[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77576-77577]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30123]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73880; File No. SR-BATS-2014-071]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to
Fees for Use of BATS Exchange, Inc.

December 18, 2014.
    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 December 17, 2014, BATS Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BATS'') 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 has designated the proposed rule change as one establishing or
changing a member due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange
under section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed rule change 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 filed a proposal to make several non-substantive
amendments to the fee schedule applicable to Members \5\ and non-
members of the Exchange pursuant to BATS Rules 15.1(a) and (c). Changes
to the fee schedule pursuant to this proposal are effective upon
filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A Member is defined as ``any registered broker or dealer
that has been admitted to membership in the Exchange.'' See Exchange
Rule 1.5(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts 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 make a number of clarifying, non-
substantive changes to its fee schedule in order to convert the
existing fee schedule into a chart format, including eliminating
certain redundancies from and providing additional clarity to the
language in the existing fee schedule. The Exchange believes that these
changes will provide greater transparency to Members about how the
Exchange assesses fees and calculates rebates, as well as allowing
Members to more easily validate their bills on a monthly basis. The
Exchange notes that none of these changes substantively amend any fee
or rebate, nor do they alter the manner in which the Exchange assesses
fees or calculates rebates. Specifically, the Exchange is proposing the
following:

     To make clear that rebates are indicated by
parentheses.
     To state the following: The rates listed in the
Standard Rates table apply unless a Member's transaction is assigned
a fee code other than a standard fee code. If a Member's transaction
is assigned a fee code other than a standard fee code, the rates
listed in the Fee Codes table will apply. Footnotes provide further
explanatory text or, where annotated to fee codes, indicate variable
rate changes, provided the conditions in the footnote are met.
Unless otherwise noted, all routing fees or rebates in the Fee Codes
and Associated Fees table are for removing liquidity from the
destination venue.
     To add a section and chart titled ``Standard Rates,''
which will include the standard fees and rebates for securities
priced both at or above $1.00 and below $1.00 for adding liquidity,
removing liquidity, and routing and removing liquidity from another
venue as well as the standard fee codes associated with these rates.
     To add a section titled ``Fee Codes and Associated
Fees,'' which will include the fee or rebate, the fee code, and a
description for each possible execution that could occur on the
Exchange or on another venue.
     To add a section titled ``Definitions,'' which will
include definitions that are defined in the current fee schedule.
These include the definitions listed below, which are identical to
definitions contained on the Exchange's current fee schedule. All
references to ``per share'' mean ``per share executed.'' ``ADAV''
means average daily added volume calculated as the number of shares
added and ``ADV'' means average daily volume calculated as the
number of shares added or removed, combined, per day. ``Step-Up Add
TCV'' means ADAV as a percentage of TCV in January 2014 subtracted
from current ADAV as a percentage of TCV. For purposes of Equities
Pricing, ``Options Step-Up Add TCV'' means ADAV as a percentage of
TCV in January 2014 subtracted from current ADAV as a percentage of
TCV, using the definitions of ADAV and TCV as provided under Options
Pricing. ADAV and ADV are calculated on a monthly basis, excluding
shares added or removed on any day that the Exchange's system
experiences a disruption that lasts for more than 60 minutes during
regular trading hours (``Exchange System Disruption''), on any day
with a scheduled early market close and on the last Friday in June
(the ``Russell Reconstitution Day''). Routed shares are not included
in ADAV or ADV calculation. With prior notice to the Exchange, a
Member may aggregate ADAV or ADV with other Members that control,
are controlled by, or are under common control with such Member (as
evidenced on such Member's Form BD). ``TCV'' means total
consolidated volume calculated as the volume reported by all
exchanges and trade reporting facilities to a consolidated
transaction reporting plan for the month for which the fees apply.
The Exchange excludes volume on any day that the Exchange
experiences an Exchange System Disruption, on any day with a
scheduled early market close and the Russell Reconstitution Day.
     To add a section titled ``General Notes,'' that will
include the following notes: Unless otherwise indicated, rebates and
charges for adding, removing or routing liquidity are listed as per
share rebates and charges; the Exchange notes that to the extent a
Member does not qualify for any of the tiers listed below, the rates
listed in the above section titled ``Fee Codes and Associated Fees''
will apply; to the extent a Member qualifies for higher rebates and/
or lower fees than those provided by a tier for which such Member
qualifies, the higher rebates and/or lower fees shall apply; and
variable rates provided by tiers apply only to executions in
securities priced at or above $1.00.
     To add a series of footnotes describing already
existing enhanced rebates including Add Volume Tiers, Step-Up Tiers,
Cross-Asset Step-Up Tiers, and NBBO Setter and Joiner Tiers (which
includes one non-substantive typo correction to add parentheses
around the $0.0001 rebate offered for NBBO Setter Tier 1) that are
not covered in the Fee Codes and Associated Fees section described
above.
     To add a series of footnotes describing all fees and
rebates for securities priced below $1.00 that either execute on the
Exchange or another venue, to the extent applicable.
     To add new sections and charts titled ``Logical Port
Fees,'' ``Market Data Fees,'' and ``Physical Connection Fees,''
which, other than being in chart form, will be identical to the
current fee schedule.
     To eliminate the lead-in text that reads ``The
following is the Schedule of Fees

(pursuant to Rule 15.1(a) and (c)) for BATS Exchange, Inc. (``BZX
Exchange'' or ``BZX''). The Schedule of Fees is divided into
Equities Pricing, Options Pricing and Physical Connection Charges.''

    The Exchange notes that it is not proposing any amendments to the
Options Pricing section of its fee schedule at this time.
    The Exchange proposes to implement the amendments to its fee
schedule effective immediately.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and,
in particular, with the requirements of section 6 of the Act.\6\
Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with sections 6(b)(4) of the Act and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\
in that it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among members and other persons using any
facility or system which the Exchange operates or controls. The
Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which
market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues
if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes are reasonable and
equitable because they are non-substantive and the Exchange is not
changing any fees or rebates that apply to trading activity on the
Exchange or routed executions. Further, the changes are designed to
make the fee schedule easier to read and for Members to validate the
bills that they receive from the Exchange. The Exchange also believes
that the proposal is non-discriminatory because it applies uniformly to
all Members, and again, the Exchange is not making any changes to
existing fees and rebates. Finally, the Exchange believes that the
proposed fee schedule will be clearer and less confusing for investors
and will eliminate potential investor confusion, thereby removing
impediments to and perfecting the mechanism of a free and open market
and a national market system, and, in general, protecting investors and
the public interest.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. To
the contrary, the Exchange believes that the changes will both make the
fee schedule easier to read and simultaneously provide Members with an
easier way to validate their bills on a monthly basis, both of which
the Exchange believes are important components of customer service and
which will allow the Exchange to better compete for order flow. The
Exchange reiterates that the changes are only to the format of the fee
schedule and are entirely non-substantive. As stated above, the
Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which
market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues
if the [sic] deem fee structures to be unreasonable or excessive.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any written comments from members or other interested parties.

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) of the Act \8\ and paragraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\9\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BATS-2014-071 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BATS-2014-071. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of 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; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BATS-2014-071 and should be
submitted on or before January 14, 2015.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-30123 Filed 12-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 158 (Wednesday, August 15, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49032-49034]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19958]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67619; File Nos. SR-NYSEArca-2012-67]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Granting
Approval of Proposed Rule Changes Amending NYSE Arca, Inc. Rule 3.2 and
NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. Rule 3.2, Which Concern the Nomination and
Election of Fair Representation Directors

August 8, 2012.

I. Introduction

    On June 18, 2012, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ proposed rule changes to
amend NYSE Arca Rule 3.2 and NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. (``NYSE Arca
Equities'') Rule 3.2, which concern the nomination and election of fair
representation directors. The proposed rule changes were published for
comment in the Federal Register on June 28, 2012.\4\ The Commission
received no comment letters on the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67244 (June 22,
2012), 77 FR 38701 (SR-NYSEArca-2012-67) (the ``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

    NYSE Arca Rule 3.2 sets forth a process for the nomination and
selection of fair representation directors for the NYSE Arca Board of
Directors

(``NYSE Arca Board''),\5\ and NYSE Arca Equities Rule 3.2 sets forth a
similar process for the nomination and selection of fair representation
directors for the NYSE Arca Equities Board of Directors (``Equities
Board'').\6\ The Exchange states that the proposed rule changes would
streamline those processes and make them more similar to the processes
used by the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'') and NYSE MKT LLC
(``NYSE MKT'').\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Under Section 3.02(a) of the Bylaws of NYSE Arca (``NYSE
Arca Bylaws'') the NYSE Arca Board must have 8-12 directors, and at
least 20 percent of the directors must be individuals nominated by
trading permit holders, with at least one director nominated by the
Equities Trading Permit Holders (``ETP Holders'') of NYSE Arca
Equities, and at least one director nominated by the Options Trading
Permit Holders (``OTP Holders'') of the Exchange. In addition, at
least 50 percent of the directors must be directors who represent
the public. The exact number of the directors nominated by the ETP
Holders and OTP Holders is determined from time to time by the NYSE
Arca Board, subject to the percentage restrictions described above.
    Similar to the NYSE Arca Bylaws, Section 3.02(a) of the Bylaws
of NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. (the ``Equities Bylaws'') requires that
at least 20 percent of the Equities Board, but no fewer than two
directors, must be nominees of the nominating committee of the
Equities Board (``Equities Nominating Committee'') selected in
accordance with NYSE Arca Equities Rule 3.2. Under Section 3.02(e)
of the Equities Bylaws, the Equities Board nominates directors for
election at the annual meeting of stockholders, and such nominations
must comply with Section 3.02(a) of the Equities Bylaws and NYSE
Arca Equities Rules. A 10-member Equities Board must include two
nominees of the Equities Nominating Committee. See Section 3.02(e)
of the Equities Bylaws.
    \6\ NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
NYSE Arca.
    \7\ See Notice, supra note 4 at 38701.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Amendments to NYSE Arca Rules

Nominating Committee Composition and Appointment
    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Rules 3.2(b)(2)(A) and (B)
to change the composition of, and the appointment process for, its
nominating committee for fair representation directors (the
``Nominating Committee'').\8\ The Exchange proposes to eliminate the
public member position from the Nominating Committee and eliminate the
nomination process for the Nominating Committee members and instead
have the NYSE Arca Board appoint the members of the Nominating
Committee. The Exchange represents that this change is consistent with
the fair representation nominating committee composition and selection
processes followed by NYSE and NYSE MKT.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Currently, the Nominating Committee has seven members,
consisting of six OTP Holders and one member of the public.
    \9\ See Notice, supra note 4 at 38702.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Petition Process for Fair Representation Director Nominees
    The Exchange also proposes to amend the petition process for fair
representation director nominees to the NYSE Arca Board.\10\ Under
proposed NYSE Arca Rule 3.2(b)(2)(C)(ii), the Nominating Committee
would publish the names of the nominees to the NYSE Arca Board on an
``Announcement Date'' each year sufficient to accommodate the
nomination and petition processes of the proposed rule. OTP Holders in
good standing would be permitted to nominate additional eligible
candidates if a written petition of at least 10 percent of OTP Holders
in good standing were submitted to the Nominating Committee within two
weeks after the Announcement Date. The Exchange states that these
proposed revisions would make the petition process more efficient and
consistent with the petition process for fair representation directors
for NYSE and NYSE MKT.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Under current NYSE Arca Rule 3.2(b)(2)(C)(ii), the
Nominating Committee publishes the names of the fair representation
director nominees to the NYSE Arca Board no later than 65 days prior
to the expiration of the term of its directors. OTP Holders may
submit a petition to add another nominee within 10 business days
after the Nominating Committee publishes its nominees to the NYSE
Arca Board. If a written petition of the lesser of 35 OTP Holders or
10 percent of OTP Holders in good standing is submitted to the
Nominating Committee, such person also is nominated by the
Nominating Committee.
    \11\ See Notice, supra note 4 at 38702.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule would also require each petition candidate to
include a completed questionnaire used to gather information concerning
director candidates, and the Nominating Committee would determine
whether the petition candidate is eligible to serve on the NYSE Arca
Board (including whether such person was free of a statutory
disqualification under Section 3(a)(39) of the Act), and such
determination would be final and conclusive. The questionnaire would be
a new requirement to assist the Nominating Committee in reaching its
decision. According to the Exchange, such a questionnaire is already
used by NYSE and NYSE MKT and having the Nominating Committee determine
the qualifications of a petition candidate is similar to the NYSE and
NYSE MKT processes.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contested Nominations
    Currently, in the event that the OTP Holder position is nominated
by the Nominating Committee pursuant to a petition by the OTP Holders,
and there are two or more nominees for the NYSE Arca Board, the
Nominating Committee must submit the contested nomination to the OTP
Holders for selection. The nominee for the NYSE Arca Board selected by
the most OTP Holders is submitted by the Nominating Committee to the
NYSE Arca Board. The Exchange proposes to amend this rule to simplify
it and provide that if the number of nominees exceeds the number of
available seats, the Nominating Committee would submit the contested
nomination to the OTP Holders for selection, and the nominee for the
NYSE Arca Board receiving the most votes of OTP Holders would be
submitted by the Nominating Committee to the NYSE Arca Board.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Exchange also proposes to amend this rule to explicitly
provide that OTP Holders would be afforded no less than 20 calendar
days to submit their votes on a confidential basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Amendments to NYSE Arca Equities Rules

Nominating Committee Composition and Appointment
    Current NYSE Arca Equities Rules 3.2(b)(2)(A) and (B) are similar
to the counterpart NYSE Arca rules described above.\14\ As proposed
with respect to NYSE Arca Rules 3.2(b)(2)(A) and (B), and consistent
with current NYSE and NYSE MKT processes described above, the Exchange
proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 3.2 to eliminate the public
member position from the Equities Nominating Committee and eliminate
the nomination process for the Equities Nominating Committee members
and instead have the Equities Board appoint the members of the Equities
Nominating Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Under current NYSE Arca Equities Rule 3.2(b)(2)(A), the
Equities Nominating Committee has seven members, consisting of six
ETP Holders and one member of the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Petition Process for Fair Representation Director Nominees
    The Exchange also proposes to amend the petition process for fair
representation director nominees to the Equities Board. Under proposed
NYSE Arca Equities Rule 3.2(b)(2)(C)(ii), the Equities Nominating
Committee would publish the names of the nominees on an ``Announcement
Date'' each year sufficient to accommodate the nomination and petition
processes as set forth in the proposed rule.\15\ ETP

Holders in good standing would be permitted to nominate additional
eligible candidates if a written petition of at least 10 percent of ETP
Holders in good standing were submitted to the Equities Nominating
Committee within two weeks after the Announcement Date. Each petition
candidate would be required to include a completed questionnaire used
to gather information concerning director candidates, and the Equities
Nominating Committee would determine whether the petition candidate is
eligible to serve on the Equities Board or NYSE Arca Board (including
whether such person was free of a statutory disqualification under
Section 3(a)(39) of the Act), and such determination would be final and
conclusive. According to the Exchange, the proposed rule change would
amend this process to align it with the NYSE and NYSE MKT processes and
proposed NYSE Arca Rule 3.2(b)(2)(C) for the same reasons stated above
with respect to proposed NYSE Arca Rule 3.2.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Under current NYSE Arca Equities Rule 3.2(b)(2)(C)(ii), the
Equities Nominating Committee publishes the names of the fair
representation director nominees no later than 65 days prior to the
expiration of the term of the directors. ETP Holders may submit a
petition to add another nominee within 10 business days after the
Equities Nominating Committee publishes its nominees. If a written
petition of at least 10 percent of ETP Holders in good standing is
submitted to the Equities Nominating Committee within 45 days
preceding the expiration of the current term, such person is also
nominated by the Equities Nominating Committee.
    \16\ See Notice, supra note 4 at 38703.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contested Nominations
    Currently, in the event that there is a contested nomination, the
Equities Nominating Committee submits such contested nomination to the
ETP Holders, which may select two nominees for the contested seat on
the Equities Board and one nominee for the contested seat on the NYSE
Arca Board. The Exchange proposes to simplify this text to align it
with the proposed changes to NYSE Arca Rule 3.2(b)(2)(C)(iii).\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Current NYSE Arca Equities Rule 3.2(b)(2)(C)(ii) does not
describe the voting process. The proposed rule changes would amend
the rule to explicitly provide that ETP Holders would be afforded no
less than 20 calendar days to submit their votes on a confidential
basis. The Exchange also proposes certain technical and conforming
changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    The Commission has reviewed carefully the proposed rule changes and
finds that the proposed rule changes are consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to a national securities exchange.\18\ In particular, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule changes are consistent with
Section 6(b)(3) of the Act,\19\ which, among other things, requires
that the rules of an exchange assure a fair representation of its
members in the selection of its directors and administration of its
affairs and provides that one or more directors shall be representative
of issuers and investors and not be associated with a member of the
exchange, broker or dealer. The Commission also notes that the proposed
rule changes are substantially similarly to the nominating and fair
representation policies and procedures of NYSE and NYSE MKT.
Furthermore, the proposed rule changes would not amend the fair
representation requirements as set forth in Sections 3.02 of both the
NYSE Arca Bylaws and the Equities Bylaws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ In approving the proposed rule changes, the Commission has
considered their impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule changes are consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\20\ that the proposed rule changes (SR-NYSEArca-2012-67), are
approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-19958 Filed 8-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 154 (Thursday, August 9, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 47655]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19551]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4071-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2012-0002]

West Virginia; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the
State of West Virginia (FEMA-4071-DR), dated July 23, 2012, and related
determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: August 1, 2012.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident
period for this declared disaster is now June 29, 2012, through and
including July 8, 2012.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2012-19551 Filed 8-8-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 125 (Monday, June 30, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36849-36851]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15202]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72455; File No. SR-ISE-2014-09]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Order Instituting Proceedings to Determine Whether to Approve or
Disapprove Proposed Rule Change Relating to Market Maker Risk
Parameters

June 24, 2014.

I. Introduction

    On March 10, 2014, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(``Exchange'' or ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend ISE Rules 722 and 804 to
mitigate market maker risk by adopting an Exchange-provided risk
management functionality. The proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on March 26, 2014.\3\ The Commission
received no comments on the proposal. On May 7, 2014, pursuant to
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\4\ the Commission designated a longer
period within which to either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether to

disapprove the proposed rule change.\5\ This order institutes
proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \6\ to determine
whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71759 (Mar. 20,
2014), 79 FR 16850 (``Notice'').
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72117 (May 7, 2014),
79 FR 27360 (May 13, 2014). The Commission determined that it was
appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action
on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to
consider the proposed rule change. Accordingly, the Commission
designated June 24, 2014 as the date by which it should approve,
disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove the proposed rule change.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \7\ Relatedly, the Commission is also instituting proceedings
under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act to determine whether to approve
or disapprove a proposed rule change filed by ISE's affiliated
exchange, ISE Gemini, LLC (``ISE Gemini''), that mirrors the rule
change proposed by ISE. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-
72454 (June 24, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    As described in the Notice, the Exchange proposes to amend ISE
Rules 722 and 804 to mitigate market maker risk by adopting an
Exchange-provided risk management functionality. Currently, pursuant to
ISE Rules 722 and 804, the Exchange automatically removes a market
maker's quotes in all series of an options class when certain parameter
settings are triggered. Specifically, there are four parameters that
can be set by market makers on a class-by-class basis and are available
for market maker quotes in single options series and in complex
instruments on the complex order book. Pursuant to the rules, market
makers establish a time frame during which the system calculates: (1)
The number of contracts executed by the market maker in an options
class; (2) the percentage of the total size of the market maker's
quotes in the class that has been executed; (3) the absolute value of
the net between contracts bought and contracts sold in an options
class; and (4) the absolute value of the net between (a) calls
purchased plus puts sold and (b) calls sold plus puts purchased. The
market maker establishes limits for each of these four parameters, and
when the limits are exceeded within the prescribed time frame, the
market maker's quotes in that class are removed or curtailed.\8\
Separately, the Exchange recently adopted another risk management
parameter that permits market maker quotes in all classes to be
automatically removed from the trading system if a specified number of
curtailment events are exceeded within the prescribed time period
across the ISE market.\9\ It is mandatory for market makers to enter
values into all of the quotation risk management parameters for all
options classes in which it enters quotes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70132 (August 7,
2013), 78 FR 49311 (August 13, 2013) (SR-ISE-2013-38).
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71446 (January 30,
2014), 79 FR 6951 (February 5, 2014) (SR-ISE-2014-04).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Notice, the Exchange proposes to further enhance its risk
management offering by implementing an additional functionality that
would permit market maker quotes to be automatically removed from the
trading system if a specified number of curtailment events occur across
ISE and its affiliated exchange, ISE Gemini. According to the Exchange,
a single trading system governs the trading activity on both ISE and
ISE Gemini.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Notice, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, market makers who choose to use this functionality
would be able to set market wide parameters to govern its trading
activity across both ISE and ISE Gemini. Once the parameter is set, the
trading system would count the number of times a market maker's pre-set
curtailment event occurs on each exchange, as specified in ISE Rule
804(g) (for regular orders) and ISE Rule 722, Supplementary Material
.04 (for complex orders) and aggregate them. Once the specified number
of curtailment events across both markets has been reached, the trading
system would automatically remove all of the market maker's quotes in
all classes on both ISE and ISE Gemini. The Exchange believes this
functionality would reduce market maker risk in the event the market
maker suffers from a systems issue or the occurrence of an unusual or
unexpected market activity. As proposed, any quotes sent by the market
maker after the market-wide parameter across both markets has been
triggered would be rejected until the market maker notifies each
exchange--in a non-automated manner, such as email or telephone--that
it is ready to come out of its curtailment. Once notified by the market
maker, the market operations staff for each exchange would reactivate
the market maker's quotes and the market maker would again be active in
on both ISE and ISE Gemini.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Notice, supra note 3 for examples illustrating how the
Exchange's market wide risk management parameter would be applied
under the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Exchange, the proposed risk management
functionality would operate consistently with the firm quote
obligations of a broker-dealer pursuant to Rule 602 of Regulation NMS.
The Exchange anticipates that any marketable orders or executable
quotes received before the proposed functionality is triggered would
automatically execute at the price up to the market maker's size,
regardless of whether such execution would result in executions in
excess of the market maker's pre-set parameters. Further, the Exchange
states that the proposed cross-exchange market wide parameter will not
be mandatory and that market makers who prefer to use their own risk
management systems can set the Exchange parameters to not be triggered.

III. Proceedings to Determine Whether to Approve or Disapprove SR-ISE-
2014-09 and Grounds for Disapproval Under Consideration

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \12\ to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be approved or disapproved. Institution of such
proceedings is appropriate at this time in view of the legal and policy
issues raised by the proposed rule change, as discussed below.
Institution of proceedings does not indicate that the Commission has
reached any conclusions with respect to any of the issues involved.
Rather, as described below, the Commission seeks and encourages
interested persons to provide additional comment on the proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the Exchange proposes to amend ISE Rules 722
and 804, which would expand the current risk management offerings by
ISE and provide for cross-exchange risk management functionality. The
Commission believes that the proposal, which seeks to allow removal of
a market maker's quotes in all classes on both ISE and ISE Gemini once
an aggregated pre-set number of curtailment events on both exchanges is
reached, raises important issues that warrant further public comment
and Commission consideration. Namely, the Commission believes that
proceedings are appropriate to consider, among other matters, whether
the proposal is unfairly discriminatory to any member of the Exchange
and the impact of the proposal on competition among exchanges.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\13\ the Commission is
providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration.
The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional
analysis of the proposed rule change's consistency with Section 6(b)(5)
of the Act, which requires, among other things, that the rules of a
national securities exchange be

``designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market systems; and
not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.'' \14\ The Commission is also instituting
proceedings to allow for additional analysis of the proposed rule
change's consistency with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, which requires
that rules of a national securities exchange ``do not impose any burden
on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of'' the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Id.
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Procedure: Request for Written Comments

    The Commission requests that interested persons provide written
submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the
concerns identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have
with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written
views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is
consistent with Sections 6(b)(5) and 6(b)(8) or any other provision of
the Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not
appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval which would
be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments,
the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for
an opportunity to make an oral presentation.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, as amended by the Securities
Act Amendments of 1975, Public Law 94-29 (June 4, 1975), grants the
Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding--either
oral or notice and opportunity for written comments--is appropriate
for consideration of a particular proposal by a self-regulatory
organization. See Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Senate Comm. on
Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th Cong., 1st
Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments regarding whether the proposal should be approved or
disapproved by July 21, 2014. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal
to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by August 4,
2014.
    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-ISE-2014-09 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-ISE-2014-09. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filings also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2014-09 and should be
submitted on or before July 21, 2014. Rebuttal comments should be
submitted by August 4, 2014.

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

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-15202 Filed 6-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


64881 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 22, 2002 / Notices ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [OPP– 2002– 0263; FRL– 7275– 7]

Notice of Filing a Pesticide Petition to Establish a Tolerance for a Certain Pesticide Chemical in or on Food AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of a pesticide petition proposing the establishment of regulations for residues of Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24 in or on various food commodities.

DATES: Comments, identified by docket ID number OPP– 2002– 0263, must be received on or before November 21, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robyn Rose, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460– 0001; telephone number: (703) 308– 9581; e mail address: rose. robyn@ epa. gov.

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. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to: Industry (NACIS 111, 112, 311, 32532), e. g., crop production, animal production, food manufacturing, pesticide manufacturing. This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket ID number OPP– 2002– 0263. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although, a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is (703) 305– 5805. 2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. 1. Once in the system, select `` search, '' then key in the appropriate docket ID number. Certain types of information will not be placed in EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although, not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket. For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.

C. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments? You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked `` late. '' EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit I. D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute. 1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed in this unit, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk VerDate 0ct< 09> 2002 20: 32 Oct 21, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 22OCN1. SGM 22OCN1 64882 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 22, 2002 / Notices or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment, and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. 2. EPA Dockets— i. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select `` search, '' and then key in docket ID number OPP– 2002– 0263. The system is an, `` anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. ii. E mail. Comments may be sent by e mail to opp docket@ epa. gov, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP– 2002– 0263. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system is not an `` anonymous access'' system. If you send an e mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system automatically captures your e mail address. E mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in Unit I. C. 2. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. 2. By mail. Send your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency (7502C), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460– 0001, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP– 2002– 0263. 3. By hand delivery or courier. Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP– 2002– 0263. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I. B. 1.

D. How Should I Submit CBI To the Agency?

Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, 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 CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any 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 and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your views as clearly as possible. 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. 3. Provide copies of any technical information and/ or data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide. 5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. 6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice. 7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation.

II. What Action is the Agency Taking? EPA has received a pesticide petition as follows proposing the establishment and/ or amendment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U. S. C. 346a. EPA has determined that this petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth 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 petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

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

Dated: October 7, 2002. Janet L. Andersen, Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

Summary of Petition PP 2F06453 The petitioner summary of the pesticide petition is printed below as required by FFDCA section 408( d)( 3). The summary of the petition was prepared by Taensa, Inc. and represents the view of the petitioner. The petition summary announces the availability of a description of the analytical methods available to EPA for the detection and measurement of the pesticide chemical residues or an explanation of why no such method is needed. EPA has received a pesticide petition 2F06453 from Taensa, Inc., 26 Sherman Ct, P. O. Box 764, Fairfield, CT 06430, proposing pursuant to section 408( d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U. S. C. 346a( d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for the microbial pesticide Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24. Pursuant to section 408( d)( 2)( A)( i) of the FFDCA, as amended, Taensa, Inc. has submitted the following summary of information, data, and arguments in support of their pesticide petition. This summary was prepared by Taensa, Inc. EPA has not fully evaluated the merits of the VerDate 0ct< 09> 2002 20: 32 Oct 21, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 22OCN1. SGM 22OCN1 64883 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 22, 2002 / Notices pesticide petition. The summary may have been edited by EPA if the terminology used was unclear, the summary contained extraneous material, or the summary unintentionally made the reader conclude that the findings reflected EPA's position and not the position of the petitioner.

A. Product Name and Proposed Use Practices TAEGRO TM is currently registered with EPA for use on ornamentals in greenhouses and indoors (EPA Registration Number 72098– 5). TAEGRO TM Technical (EPA Registration Number 72098– 6) is also registered with EPA. Registration of TAEGRO TM is being proposed for the following sites (including those previously registered): Herbs and spices; ornamentals; shrubs, shade and forest trees; tree, vine, bush and other crops; turf; and vegetables. Methods of application of TAEGRO TM will include seed treatment, incorporation into growth substrate as a dry powder or as an aqueous suspension, drenching, spraying, dipping (roots or cuttings), spraying, chemigation, and hydroponic use. As a plant strengthening agent, TAEGRO TM increases yield of many crops, improves flowering and plant quality, stimulates resistance of plants to disease, plant disease suppressant and can be used with fungicides. Directions for use of TAEGRO TM are as follows: Apply TAEGRO TM as early as possible in the life cycle of the plant to enhance growth and disease resistance. TAEGRO TM should be applied to plants every few weeks for up to three to four applications as needed. For best results, apply TAEGRO TM to seedlings or to newly rooted cuttings. 1. Transplants, including plugs. TAEGRO TM may be applied to transplants by dipping or by drenching, making sure the root system is thoroughly soaked. For dipping, follow the instructions for `` Cutting and Root Dips'' before planting transplants into soil medium. For drenching, first plant the transplants into soil medium and then follow instructions for `` Drenching. '' 2. Drenching. Apply TAEGRO TM to seedlings or to newly rooted cuttings. Drench plants with the TAEGRO TM suspension making sure the root system is thoroughly soaked. Allowing TAEGRO TM to work into the root zone. Apply TAEGRO TM as follows:   Per 100 gallons of water  by weight use 75 grams or 2.6 ounces; by volume use 3.5 fluid ounces of TAEGRO TM .   Per 1 gallon of water 5 grams  by weight use 0.75 gram; by volume use 0.2 teaspoon of TAEGRO TM . 3. Cutting and root dips. Stir suspension for several minutes to ensure complete mixture and to eliminate clumps. Place rootstock in the suspension for 5 to 10 minutes allowing time for TAEGRO TM to penetrate the root zone. Ornamentals should receive at least one follow up drench treatment 2 to 3 weeks following initial treatment. Apply TAEGRO TM as follows:   Per 10 gallons of water  by weight, use 40 grams; by volume, 1.8 fluid ounces of TAEGRO TM .   Per 1 gallon of water  by weight, use 4 grams; by volume, use 1 teaspoon of TAEGRO TM .   Per 1 Liter of water  by weight, use 1 gram of TAEGRO TM . 4. Turf. As an overhead spray, mix 75 grams of TAEGRO TM in 100 gallons of water. Before applying, stir product for several minutes to ensure complete suspension. Apply solution with a conventional sprayer using at least 50 gallons of water per acre. Water in TAEGRO TM immediately after application with a minimum of 1/ 10 inch of water. For best results, make two or three applications spaced 1 week apart. 5. Row crops. Mix 75 grams of TAEGRO TM in 100 gallons of water. Before applying, stir product for several minutes to ensure complete suspension. At time of (or just following) planting, apply as a spray over furrow. Water in TAEGRO TM immediately after application with a minimum of 1/ 10 inch of water. For best results, make two or three applications spaced 1 week apart. 6. Hydroponics. Prepare a stock solution by adding 1 gram of TAEGRO TM , for every 50 feet of irrigation tubing, in 1 gallon of water. Stir product for several minutes to ensure complete suspension. Add solution to circulating water system and allow to go through three to five watering cycles before clearing the system. For best results, make two or three applications spaced 1 week apart. 7. Seed treatments. Prior to planting, mix 4 grams of TAEGRO TM in 1 liter of water (or 3 teaspoons per gallon of water). Stir solution for several minutes to ensure complete suspension. Pour seeds into solution and allow to soak for 10 to 30 minutes. For very small seeds, soaking seedlings in plug trays after germination might be easier. 8. Tubers, bulbs and corms. Mix 4 grams of TAEGRO TM in 1 liter of water (or 3 teaspoons per gallon of water). Stir solution for several minutes to ensure complete suspension. Dip tubers (or bulbs, etc.) for 10 to 30 minutes before planting. For best results, make two or three applications spaced 1 week apart. 9. Soil incorporation. Mix TAEGRO TM into soil or soilless growing media at a rate of 250 grams per cubic yard. Thoroughly mix media, using mechanical mixing equipment, to ensure a uniform distribution of product. Incorporated into soil, TAEGRO TM can be raked into growing beds prior to planting. 10. Mushrooms. Mix TAEGRO TM into spawn medium at a rate of 10 grams per cubic foot. Thoroughly mix, using mechanical mixing equipment, to ensure a uniform distribution of product. 11. Interiorscapes. Before application, thoroughly moisten root zone with water. Mix 1 gram of TAEGRO TM per 1 liter of water (or 3/ 4 teaspoon per gallon of water). Stir solution for several minutes to ensure complete suspension. Drench solution onto root zone to ensure coverage to all roots. TAEGRO TM performs best when applied to seedlings or young plants. For best results, make two or three applications spaced 1 week apart. 12. Orchids and ferns. For potted orchids and ferns, follow directions for drenching. For orchids and ferns with exposed roots, prepare 4 grams of TAEGRO TM in 1 liter of water (or 3 teaspoons per gallon of water). Pour solution into spray container (or squirt bottle) and spray roots to point of drip. TAEGRO TM performs best when applied to seedlings or young plants. For best results, make two or three applications spaced 1 week apart.

B. Product Identity/ Chemistry 1. Identity of pesticide and corresponding residues. The active ingredient in TAEGRO TM is Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24. The mechanism by which Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24 acts as a plant strengthening agent, increases yield of many crops, improves flowering and plant quality, stimulates resistance of plants to disease, plant disease suppressant appears to be primarily via secondary exudates. Suppression of plant disease by Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24 may also be competitive. Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24 is not known to produce toxins or antibiotics. Further, Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24 is a naturally occurring microorganism. Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens is widespread in the environment and occurs in most arable soils of the world.

VerDate 0ct< 09> 2002 20: 32 Oct 21, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 22OCN1. SGM 22OCN1 64884 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 22, 2002 / Notices 2. Magnitude of residue anticipated at the time of harvest and method used to determine the residue. No residues of Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24 are anticipated in treated crops at harvest. Subdivision M  Series 153A 3( a) indicates that `` if Tier I toxicology tests indicate no toxic or other harmful properties, then no residue data would be indicated. '' Studies with Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24 demonstrated low mammalian toxicity. No pathogenicity or infectivity was observed in any of the tests conducted with Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24. Further, Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24 is a naturally occurring microorganism. Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens is widespread in the environment. 3. Statement of why an analytical method for detecting and measuring the levels of the pesticide residue are not needed. Subdivision M  Series 153A3 a) indicates that `` if Tier I toxicology tests indicate no toxic or other harmful properties, then no residue data would be indicated and thus a recommendation for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance can be made. '' Studies with Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24 demonstrated low mammalian toxicity. No pathogenicity or infectivity was observed in any of the tests conducted with Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24. Further, Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24 is a naturally occurring microorganism. Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens is widespread in the environment.

C. Mammalian Toxicological Profile Taensa, Inc. conducted the required toxicology studies to support its petition for an exemption from the requirement of tolerance and associated registrations of Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24. The studies conducted indicate a low mammalian toxicity for Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24. No pathogenicity or infectivity was observed in any of the tests conducted with Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24. With the exception of an inhalation study for the end use product (TAEGRO TM ), which is being submitted in support of this application, all toxicology data generated by Taensa have been reviewed by EPA's Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (BPPD). Toxicology data in support of the exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24 included studies with spores (technical) and with the formulated product (water dispersible powder) as follows: 1. Acute toxicity and/ or pathogenicity— a. Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24 Spores (Technical):   Acute oral toxicity/ pathogenicity in rats  `` does not appear to be toxic and/ or pathogenic when dosed at 1.3 x 10 8 cfu. '' BPPD Review December 20, 1999.   Acute dermal toxicity/ pathogenicity in rabbits  `` The severity of irritation persisted 72 h, and slight irritation persisted for 10 d, and all resolved by day 11. No deaths observed. The acute lethal dose (LD50) is greater than 2,000 mg/ kg. . .Dermal irritation = Toxicity II; Dermal Toxicity = Toxicity III. '' BPPD Review December 20, 1999.   Acute pulmonary toxicity/ pathogenicity in rats  `` does not appear to be toxic and/ or pathogenic in rats, when dosed at 1.3 x 10 8 cfu/ animal. No total clearance is seen form the lungs of treated test animals showed a distinct pattern of clearance from kidney, liver, and spleen. '' BPPD Review December 20, 1999.   Acute intravenous toxicity/ pathogenicity in rats  `` does not appear to be toxic and/ or pathogenic in rats, when dosed at 1.7 x 10 8 cfu/ animal. '' BPPD Review December 20, 1999.   Primary eye irritation  `` showed no signs of persistent irritation into day 21, when dosed at 4.7 x 10 10 cfu/ right eye/ animal. '' BPPD Review December 20, 1999  The initial review indicated Toxicity Category I, but was amended to Toxicity Category II (BPPD Review March 7, 2000).   Hypersensitivity testing  `` Based on the submitted data does not appear to be a sensitizer when dosed at 3.6 x 10 10 cfu. '' BPPD Review December 20, 1999.   Hypersensitivity incident reporting  `` No recorded or reported hypersensitivity reaction based on handling MCPA in lab control setting, equating to 55 person years. '' BPPD Review December 20, 1999.   Potential health effects  `` Based on information given, there are no apparent negative effects  cited literature on B. Subtilis indicate and/ or support the development as a biological control. '' BPPD Review December 20, 1999.   Growth parameters  `` is shown to grow at all tested temperatures (e. g., 30, 34, 37, and 50 o C). The enumeration shows a low 4.2 x 10 11 cfu/ g at 37 o C to a high 6.0 x 10 11 cfu/ g at 34 o C. '' BPPD Review December 20, 1999. b. Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24 WDG (formulation):   Acute oral LD50 toxicity in rats  `` Toxic/ limit dose greater than 2.8 g/ kg body weight (6.7 x 10 10 cfu/ kg) Toxicity Category III. '' BPPD Review December 20, 1999.   Acute dermal LD50 toxicity in rats  `` The severity of irritation persisted > 72 h, but resolved by day 11. No deaths observed. The acute dose (LD50) is greater than 2,000 mg/ kg Dermal irritation = Toxicity Category II; Dermal Toxicity = Toxicity Category III. '' BPPD Review December 20, 1999.   Acute inhalation LC50 toxicity in rats (formulation)  `` an acute inhalation medium lethal concentration (LC50) in male and female rats is greater than 0.93 mg/ L Toxicity Category II. '' IIT Research Institute (Document 2 of this submission)   Primary eye irritation `` no corneal opacity, and no signs of irritation by day 7, when dosed at 3.6 x 10 10 cfu/ right eye/ animal Toxicity Category III. '' BPPD Review December 20, 1999. c. The inert ingredients contained in the Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24 formulation, TAEGRO TM are all minimal risk (List 4). 2. Genotoxicity. Subdivision M Guidelines do not require the conduct of genotoxicity studies to support the registration of a microbial pest control agent, such as Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24. 3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. Subdivision M Guidelines do not require the conduct of reproductive and developmental toxicity studies to support the registration of a microbial pest control agent, such as Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24. 4. Subchronic toxicity. Subdivision M Guidelines do not require the conduct of subchronic toxicity studies to support the registration of a microbial pest control agent, such as Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24. 5. Chronic toxicity. Subdivision M Guidelines do not require the conduct of chronic toxicity studies to support the registration of a microbial pest control agent, such as Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24. According to Taensa, Inc., sufficient data exist to assess the hazards of Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24 and to make a determination on aggregate exposure, consistent with section 408( c)( 2), for the exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance. The exposures, including dietary exposure, and risks associated with establishing the requested VerDate 0ct< 09> 2002 20: 32 Oct 21, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 22OCN1. SGM 22OCN1 64885 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 22, 2002 / Notices exemption from the requirement of a tolerance follows.

D. Aggregate Exposure Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens is naturally occurring and widespread in the environment. The low toxicity and non pathogenicity/ infectivity of Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24 is demonstrated by the data summarized herein. The product will be applied as a seed treatment and via incorporation, drenching, spraying, dipping, chemigation and hydroponics. 1. Dietary exposure— a. Food. It is not anticipated that residues of Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24 will occur in treated raw agricultural commodities. b. Drinking water. It is not anticipated that residues of Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24 will occur in drinking water. 2. Non dietary exposure. The potential for non occupational, nondietary exposure to the general population is not expected to be significant.

E. Cumulative Exposure There is no anticipated potential for cumulative effects of Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24 and other substances that have a common mode of action.

F. Safety Determination 1. U. S. population. Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24 is a naturally occurring microorganism. Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens is widespread in the environment. The low toxicity of Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24 is demonstrated by the data summarized above. Based on this information, the aggregate exposure to Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24 over a lifetime should not pose appreciable risks to human health. There is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24 residues. Exempting Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24 from the requirement of a tolerance should be considered safe and pose insignificant risk. 2. Infants and children. The toxicity and exposure data are sufficiently complete to adequately address the potential for additional sensitivity of infants and children to residues of Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24. There is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24 residues.

G. Effects on the Immune and Endocrine Systems No specific tests have been conducted with Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24 to determine whether it may have an effect in humans that is similar to an effect produced by a naturally occurring estrogen or other endocrine effects. However, it is not likely that Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24 would have estrogen or endocrine effects because:   It is a naturally occurring microorganism. Bacillus subtilis is widespread in the environment   It has demonstrated low mammalian toxicity. No pathogenicity or infectivity was observed in any of the tests conducted with Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24 The mechanism by which Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24 controls diseases appears to be via exudates Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24 does not produce toxins or antibiotics.

H. Existing Tolerances No tolerances or exemptions from the requirement of tolerance have been established or applied for domestically or internationally other that subject petition.

I. International Tolerances No maximum residue levels have been established for Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24 by codex Alimentarius Commission. [FR Doc. 02– 26844 Filed 10– 21– 02; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560– 50– S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL– 7396– 9]

Proposed Modification of and Request for Additional Public Comment on the General National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits for Log Transfer Facilities in Alaska: AK– G70– 0000 and AK– G70– 1000 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed modification of and request for additional public comments on general NPDES permits for log transfer facilities in Alaska.

SUMMARY: The Director, Office of Water, EPA Region 10, provides notice of and requests public comment on proposed modifications of the two general National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for Alaskan log transfer facilities (LTFs), which include log storage areas (LSAs), that were issued on March 7, 2000 (65 FR 11999): NPDES permit no. AK– G70– 0000, which modifies Clean Water Act (CWA) section 404 dredge and fill permits issued to LTFs by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACoE) prior to October 22, 1985, by adding CWA section 402 effluent limitations and conditions to those permits, and NPDES permit no. AK– G70– 1000, which may cover all other log transfer facilities in Alaska. The EPA issued two general permits for Alaskan log transfer facilities on March 7, 2000. In response to petitions to review the permits brought by the Natural Resources Defense Council and nine other petitioners, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, on February 13, 2002, ruled that the EPA did not provide adequate notice of and opportunity to comment on the general NPDES permits AK– G70– 0000 and AK– G70– 1000 and remanded the permits to the EPA to take further comment on the project area Zone of Deposit (ZOD) authorized by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), and subsequently included in the final permits by the EPA. To comply with the Ninth Circuit's order, the EPA is seeking public comment on the authorization of a `` project area'' zone of deposit for trace, discontinuous, and continuous coverage in the general permits. The EPA also is proposing to modify these permits. The most significant proposal would add a limit on continuous coverage within the project area zone of deposit, but would retain the project area zone of deposit limit for bark and woody debris for trace, discontinuous, and continuous coverage if less than one acre and less than 10 centimeters in depth. This notice seeks comment on the proposed major modifications. Finally, the notice describes various minor modifications the EPA is making to correct typographical errors. DATES: Interested persons may submit written comments on the proposed modifications to general NPDES permits AK– G70– 0000 and AK– G70– 1000 and on the project area zone of deposit on or before December 23, 2002. ADDRESSES: Comments must be sent to the attention of Alaskan LTF Public Comments, EPA Region 10 (OW– 130), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101. All comments should include the name of the commenter, a concise statement VerDate 0ct< 09> 2002 20: 32 Oct 21, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 22OCN1. SGM 22OCN1