is fair and reasonable because they will permit recovery
of BOX costs and will not result in excessive pricing or
supracompetitive profit. The Exchange believes that the proposed fees
are consistent with the Act because they (i) are reasonable, equitably
allocated, not unfairly discriminatory, and not an undue burden on
competition; (ii) comply with the BOX Order and the Guidance; (iii)
are, as demonstrated by this Proposal and supported by evidence
(including data and analysis), constrained by significant competitive
forces; and (iv) are, as demonstrated in this Proposal and supported by
specific information (including quantitative information), fair and
reasonable because they will permit recovery of BOX's costs and will
not result in excessive pricing or supracompetitive profit.
Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the Commission should find that
the proposed fees are consistent with the Act. The proposed rule change
is immediately effective upon filing with the Commission pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act.
    As discussed herein, the Exchange believes that it is reasonable
and appropriate to begin charging for physical connectivity fees to
partially offset the costs associated with maintaining and enhancing a
state-of-the-art exchange network infrastructure in the US options
industry. There are significant costs associated with various projects
and initiatives to improve overall network performance and stability,
as well as costs paid to the third-party data centers for space rental,
power used, etc.
    BOX has always offered physical connectivity to Participants and
non-Participants to access the BOX's trading platforms, market data,
test systems and disaster recovery facilities. These physical
connections consist of 10Gb and non-10Gb connections, where the 10Gb
connection provides for faster processing of messages sent to it in
comparison to the non-10Gb connection. Since launching in 2012, BOX has
not charged for physical connectivity and has instead relied on
transaction fees as the basis of revenue. However, in recent years
transaction fees have continually decreased across the options
industry. At the same time these transactions fees were decreasing, the
options exchanges, except for BOX, began charging physical connectivity
fees to market participants. As such, BOX began to find itself at a
significant competitive disadvantage, and had no choice but to begin
charging Participants and non-Participants fees for connecting directly
to the BOX network (which BOX has taken considerable measures to
maintain and enhance for the benefit of those Participants and non-
Participants) in order to remain competitive with the other options
exchanges in the industry.
    As discussed in the Exchange's recent Petition for Review of the
Commission's Order Disapproving BOX's three filings, not allowing BOX
to charge such connectivity fees arbitrarily and inequitably treats BOX
differently from each of the other exchanges that submitted prior
immediately effective connectivity fee filings that were not suspended
or disapproved by the Commission.\18\ The Exchange notes that all other
options exchanges currently charge for similar physical
connectivity.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85927. Order
Granting Petition for Review and Scheduling Filing of Statements,
dated May 23, 2019.
    \19\ Nasdaq PHLX LLC (``Phlx''), The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC
(``Nasdaq''), NYSE Arca, Inc. (``Arca''), NYSE American LLC (``NYSE
American''), Nasdaq ISE, LLC (``ISE''), Cboe Exchange, Inc.
(``Cboe''), Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``CboeBZX''), Cboe EDGX
Exchange, Inc. (``CboeEDGX'') and Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (``C2'')
all offer a type of 10Gb and non-10Gb connectivity alternative to
their participants. See Phlx, and ISE Rules, General Equity and
Options Rules, General 8, Section 1(b). Phlx and ISE each charge a
monthly fee of $2,500 for each 1Gb connection, $10,000 for each 10Gb
connection and $15,000 for each 10Gb Ultra connection, which is the
equivalent of the Exchange's 10Gb ULL connection. See also Nasdaq
Price List--Trading Connectivity. Nasdaq charges a monthly fee of
$7,500 for each 10Gb direct connection to Nasdaq and $2,500 for each
direct connection that supports up to 1Gb. See also NYSE American
Fee Schedule, Section V.B, and Arca Fees and Charges, Co-Location
Fees. NYSE American and Arca each charge a monthly fee of $5,000 for
each 1Gb circuit, $14,000 for each 10Gb circuit and $22,000 for each
10Gb LX circuit, which is the equivalent of the Exchange's 10Gb ULL
connection. See also Cboe, CboeBZX, CboeEDGX and C2 Fee Schedules.
Cboe charges monthly quoting and order entry bandwidth packet fees.
Specifically, Cboe charges $1,600 for the 1st through 5th packet,
$800 for the 6th through 8th packet, $400 for the 9th through 13th
packet and $200 for the 14th packet and each additional packet.
CboeBZX, CboeEDGX and C2 each charge a monthly fee of $2,500 for
each 1Gb connection and $7,500 for each 10Gb connection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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,\20\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for
competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices,
products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS,
the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and, also recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed fees in general constitute
an equitable allocation of fees, and are not unfairly discriminatory,
because they allow BOX to recover costs associated with offering access
through the network connections. The proposed fees are also expected to
offset the costs both the Exchange and BOX incur in maintaining and
implementing ongoing improvements to the trading systems, including
connectivity costs, costs incurred on software and hardware
enhancements and resources dedicated

to software development, quality assurance, and technology support.
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b)(4) of the Act, in that the proposed fee changes are fair,
equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory, because the fees for the
connectivity alternatives available on BOX, as proposed, are
constrained by significant competitive forces. The U.S. options markets
are highly competitive (there are currently 16 options markets) and a
reliance on competitive markets is an appropriate means to ensure
equitable and reasonable prices.
    The Exchange acknowledges that there is no regulatory requirement
that any market participant connect to BOX, or that any participant
connect at any specific connection speed. The rule structure for
options exchanges are, in fact, fundamentally different from those of
equities exchanges. In particular, options market participants are not
forced to connect to (and purchase market data from) all options
exchanges, as shown by the number of Participants of BOX as compared to
the much greater number of participants at other options exchanges. Not
only does BOX have less than half the number of participants as certain
other options exchanges, but there are also a number of BOX
Participants that do not connect directly to BOX. Further, of the
number of Participants that connect directly to BOX, many such
Participants do not purchase market data from BOX. In addition, of the
market makers that are connected to BOX, it is the individual needs of
the market maker that require whether they need one connection or
multiple connections to BOX. BOX has market maker Participants that
only purchase one connection (10Gb) and BOX has market maker
Participants that purchase multiple connections. It is all driven by
the business needs of the market maker. Market makers that are
consolidators that target resting order flow tend to purchase more
connectivity that market makers that simply quote all symbols on BOX.
Even though non-Participants purchase and resell 10Gb and non-10Gb
connections to both Participants and non-Participants, no market makers
currently connect to BOX indirectly through such resellers.
    In SIFMA's comment letter, they argue that all broker-dealers are
required to connect to all exchanges which is not true in the options
markets. The options markets have evolved differently than the equities
markets both in terms of market structure and functionality. For
example, there are many order types that are available in the equities
markets that are not utilized in the options markets, which relate to
mid-point pricing and pegged pricing which require connection to the
SIPs and each of the equities exchanges in order to properly execute
those orders in compliance with best execution obligations. In
addition, in the options markets there is a single SIP (OPRA) versus
two SIPs in the equities markets, resulting in few hops and thus
alleviating the need to connect directly to all the options exchanges.
Additionally, in the options markets, the linkage routing and trade
through protection are handled by the exchanges, not by the individual
participants. Thus not connecting to an options exchange or
disconnecting from an options exchange does not potentially subject a
broker-dealer to violate order protection requirements as suggested by
SIFMA. The Exchange recognizes that the decision of whether to connect
to BOX is separate and distinct from the decision of whether and how to
trade on BOX. The Exchange acknowledges that many firms may choose to
connect to BOX, but ultimately not trade on it, based on their
particular business needs.
    To assist prospective Participants or firms considering connecting
to BOX, the Exchange provides information about BOX's available
connectivity alternatives.\22\ The decision of which type of
connectivity to purchase, or whether to purchase connectivity at all
for a particular exchange, is based on the business needs of the firm.
Section 2.4 of the BOX Connectivity Guide details the bandwidth
requirements depending on the type of traffic each firm requires.
Simple Order routing requires 128 kbps of bandwidth, which could be
achieved with a non-10Gb connection, while receiving the five best
limits in all classes for the HSVF requires a 10Gb connection not
purchase such data feed products. Accordingly, purchasing market data
is a business decision/choice, and thus the pricing for it is
constrained by competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See BOX Connectivity Guide at https://boxoptions.com/assets/NET-BX-001E-BOX-Network-Connection-Specifications-v2.7.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Contrary to SIFMA's argument, there is competition for connectivity
to BOX. BOX competes with ten (10) non-Participants who resell BOX
connectivity or market data. These are resellers of BOX connectivity--
they are not arrangements between broker dealers to share connectivity
costs. Those non-Participants resell that connectivity to multiple
market participants over that same connection, including both
Participants and non-Participants of BOX. When connectivity is re-sold
by a third-party, BOX does not receive any connectivity revenue from
that sale. It is entirely between the third-party and the purchaser,
thus constraining the ability of BOX to set its connectivity pricing as
indirect connectivity is a substitute for direct connectivity. There
are currently ten (10) non-Participants that purchase connectivity to
BOX. Those non-Participants resell that connectivity or market data to
approximately twenty-seven (27) customers, some of whom are agency
broker-dealers that have tens of customers of their own. Some of those
twenty-seven (27) customers also purchase connectivity directly from
BOX. Accordingly, indirect connectivity is a viable alternative that is
already being used by non-Participants of BOX, constraining the price
that BOX is able to charge for connectivity.
    The Exchange is comprised of 51 BOX Participants. Of those 51
Participants, 13 Participants have purchased 10Gb or non-10Gb
connections or some combination of multiple various connections.
Furthermore, every Participant who has purchased at least one
connection also trades on BOX with the exception of one new Participant
who is currently in the on-boarding process. The remaining Participants
who have not purchased any connectivity to BOX are still able to trade
on BOX indirectly through other Participants or non-Participant service
bureaus that are connected. These remaining Participants who have not
purchased connectivity are not forced or compelled to purchase
connectivity, and they retain all of the other benefits of membership
with the Exchange. Accordingly, Participants and non-Participants have
the choice to purchase connectivity and are not compelled to do so in
any way.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed fees are fair, equitable
and not unreasonably discriminatory because the connectivity pricing is
associated with relative usage or the various market participants and
does not impose a barrier to entry to smaller participants.
Accordingly, BOX offers two direct connectivity alternatives and
various indirect connectivity (via third party) alternatives, as
described above. BOX recognizes that there are various business models
and varying sizes of market participants conducting business on BOX.
The non-10Gb direct connectivity alternatives \23\ are all

comprised of bandwidth of equal to or less than 1Gb and are purchased
by market participants that require less bandwidth. As stated above,
Section 2.4 of the BOX Connectivity Guide details the bandwidth
requirements depending on the type of traffic each firm requires. While
non-10Gb connections can fully support the sending of orders and the
consumption of BOX's HSVF Data Feed,\24\ these connections use less
exchange resources and network infrastructure. In contrast, market
participants that purchase 10Gb connections utilize the most bandwidth,
and those are the participants that consume the most resources from the
network. The 10Gb connection offers optimized connectivity for latency
sensitive participants and is faster in round trip time for connection
oriented traffic to BOX than the non-10Gb connection. This lower
latency is achieved through more advanced network equipment, such as
advanced hardware and switching components, which translates to
increased costs to BOX. Market participants that are less latency
sensitive can purchase non-10Gb direct connections and quote in all
products on BOX and consume the HSVF Market Data Feed, and such non-
10Gb direct connections are priced lower than the 10Gb connections,
offering smaller sized market makers a lower cost alternative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Non-10Gb connectivity alternatives are comprised of
protocol types that are at or under 1Gb bandwidth. The protocol
types are: Gigabit Ethernet, Ethernet, Fast Ethernet, Fiber Channel,
OC-3, Singlemode Fiber, ISDN, POTS and T1.
    \24\ The Exchange notes that, unlike MIAX, BOX's HSVF Data Feed
does not require a 10Gb physical connection. On BOX, the HSVF Data
Feed cab be consumed through a non-10Gb connection. On MIAX, the 1Gb
connection cannot support the consumption of the top of market data
feed or the depth data feed product--both require a 10Gb connection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A 10Gb connection uses at least ten times the network
infrastructure as the non-10Gb connections and BOX has to scale the
systems by the amount and size of all connections regardless of how
they are used.\25\ Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the
allocation of the proposed fees ($1,000 per non-10Gb connection and
$5,000 per 10Gb connection) are reasonable based on the network
resources consumed by the market participants--lower bandwidth
consuming market participants pay the least, and highest bandwidth
consuming market participants pay the most, particularly since higher
bandwidth consumption translates to higher costs to BOX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The Exchange's network infrastructure requirements are
based on the premise of all connections operating at full capacity,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Separately, the Exchange is not aware of any reason why market
participants could not simply drop their connections and cease being
BOX Participants if the Exchange were to establish unreasonable and
uncompetitive price increases for its connectivity alternatives. Market
participants choose to connect to a particular exchange and because it
is a choice, BOX must set reasonable connectivity pricing, otherwise
prospective participants would not connect and existing participants
would disconnect or connect through a third-party reseller of
connectivity. No options market participant is required by rule,
regulation, or competitive forces to be a BOX Participant.\26\ Several
market participants choose not to be BOX Participants and choose not to
access BOX, and several market participants also access BOX indirectly
through another market participant. If all market participants were
required to be Participants of each exchange and connect directly to
the exchange, all exchanges would have over 200 Participants, in line
with Cboe's total membership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Cboe Exchange Inc. has over 200 members, Nasdaq ISE, LLC
has approximately 100 members, and NYSE American LLC has over 80
members. In comparison, the BOX has 51 Participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b)(4) of the Act because the proposed fees allow the BOX to recover a
portion of the costs incurred by BOX associated with maintaining and
enhancing a state-of-the-art exchange network infrastructure in the US
options industry. Additionally, there are significant costs associated
with various projects and initiatives to improve overall network
performance and stability, as well as costs paid to the third-party
data centers for space rental, power used, etc.
    The Exchange notes that unlike its competitors, BOX does not own
its own data center and therefore cannot control data center costs.
While some of the data center expenses are fixed, much of the expenses
are not fixed, and thus increases as the number of physical connections
increase. For example, new non-10Gb and 10Gb connections require the
purchase of additional hardware to support those connections. Further,
as the total number of all connections increase, BOX needs to increase
their data center footprint and consume more power, resulting in
increased costs charged by their third-party data center provider.
    Further, as discussed herein, because the costs of operating a data
center are significant and not economically feasible for BOX, BOX does
not operate its own data centers, and instead contracts with a third-
party data center provider. The Exchange notes that larger, dominant
exchange operators own/operate their data centers, which offers them
greater control over their data center costs. Because those exchanges
own and operate their data centers as profit centers, BOX is subject to
additional costs. Connectivity fees, which are charged for accessing
the BOX's data center network infrastructure, are directly related to
the network and offset such costs.
    As discussed herein, the Exchange now believes that it is
reasonable and appropriate to begin charging for physical connectivity
fees to partially offset the costs associated with maintaining and
enhancing a state-of-the-art exchange network infrastructure in the US
options industry. There are significant costs associated with various
projects and initiatives to improve overall network performance and
stability, as well as costs paid to the third-party data centers for
space rental, power used, etc. As discussed above, the Exchange notes
that unlike other options exchanges, BOX does not own and operate its
own data center and therefore cannot control data center costs. As
detailed herein, BOX has incurred substantial costs associated with
maintaining and enhancing the BOX network. These costs, coupled with
BOX's historically low transaction fees, place BOX at a competitive
disadvantage against other options exchanges who charge connectivity
fees to market participants. BOX has no choice but to begin charging
Participants and non-Participants fees for connecting directly to the
network which BOX has taken considerable measures to maintain and
enhance for the benefit of those Participants and non-Participants in
order to remain competitive with the other options exchanges in the
industry.
    As the Exchange explained to the Division, the existence of robust
competition between exchanges to attract order flow requires exchanges
to keep prices for all of their joint services--including connectivity
to the exchanges' networks at a pro-competitive level.\27\ This
conclusion is substantiated by the report prepared by Professor Janusz
A. Ordover and Gustavo Bamberger addressing the theory of ``Platform
Competition'' and its application to the pricing of exchanges'
services, including

connectivity services.\28\ In the report, Ordover and Bamberger explain
that ``the provision of connectivity services . . . is inextricably
linked to the provision of trading services, so that, as a matter of
economics, it is not possible to appropriately evaluate the pricing of
connectivity services in isolation from the pricing of trading and
other `joint' services offered by'' an exchange. Ordover and Bamberger
state that ``connectivity services are an `input' into trading'' and
that ``excessive pricing of such services would raise the costs of
trading on [an exchange] relative to its rivals and thus discourage
trading on'' that exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Letter from Lisa J. Fall, BOX, to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission (Feb. 19, 2019),
https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-box-2018-24/srbox201824-4945872-178516.pdf.
    \28\ See Attachment to Letter from Lisa J. Fall, supra note 27
(``Ordover/Bamberger Statement'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the Ordover/Bamberger Statement focuses on the pricing of
connectivity services by Nasdaq-affiliated equities exchanges, its
``overarching conclusion . . . that the pricing of connectivity
services should not be analyzed in isolation'' applies with equal force
to the proposed fees. Because BOX is engaged with rigorous competition
with other exchanges to attract order flow to its platform, BOX is
constrained in its ability to price its joint services--including
connectivity services--at supracompetitive levels. That competition
ensures that BOX's connectivity fees are set at levels consistent with
the requirements of the Exchange Act.
    As detailed in the Exchange's and BOX Market's \29\ 2018 audited
financial statements which are publicly available as part of the
Exchange's Form 1 Amendment, BOX only has two sources of revenue that
it can control: Transaction fees and non-transactions fees.\30\
Accordingly, BOX must cover all of its expenses from these two sources
of revenue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ BOX Exchange LLC (``Exchange'') and BOX Options Market LLC
(``BOX'') are two different entities. The Exchange is a national
securities exchange registered with the SEC under Section 6 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Exchange fulfills the
regulatory functions and responsibilities and oversees BOX, the
equity options market. Expenses associated with network connectivity
services are born by both the Exchange and BOX.
    \30\ Options Price Authority Reporting (``OPRA'') income is not
controlled by BOX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Proposed Fees are fair and reasonable because they will not
result in excessive pricing or supracompetitive profit, when comparing
the total annual expense of the Exchange and BOX associated with
providing the network connectivity services versus the total projected
annual revenue of the Exchange \31\ and BOX associated with providing
the network connectivity services. For 2018, the annual expense for BOX
and the Exchange associated with providing the network connectivity
services was approximately $8.9 million.\32\ This amount is comprised
of both direct and indirect expenses. The direct expense (which relates
100% to the network infrastructure, associated data center processing
equipment required to support various connections, network monitoring
systems and associated software required to support the various forms
of connectivity) was approximately $6.4 million.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Revenues for the Exchange are limited to the Options
Regulatory Fee (``ORF'') and fines and disgorgements.
    \32\ A more detailed breakdown of the annual operational expense
in 2018 includes over $2.8 million for space rental, power used,
connections, etc. at the Exchange's data centers, over $1.1 million
for data center support and management of third party vendors, over
$700,000 in technological improvements to the data center
infrastructure, over $1.4 million for resources for technical and
operational services for the Exchange's data centers and $400,000 in
market data connectivity fees. Of note, regarding market data
connectivity fees, this is the cost associated with BOX consuming
connectivity/content from the equities markets in order to operate
the Exchange, causing BOX to effectively pay its competitors for
this connectivity.
    \33\ Direct connectivity expenses are a portion of the following
line items in the BOX and Exchange Form 1 Financial Statements:
Technical and Operational, Other and Communications and Data
Processing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The indirect expense (which includes expense from such areas as
trading operations, software development, business development,
information technology, marketing, human resources, legal and
regulatory, finance and accounting) that the Exchange and BOX allocate
to the maintenance and support of network connectivity services was
approximately $2.5 million.\34\ This indirect expense amount of $2.5
million represents approximately 10% of the total annual expenses of
BOX and the Exchange for 2018. Total projected annualized revenue
associated with selling the network connectivity services (reflecting
the proposed fees on a fully-annualized basis, using July 2019 data)
for BOX is projected to be approximately $4.6 million. This projected
revenue amount of $4.6 million represents approximately 13% of total
net revenue of BOX and Exchange for 2018 of approximately $35.5
million. The Exchange believes that an indirect expense allocation of
10% of total expense (less direct expense) to network connectivity
services is fair and reasonable, as total projected network
connectivity revenue represents approximately 13% of total net revenue
for 2018. That is, direct expense of $6.4 million plus indirect expense
of $2.5 million fairly reflects the total annual expense associated
with providing the network connectivity services, both from the
perspective of similar revenue and expense percentages (connectivity to
total), as well as matching connectivity resources to connectivity
expenses. The Exchange believes that this is a conservative allocation
of indirect expense. Accordingly, the total projected connectivity
revenue for BOX, reflective of the proposed fees, on an annualized
basis, of $4.6 million, is almost half of the total annual actual BOX
and Exchange connectivity expense (direct and indirect) for 2018 of
$8.9 million. Further, even the direct expense associated with
providing network connectivity ($6.4 million) exceeds expected revenue
from connectivity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Indirect expenses for connectivity are a portion of the
following line items in the BOX and Exchange Form 1 Financial
Statements: Employee Costs, Depreciation and Amortization,
Consulting, Financial and Administrative, and Other.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange projects comparable network connectivity revenue and
expense for 2019 for BOX. Accordingly, the Proposed Fees are fair and
reasonable because they do not result in excessive pricing or
supracompetitive profit, when comparing the actual network connectivity
costs to the Exchange and BOX versus the projected network connectivity
annual revenue. Additional information on overall revenue and expense
can be found in the Exchange's and BOX's 2018 audited financial
results, which is publicly available as part of the Exchange's Form 1
filed with the Commission.
    The Exchange again notes that other exchanges have similar
connectivity alternatives for their participants, including similar
low-latency connectivity. For example, Nasdaq PHLX LLC (``Phlx''), NYSE
Arca, Inc. (``Arca''), NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American'') and Nasdaq
ISE, LLC (``ISE'') all offer a 1Gb, 10Gb and 10Gb low latency ethernet
connectivity alternatives to each of their participants.\35\ The
Exchange further notes that Phlx, ISE, Arca and NYSE American each
charge higher rates for such similar connectivity to primary and
secondary facilities.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See Phlx and ISE Rules, General Equity and Options Rules,
General 8, Section 1(b). Phlx and ISE each charge a monthly fee of
$2,500 for each 1Gb connection, $10,000 for each 10Gb connection and
$15,000 for each 10Gb Ultra connection, which the equivalent of the
Exchange's 10Gb ULL connection. See also NYSE American Fee Schedule,
Section V.B, and Arca Fees and Charges, Co-Location Fees. NYSE
American and Arca each charge a monthly fee of $5,000 for each 1Gb
circuit, $14,000 for each 10Gb circuit and $22,000 for each 10Gb LX
circuit, which the equivalent of the Exchange's 10Gb ULL connection.
    \36\ Id.

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

    Finally, the Exchange believes redefining the HSVF Connection Fee
as a Port Fee is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory.
This classification is more accurate because an HSVF subscription is
not enabled through a physical connection to the Exchange. Although
market participant must be credentialed by BOX to receive the HSVF,
anyone can become credentialed by submitting the required
documentation.\37\ The Exchange does not propose to alter the amount of
the existing HSVF fee; subscribers to the HSVF will continue to pay
$1,500 per month. As with the Connectivity Fees, BOX's HSVF Port Fee is
in line with industry practice.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See Trading Interface Specification, BOX Options, https://boxoptions.com/technology/trading-interface-specifications/
    \38\ See Cboe Data Services, LLC (CDS) Fee Schedule Sec.  VI
(charging $500 per month for up to five users to access the Enhanced
Controlled Data Distribution Program).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
Intra-Market Competition
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would
place certain market participants at the Exchange at a relative
disadvantage compared to other market participants or affect the
ability of such market participants to compete. In particular, the
Exchange has received no official complaints from Participants that
purchase the Exchange's connectivity that the Exchange's fees or the
Proposed Fees are negatively impacting or would negatively impact their
abilities to compete with other market participants or that they are
placed at a disadvantage.\39\ The Exchange believes that the Proposed
Fees do not place certain market participants at a relative
disadvantage to other market participants because the connectivity
pricing is associated with relative usage of the various market
participants and does not impose a barrier to entry to smaller
participants. As described above, the less expensive non-10Gb direct
connection is generally purchased by market participants that utilize
less bandwidth. The market participants that purchase 10Gb connections
utilize the most bandwidth, and those are the participants that consume
the most resources from the network. Accordingly, the Proposed Fees do
not favor certain categories of market participants in a manner that
would impose a burden on competition; rather, the allocation of the
Proposed Fees reflect the network resources consumed by the various
size of market participants--lowest bandwidth consuming members pay the
least, and highest bandwidth consuming members pays the most,
particularly since higher bandwidth consumption translates to higher
costs to BOX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ The Exchange notes that it did receive one complaint from a
non-Participant third party that, prior to the proposed fees,
received connectivity for free and resold it to other market
participants. This non-Participant ceased connectivity to the
Exchange in January 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Inter-Market Competition
    The Exchange believes the Proposed Fees do not place an undue
burden on competition on other SROs that is not necessary or
appropriate. In particular, options market participants are not forced
to connect to (and purchase market data from) all options exchanges, as
shown by the number of Participants of BOX as compared to the much
greater number of members at other options exchanges (as described
above). Not only does BOX have less than half the number of
Participants as certain other options exchanges, but there are also a
number of the Exchange's Participants that do not connect directly to
BOX. Additionally, the Exchange notes other exchanges have similar
connectivity alternatives for their participants, including similar
low-latency connectivity, but with much higher rates to connect.\40\
The Exchange is also unaware of any assertion that its existing fee
levels or the Proposed Fees would somehow unduly impair its competition
with other options exchanges. To the contrary, if the fees charged are
deemed too high by market participants, they can simply disconnect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See supra note 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Unilateral action by the Exchange in establishing fees for services
provided to its Participants and others using its facilities will not
have an impact on competition. As a small exchange in the already
highly competitive environment for options trading, the Exchange does
not have the market power necessary to set prices for services that are
unreasonable or unfairly discriminatory in violation of the Exchange
Act. The Exchange's proposed fees, as described herein, are comparable
to and generally lower than fees charged by other options exchanges for
the same or similar services. Lastly, the Exchange believes the
proposed change will not impose a burden on intramarket competition as
the proposed fees are applicable to all Participants and others using
its facilities that connect to BOX.

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 \41\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\42\ because it
establishes or changes a due, or fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \42\ 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 Comment

    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-BOX-2019-27 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-2019-27. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent

amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule
change that are filed with the Commission, and all written
communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
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-
2019-27, and should be submitted on or before October 16, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-20706 Filed 9-24-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P