[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 127 (Monday, July 2, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31001-31003]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14108]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83521; File No. SR-CboeEDGA-2018-011]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Rule
11.6, Definitions and Rule 11.8, Order Types

June 26, 2018
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on June 13, 2018, Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
has designated this proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon filing with the
Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to (i) amend paragraph (n) of
Exchange Rule 11.6, Routing/Posting Instructions to add a new optional
order instruction to be known as Non-Displayed Swap; and (ii) make a
related change to description of Limit Orders and MidPoint Peg Orders
under Exchange Rule 11.8. The proposed amendments are identical to the
rules of Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX'') \5\ and substantially
similar to the rules of the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'') \6\
and NYSE Arca, Inc. (``Arca'').\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See EDGX Rules 11.6(n)(7), 11.8(b)(7) and 11.8(d)(5); see
also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80841 (June 1, 2017), 82 FR
26559 (June 7, 2017), (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness
To Add a New Optional Order Instruction Known as Non-Displayed
Swap).
    \6\ See Nasdaq Rule 4703(m) (defining the Trade Now order
modifier); see also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79282
(November 10, 2016), 81 FR 81219 (November 17, 2016) (Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule change to Amend
Rule 4702 and Rule 4703 to Add a ``Trade Now'' Instruction to
Certain Order Types).
    \7\ See Arca Rule 7.31-E(d)(2)(B) (describing the Non-Display
Remove Modifier); see also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76267
(October 26, 2015), 80 FR 66951 (October 30, 2015) (Order Approving
Proposed Rule change Adopting New Equity Trading Rules Relating to
Orders and Modifiers and Retail Liquidity Program To Reflect the
Implementation of Pillar, the Exchange's New Trading Technology
Platform).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
website at www.markets.cboe.com, at the Exchange's principal office and
at the Public Reference Room of the Commission.

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: (i) Amend paragraph (n) of Exchange Rule
11.6, Routing/Posting Instructions to add a new optional order
instruction to be known as Non-Displayed Swap; and (ii) make a related
change to description of Limit Orders and MidPoint Peg Orders under
Exchange Rule 11.8. These proposed amendments are identical to the
rules of EDGX \8\ and substantially similar to the rules of Nasdaq and
Arca.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See supra note 5.
    \9\ See supra notes 6 and 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed Non-Displayed Swap (``NDS'') instruction would provide
orders with a Non-Displayed \10\ instruction resting on the EDGA Book
\11\ with a greater ability to receive an execution when that resting
order is locked by an incoming order (e.g., the price of the resting
non-displayed order is equal to the price of the incoming order that is
to be placed on the EDGA Book). The NDS instruction would be an
optional order instruction that would allow Users \12\ to have their
resting non-displayed orders execute against an incoming order with a
Post Only instruction rather than have it be locked by the incoming
order. NDS would be defined as an instruction that may be attached to
an order with a Non-Displayed instruction that when such order is
resting on the EDGA Book and would be locked by an incoming order with
a Post Only instruction that does not remove liquidity pursuant to
paragraph (4) of Exchange Rule 11.6(n),\13\ the order with a NDS

instruction is converted to an executable order and will remove
liquidity against such incoming order. An order with a NDS instruction
would not be eligible for routing pursuant to Exchange Rule 11.11,
Routing to Away Trading Centers. The proposed NDS instruction assists
in the avoidance of an internally locked EDGA Book (though such lock
would not be displayed by the Exchange) \14\ by facilitating the
execution of orders that would otherwise lock each other.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Exchange Rule 11.6(e)(2).
    \11\ See Exchange Rule 1.5(d).
    \12\ See Exchange Rule 1.5(ee).
    \13\ Under Exchange Rule 11.6(n)(4), an order with a Post Only
instruction will remove contra-side liquidity from the EDGA Book if
the order is an order to buy or sell a security priced below $1.00
or if the value of such execution when removing liquidity equals or
exceeds the value of such execution if the order instead posted to
the EDGA Book and subsequently provided liquidity, including the
applicable fees charged or rebates provided. To determine at the
time of a potential execution whether the value of such execution
when removing liquidity equals or exceeds the value of such
execution if the order instead posted to the EDGA Book and
subsequently provided liquidity, the Exchange will use the highest
possible rebate paid and highest possible fee charged for such
executions on the Exchange.
    \14\ See Exchange Rule 11.10(a)(4)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following example illustrates the operation of an order with a
NDS instruction. Assume the National Best Bid and Offer is $10.00 by
$10.04. There is a Limit Order to buy with a Non-Displayed instruction
resting on the EDGA Book at $10.03. An order to sell with a Post Only
instruction priced at $10.03 is entered. Under current behavior, the
incoming sell order with a Post Only instruction would post to the EDGA
Book because it would not receive sufficient price improvement.\15\
This would result in the EDGA Book being internally locked.\16\ As
proposed, if the Limit Order to buy with Non-Displayed instruction also
included a NDS instruction, the orders would instead execute against
each other at $10.03, with the resting buy order with the NDS
instruction becoming the remover of liquidity and the incoming sell
order with a Post Only instruction becoming the liquidity provider.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id. [sic]
    \16\ In the event the incoming order with a Post Only
instruction was to be displayed, it would post and display at $10.03
and the resting buy order with a Non-Displayed instruction would not
execute against it or subsequent incoming sell orders at $10.03 for
so long as the sell order was displayed on the Exchange. See
Exchange Rule 11.10(a)(4)(C) and (D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Assume the same facts as above, but that a Limit Order with a Non-
Displayed instruction to buy at $10.03 (``Order A'') is also resting on
the EDGA Book with time priority ahead of the Limit Order to buy with a
Non-Displayed instruction mentioned above (``Order B''). Like above, an
order to sell with a Post Only instruction priced at $10.03 is entered.
Under current behavior, the incoming sell order with a Post Only
instruction would post to the EDGA Book because the value of such
execution against the resting buy interest when removing liquidity does
not equal or exceed the value of such execution if the order instead
posted to the EDGA Book and subsequently provided liquidity, including
the applicable fees charged or rebates provided. As proposed, if Order
B also included a NDS instruction, the incoming sell order would
execute against Order B and such order would become the remover of
liquidity and the incoming sell order with a Post Only instruction
would become the liquidity provider. In such case, Order A cedes time
priority to Order B because Order A did not also include a NDS
instruction and thus the User that submitted Order A did not indicate
the preference to be treated as the remover of liquidity in favor of an
execution; instead, by not using NDS, a User indicates the preference
to remain posted on the EDGA Book as a liquidity provider.\17\ However,
if the incoming sell order was priced at $10.02, it would receive
sufficient price improvement to execute upon entry against all resting
buy Limit Orders in time priority at $10.03.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Should the Limit Order to buy at $10.03 with time priority
(i.e., Order A) be displayed on the EDGA Book, the incoming sell
order at $10.03 with a Post Only instruction will not execute
against the non-displayed buy order with a NDS instruction because
displayed orders have priority over non-displayed orders. In such a
case, the incoming Limit Order would be handled as it is today in
accordance with existing Exchange rules. See, e.g., Exchange Rules
11.6(l), 11.9, and 11.10(a).
    \18\ The execution occurs here because the value of the
execution against the buy order when removing liquidity exceeds the
value of such execution if the order instead posted to the EDGA Book
and subsequently provided liquidity, including the applicable fees
charged or rebates provided. See supra note 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the order with a NDS instruction is only partially executed, the
unexecuted portion of that order remains on the EDGA Book and maintains
its priority, as is the case today for an order that is partially
executed and not cancelled by the User.\19\ The Exchange is proposing
to make the NDS instruction available to Limit Orders \20\ that include
a Non-Displayed instruction and MidPoint Peg Orders.\21\ The NDS
instruction would not be available to all other order types provided by
the Exchange under its Rule 11.8, as the execution of these order types
is governed by other Exchange rules and the NDS instruction would be
inconsistent with the use of those order types.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Exchange Rule 11.9(a)(5).
    \20\ See Exchange Rule 11.8(b).
    \21\ See Exchange Rule 11.8(d); the Exchange notes that NDS can
be combined with other instructions also available to Limit Orders
with a Non-Displayed instruction, such as the Discretionary Range
instruction, the Minimum Execution Quantity instruction and the
Pegged instruction, as such terms are defined in Exchange Rules
11.6(d), 11.6(h) and 11.6(j), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that similar functionality exists on Nasdaq and
Arca. Nasdaq refers to their functionality as the ``Trade Now''
instruction \22\ and Arca refers to their functionality as the ``Non-
Display Remove Modifier''.\23\ On Arca, a Limit Non-Displayed Order may
be designated with a Non-Display Remove Modifier. If so designated, a
Limit Non-Displayed Order to buy (sell) will trade as the remover of
liquidity with an incoming Adding Liquidity Only Order (``ALO Order'')
to sell (buy) that has a working price equal to the working price of
the Limit Non-Displayed Order.\24\ On Nasdaq, Trade Now is an order
attribute that allows a resting order that becomes locked by an
incoming Displayed Order to execute against the available size of the
contra-side locking order as a liquidity taker, and any remaining
shares of the resting order will remain posted on the Nasdaq Book with
the same priority.\25\ Nasdaq requires the contra-side order to be
display eligible, while the Exchange proposes to enable an order with a
NDS instruction to remove liquidity regardless of whether the incoming
order would have ultimately been eligible for display consistent with
Arca's Non-Display Remove Modifier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Nasdaq Rule 4703(m). See also Securities and Exchange
Act Release No. 79282 (November 10, 2016), 81 FR 81219 (November 17,
2016) (SR-Nasdaq-2016-156) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Amend Rule 4703 and Rule
4703 to add a ``Trade Now'' Instruction to Certain Order Types).
    \23\ See Arca Rule 7.31-E(d)(2)(B). See also Securities and
Exchange Act Release No. 76267 (October 26, 2015), 80 FR 66951
(October 30, 2015) (SR-NYSEArca-2015-56) (Order Approving Proposed
Rule Change, and Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated
Approval of Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 Thereto, Adopting New Equity
Trading Rules Relating to Orders and Modifiers and the Retail
Liquidity Program To Reflect the Implementation of Pillar, the
Exchange's New Trading Technology Platform) (including the Non-
Display Remove Modifier).
    \24\ See Arca Rule 7.31-E(d)(2)(b).
    \25\ Arca provides their Non-Display Remove Modifier to their
Mid-Point Liquidity Orders (``MPL Orders'') designated Day and MPL-
ALO Orders and Arca Only Orders. Nasdaq's Trade Now functionality is
available to Price to Comply Orders, Price to Display Orders, Non-
Displayed Orders, Post-Only Orders, Midpoint Peg Post-Only Orders,
and Market Maker Peg Orders. To the extent the NDS instruction is
only available to Limit Orders with a Non-Displayed instruction and
MidPoint Peg Orders, the Exchange notes that the NDS instruction
will apply to different order types than Arca's Non-Display Remove
Modifier and Nasdaq's Trade Now functionality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \26\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \27\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system and, in

general, to protect investors and the public interest by offering Users
optional functionality that will facilitate the execution of orders
that would otherwise remain unexecuted, thereby increasing the
efficient functioning of the Exchange. The NDS instruction is an
optional feature that is intended to reflect the order management
practices of various market participants. The proposed NDS instruction
assists in the avoidance of an internally locked EDGA Book by
facilitating the execution of orders that would otherwise post, or
remain posted, to the EDGA Book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. On
the contrary, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change promotes
competition because it will enable the Exchange to offer functionality
substantially similar to that offered by Nasdaq and Arca (in addition
to the fact that such functionality is identical to that already
offered by the Exchange's affiliate, EDGX).\28\ Therefore, the Exchange
does not believe the proposed rule change will result in any burden on
intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As the NDS feature will be
equally available to all Users, the Exchange does not believe the
proposed rule change will result in any burden on intramarket
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See supra notes 5-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    No comments were solicited or received on the proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \29\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \30\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing. However,
Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \31\ permits the Commission to designate a
shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. In its filing, EDGA requested that
the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay so that the Exchange
can implement the proposed rule change promptly after filing. The
Exchange noted that the proposed functionality is optional, may lead to
increased order interaction on the Exchange, and is identical to
functionality already provided on EDGX. The Commission believes that
waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection
of investors and the public interest, as such waiver will permit the
Exchange to update its rule without delay so that it provides the same
optional NDS functionality as is available on EDGX and potentially
increase order interaction on the Exchange. Accordingly, the Commission
waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the proposed rule
change operative upon filing.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \32\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CboeEDGA-2018-011 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-CboeEDGA-2018-011. 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 the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CboeEDGA-2018-011, and should be
submitted on or before July 23, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12) and (59).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-14108 Filed 6-29-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 13 (Friday, January 22, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6708-6710]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01311]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90930; File No. PCAOB-2020-01]

Public Company Accounting Oversight Board; Order Granting
Approval of Amendments to PCAOB Interim Independence Standards and
PCAOB Rules to Align with Amendments to Rule 2-01 of Regulation S-X

January 14, 2021.

I. Introduction

    On November 20, 2020, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board
(the ``Board'' or the ``PCAOB'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission''), pursuant to Section 107(b) \1\ of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the ``Sarbanes-Oxley Act'') and Section
19(b) \2\ of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Exchange
Act''), a proposal to adopt amendments to the PCAOB's interim
independence standards and PCAOB rules to align with the Commission's
recent adoption of amendments 17 CFR 210.2-01 (``Rule 2-01'') of 17 CFR
210.01 et seq. (``Regulation S-X'') \3\ (collectively, the ``Proposed
Rules'').\4\ The Proposed Rules were published for comment in the
Federal Register on November 27, 2020.\5\ We received several comment
letters in response to the notice.\6\ This order approves the Proposed
Rules, which we find to be consistent with the requirements of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the securities laws and necessary or appropriate
in the public interest or for the protection of investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 7217(b).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b).
    \3\ See Qualifications of Accountants, Release No. 33-10876
(Oct. 16, 2020) (``2020 Adopting Release'').
    \4\ See Amendments to PCAOB Interim Independence Standards and
Board Rules to Align with Amendments to Rule 2-01of Regulation S-X,
PCAOB Release No. 2020-03 (Nov. 19, 2020) (``PCAOB Adopting
Release''), available at https://pcaobus.org/Rulemaking/Docket047/2020-003-Independence-final-rule.pdf.
    \5\ See Public Company Accounting Oversight Board; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rules on Amendments to PCAOB Interim Independence
Standards and PCAOB Rules to Align with Amendments to Rule 2-01 of
Regulation S-X, Release No. 34-90473 (Nov. 20, 2020) [85 FR 76131
(Nov. 27, 2020)].
    \6\ See, e.g., comment letters from the Council of Institutional
Investors, December 3, 2020 (``CII Letter''); Right Advisory LLC,
December 7, 2020 (``RA Letter''); Deloitte LLP, December 11, 2020
(``Deloitte Letter''); PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, December 16, 2020
(``PwC Letter''); Colorado PERA, December 16, 2020 (``COPERA'');
International Corporate Governance Network, December 16, 2020
(``ICGN Letter''); Consumer Federation of America and Certain Other
Groups and Individuals, December 17, 2020 (``CFA, et al. Letter'');
Ernst & Young LLP, December 18, 2020 (``EY Letter''); and the
California Public Employees' Retirement System, December 18, 2020
(``CalPERS Letter''). Copies of the comment letters received on the
Commission order noticing the Proposed Rules are available on the
Commission's website at https://www.sec.gov/comments/pcaob-2020-01/pcaob202001.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rules

    On November 19, 2020, the Board adopted amendments to the PCAOB's
interim independence standards and PCAOB rules to align with amendments
by the SEC to Rule 2-01 of Regulation S-X.\7\ The Proposed Rules are
intended to avoid differences and duplicative requirements. To that
end, the Board adopted targeted amendments to its interim independence
standards applicable to lending arrangements between auditors and audit
clients. In addition, the Board adopted targeted amendments to align
certain terms defined in PCAOB Rule 3501 with the Commission's recent
amendments to its definitions of those terms in 17 CFR 210.2-01(f)
(``Rule 2-01(f)'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Changes to PCAOB Standards

    The Proposed Rules will make the following changes:
     Amend ET Sec.  101.02 of the American Institute of
Certified Public Accountants (``AICPA'') Code of Professional Conduct,
Interpretation of Rule 101, as in existence on April 16, 2003 and
incorporated in the Board's auditing and related professional practice.
     Delete ET Sec.  101.07 of the AICPA's Code of Professional
Conduct, Loans from financial institution clients and related
terminology, as in existence on April 16, 2003 and incorporated in the
Board's auditing and related professional practice standards by PCAOB
Rule 3500T.
     Delete ET Sec. Sec.  191.150-.151, ET Sec. Sec.
191.182-.183, ET Sec. Sec.  191.196-.197, and ET Sec. Sec.
191.220-.222, of the AICPA's Code of Professional Conduct, as in
existence on April 16, 2003 and incorporated in the Board's auditing
and related professional practice standards by PCAOB Rule 3500T, which
are four Ethics Rulings under Rule 101 that also address lending
arrangements and are part of the Board's interim independence
standards.
     Amend PCAOB Rules 3501(a)(ii), (a)(iii), and (i)(ii).

B. Applicability and Effective Date

    The Proposed Rules will be effective June 9, 2021, 180 days after
the date of the publication of the Commission's October 16, 2020
amendments to Rule 2-01 in the Federal Register. The June 9, 2021
effective date is aligned with the effective date of the Commission's
amendments to Rule 2-01.\8\ Auditors may elect to comply before the
effective date at any point after SEC approval of the Board's
amendments, provided that the final amendments are applied in their
entirety. The PCAOB has recommended that the Proposed Rules to apply to
audits of emerging growth companies (``EGCs''),\9\ as discussed in
Section IV below, and audits of brokers and dealers under 17 CFR
240.17a-5 (``Exchange Act Rule 17a-5'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See 2020 Adopting Release at 81.
    \9\ The term ``emerging growth company'' is defined in Section
3(a)(80) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(80)). See also
Release No. 33-10332 Inflation Adjustments and Other Technical
Amendments Under Titles I and III of the JOBS Act (Mar. 31, 2017),
82 FR 17545 (Apr. 12, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Comment Letters

    The comment period on the Proposed Rules ended on December 18,
2020. We received several comment letters representing investor
organizations, advisory firms, accounting firms, trade organizations,
and other interested parties. Some commenters were supportive \10\ of
the Proposed Rules

while other commenters asked the Commission to consider certain changes
to auditor independence unrelated to the Proposed Rules \11\ or
reiterated comments addressed by the Commission in the 2020 Adopting
Release.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See RA Letter; Deloitte Letter; PwC Letter; and EY Letter.
    \11\ See RA Letter.
    \12\ See CII Letter; CFA, et al. Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires us to determine whether the
Proposed Rules are consistent with the requirements of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act and the securities laws, or are necessary or appropriate in
the public interest or for the protection of investors.\13\ In making
this determination, we have considered the comments we received. The
comments received on the Proposed Rules did not raise new issues for
the Commission to address. The commenters in support of the
Commission's approval of the Proposed Rules reiterated their prior
support for the 2020 Adopting Release and noted the benefits of
eliminating differences between the Commission's and the PCAOB's
auditor independence rules while focusing on those relationships and
services that are more likely to threaten an auditor's objectivity and
impartiality.\14\ Commenters opposing the Commission's approval of the
Proposed Rules reiterated certain concerns regarding amendments in the
Commission's 2020 Adopting Release or expressed concerns about the
PCAOB's process to adopt the Proposed Rules at this time. For example,
some commenters \15\ expressed concerns about the ``Affiliate of the
Audit Client'' definition while one commenter \16\ broadly opposed many
of the specific amendments within the Commission's 2020 Adopting
Release. Some commenters \17\ also expressed the desire for a rule that
would specify the documentation that auditors should prepare and
maintain when additional services are provided to an affiliate of an
audit client.\18\ One commenter \19\ suggested a public certification
of the design and operating effectiveness of controls over audit
quality and independence by executives of the audit firm.\20\ The
commenters \21\ who expressed concerns about the PCAOB's process to
adopt the Proposed Rules at this time requested the PCAOB to use its
independent authority to expand the scope of the rulemaking beyond
conforming amendments to the Commission's 2019 and 2020 Adopting
Releases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Section 107(b)(3) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The
Sarbanes-Oxley Act also specifies that the provisions of Section
19(b) of the Exchange Act shall govern the proposed rules of the
Board. See Section 107(b)(4) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Section 19
of the Exchange Act pertains to the registration, responsibilities,
and oversight of self-regulatory organizations. Under the procedures
prescribed by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and Section 19(b)(2) of the
Exchange Act, the Commission must either approve or disapprove, or
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rules of the
Board should be disapproved; and these procedures do not expressly
permit the Commission to amend or supplement the proposed rules of
the Board.
    \14\ See Deloitte Letter; PwC Letter; EY Letter; RA Letter.
    \15\ See CII Letter; CFA et al. Letter; and CalPERS Letter.
    \16\ See CFA et al. Letter.
    \17\ See supra note 15.
    \18\ In considering a rule adopted by the PCAOB under the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Commission may only take action to approve
or disapprove any such rule. As such, any recommendation to alter
the Proposed Rules is outside the scope of this Order.
    \19\ See supra note 11.
    \20\ See supra note 18.
    \21\ See CFA et al Letter, COPERA Letter; ICGN Letter; and
CalPERS Letter. One commenter specifically expressed concerns
regarding the PCAOB relying on the Commission's deliberation in
adopting the 2020 Adopting Release. See CalPERS Letter. In the PCAOB
Adopting Release, the Board noted its consideration of the
Commission's rulemaking record and stated that ``[it] believes that
this process--structured by the Commission to satisfy the
requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act--is at least as
robust as the Board's process would have been had the PCAOB
considered amendments to the Board's independence requirements
without the benefit of the SEC's analysis.'' See PCAOB Adopting
Release, at 12. The Board further noted that it did not perceive
``any reason or compelling basis in the [Commission's] rulemaking
record'' to diverge from the Commission's stated goals and maintain
disparate independence requirements. Id. Because we agree with the
Board's conclusions on these points, we are not persuaded by the
commenter who objected to the PCAOB's processes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering the public comments and recommendations, we are
approving the Proposed Rules. The comments the Commission has received
with respect to the Proposed Rules are generally similar to the
comments the Commission considered when approving the 2020 Adopting
Release and the Auditor Independence with Respect to Certain Loans or
Debtor-Creditor Relationships Release (the ``2019 Adopting
Release'').\22\ As the Commission noted in the 2020 Adopting Release,
the Commission expects the amendments to Rule 2-01 to more effectively
focus the independence analysis on those relationships or services that
are more likely to pose threats to an auditor's objectivity and
impartiality. After considering public comments, the Commission noted
that the amendments to Rule 2-01 would benefit audit firms, audit
clients, and investors in several ways. First, by revising the rules to
emphasize those relationships and services that are more likely to
threaten auditor objectivity and impartiality, the Commission
anticipates the amendments will reduce compliance costs for audit firms
and their clients. Similarly, under the amended rules, auditors and
their clients will be able to focus their resources and attention on
monitoring those relationships and services that pose the greatest risk
to auditor independence, reducing overall compliance burdens without
significantly diminishing investor protections. \23\ The Proposed
Rules, which conform the PCAOB's independence requirements to the 2020
Adopting Release, will allow firms, audit clients and investors to take
advantage fully of the anticipated benefits of the amendments to Rule
2-01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Adopting Release, at 88-90.
    \23\ See Release No. 33-10648 (June 18, 2019), [84 FR 32040
(July 5, 2019)]. Some commenters explicitly cited to their prior
comment letters submitted when the Commission considered the 2020
Adopting release and the 2019 Adopting Release. See CII Letter,
Deloitte Letter, PwC Letter, and Consumer Federation of America, et
al. Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Effect on Emerging Growth Companies

    In the PCAOB Adopting Release, the Board recommended that the
Commission determine that the Proposed Rules apply to audits of
EGCs.\24\ Section 103(a)(3)(C) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, as amended by
Section 104 of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012,
requires that any rules of the Board ``requiring mandatory audit firm
rotation or a supplement to the auditor's report in which the auditor
would be required to provide additional information about the audit and
the financial statements of the issuer (auditor discussion and
analysis) shall not apply to an audit of an [EGC].'' The provisions of
the Proposed Rules do not fall into these categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See PCAOB Adopting Release at 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 103(a)(3)(C) further provides that ``[a]ny additional
rules'' adopted by the PCAOB after April 5, 2012, do not apply to
audits of EGCs ``unless the Commission determines that the application
of such additional requirements is necessary or appropriate in the
public interest, after considering the protection of investors and
whether the action will promote efficiency, competition, and capital
formation.'' The Proposed Rules fall within this category. Having
considered those statutory factors, we find that applying the Proposed
Rules to the audits of EGCs is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest.
    To inform consideration of the application of auditing standards to
audits of EGCs, the PCAOB staff

published a white paper that provides general information about
characteristics of EGCs (``EGC White Paper'').\25\ In the EGC White
Paper, the PCAOB staff stated that ``[a]pproximately 96% of EGC filers
were audited by accounting firms that also audit issuers that are not
EGC filers.'' \26\ Additionally, the PCAOB Adopting Release discussed
the Commission's intent to improve the practical application of Rule 2-
01 of Regulation S-X and reduce compliance burdens, which may lead to
increased competition among auditors and facilitate capital formation.
The Board noted that if the Proposed Rules were determined not to apply
to the audits of EGCs, auditors would be required to address the
differing independence requirements in their independence policies and
procedures and in their quality control systems as a result of the
differences between the Board and Commission requirements, which would
create the potential for confusion.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Characteristics of Emerging Growth Companies and their
Audit Firms as of November 15, 2019 (November 9, 2020), available at
https://archive.pcaobus.org/EconomicAndRiskAnalysis/ProjectsOther/Documents/White-Paper-Characteristics-Emerging-Growth-Companies-November-15-2019.pdf.
    \26\ See EGC White Paper at 13.
    \27\ See PCAOB Adopting Release at 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We agree with the Board's analysis. We believe the Proposed Rules
will benefit EGCs at least as much as non-EGCs, in part, because the
Commission's amendments to Rule 2-01 were meant to more effectively
focus the independence analysis on those relationships or services that
are more likely to pose threats to an auditor's objectivity and
impartiality.
    As such, after considering the protection of investors and whether
the action will promote efficiency, competition, and capital formation,
we believe there is a sufficient basis to determine that applying the
Proposed Rules to the audits of EGCs is necessary or appropriate in the
public interest.

V. Conclusion

    The Commission has carefully reviewed and considered the Proposed
Rules, the information submitted therewith by the PCAOB and the comment
letters received. In connection with the PCAOB's filing and the
Commission's review,
    A. The Commission finds that the Proposed Rules are consistent with
the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the securities laws and
are necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the
protection of investors; and
    B. Separately, the Commission finds that the application of the
Proposed Rules to the audits of EGCs is necessary or appropriate in the
public interest, after considering the protection of investors and
whether the action will promote efficiency, competition, and capital
formation.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 107 of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act and Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act, that the Proposed
Rules (File No.PCAOB-2020-01) be and hereby are approved.

    By the Commission.

Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-01311 Filed 1-21-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 71 (Thursday, April 12, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22040-22042]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8778]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66754; File No. SR-Phlx-2012-41]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Routing of Non-Customer Orders

April 6, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 27, 2012, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below,
which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 1080(m), Order
Routing, to expand the routing capabilities of certain options orders
that are eligible for electronic routing to other market centers by the
Exchange's fully automated options trading system, PHLX XL.[supreg]\3\
Under the proposal, non-customer FIND orders (as defined below) that
are received during open trading will now be eligible for routing to
other market centers for execution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This proposal refers to ``PHLX XL'' as the Exchange's
automated options trading system. In May 2009 the Exchange enhanced
the system and adopted corresponding rules referring to the system
as ``Phlx XL II.'' See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59995
(May 28, 2009), 74 FR 26750 (June 3, 2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-32). The
Exchange intends to submit a separate technical proposed rule change
that would change all references to the system from ``Phlx XL II''
to ``PHLX XL'' for branding purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to expand the routing
capabilities of option orders that are eligible for routing to other
market centers when the Exchange cannot execute such orders at the
National Best Bid or Offer (``NBBO''), by making non-customer FIND
orders eligible for routing during open trading. In addition, the
Exchange is revising the definition of the term ``SRCH order'' to be
clear that only customer SRCH orders will continue to be eligible for
routing.
Current Rule
    Currently, Rule 1080(m) states that the PHLX XL system will route
only customer \4\ FIND \5\ and SRCH \6\ orders to away markets. For
purposes of this rule, the term ``customer'' includes a
``professional'' customer as defined in Exchange Rule 1000(b)(14).\7\
FIND and SRCH Orders designated as available for routing are first
checked by the PHLX XL system for available contracts for potential
execution on the Exchange. After checking the PHLX XL system for
available contracts, orders are sent to other available market centers
for potential execution. When checking the book, the PHLX XL system
seeks to execute at the price at which it would send the order to a
destination market center. In situations where the Exchange's
disseminated bid or offer is inferior to the NBBO price, the PHLX XL
system will contemporaneously route an order marked as an Intermarket
Sweep Order (``ISO'') \8\ to each away market disseminating prices
better than the Exchange's price, for the lesser of: (a) The
disseminated size of such away markets, or (b) the order size and, if
order size remains after such routing, trade at the Exchange's
disseminated bid or offer up to its disseminated size. If contracts
still remain unexecuted after routing, they are posted on the
Exchange's limit order book. Whether and under what circumstances such
unexecuted contracts are re-routed depends upon the order's status as a
FIND or SRCH order, as defined above.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For purposes of this proposal, the term ``customer'' means a
person or entity that is neither a broker-dealer nor a direct or
indirect affiliate of a broker-dealer.
    \5\ A FIND order is currently defined as an order that is
routable upon receipt. A FIND order received during open trading
that is not marketable against the PHLX best Bid/Offer ``PBBO'' or
the Away Best Bid/Offer (``ABBO'') will be entered into the limit
order book at its limit price. The FIND order will not be eligible
for routing until the next time the option series is subject to a
new Opening Process. See Exchange Rule 1080(m)(iv)(B).
    \6\ A SRCH order is an order that is routable at any time. A
SRCH order received during open trading that is not marketable
against the PBBO or the ABBO will be entered into the Phlx XLII
book. Once on the book, the SRCH order is eligible for routing if it
is locked or crossed by an away market. See Exchange Rule
1080(m)(iv)(C).
    \7\ The term ``professional'' means any person or entity that
(i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) places more
than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a
calendar month for its own beneficial account(s). A professional
will be treated in the same manner as an off-floor broker-dealer for
purposes of Rules 1014(g)(except with respect to all-or-none orders,
which will be treated like customer orders, except that orders
submitted pursuant to Rule 1080(n) for the beneficial account(s) of
professionals with an all-or-none designation will be treated in the
same manner as off-floor broker-dealer orders), 1033(e), 1064.02
(except professional orders will be considered customer orders
subject to facilitation), 1080(n) and 1080.08 as well as Options
Floor Procedure Advices B-6, B-11 and F-5. Member organizations must
indicate whether orders are for professionals. See Exchange Rule
1000(b)(14).
    \8\ An ISO is a limit order for an options series that is
identified as an ISO when routed to an away market center and,
simultaneously with the routing of the order, one or more additional
ISOs, as necessary, are routed to execute against the full displayed
size of any Protected Bid, in the case of a limit order to sell, or
any Protected Offer, in the case of a limit order to buy, for the
options series with a price that is superior to the limit price of
the ISO, with such additional orders also marked as ISOs.
    \9\ See supra notes 5 and 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposal
    The Exchange is proposing to add non-customer FIND orders as a new
category of orders that are eligible for routing. Non-customer FIND
orders would be eligible for routing only during open trading, and not
during the Opening Process.\10\ Customer FIND and SRCH orders received
prior to the opening would continue to be treated as they are currently
under the rule, i.e., both are eligible for routing during the Opening
Process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Exchange Rule 1017(l)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the current rule and practice, a customer FIND order received
during open trading that is not marketable against the PHLX Best Bid or
Offer (``PBBO'') or the Away Best Bid or Offer (``ABBO'') is entered
into the limit order book at its limit price. If the FIND order is
marketable against the ABBO, it is routed to markets disseminating the
ABBO. If the order still has remaining

size after routing, it will be entered into the limit order book. Such
FIND order, or its remainder, is not eligible for routing again until
the next time the affected option series is subject to a new Opening
Process. Under the proposal, non-customer FIND orders would be treated
in the same manner as customer FIND orders, except that non-customer
FIND orders would not be eligible for routing during the Opening
Process. The Exchange is proposing to route only customer FIND orders
during the opening process to ensure that customers retain priority
respecting all liquidity available as part of the Opening Process
whether that liquidity is on PHLX or on another exchange. During open
trading this is not an issue because two FIND orders will not be
received at precisely the same time; generally, a customer FIND order
would always have priority over a non-customer FIND order.
    Unlike the treatment of FIND orders, the treatment of SRCH orders
is not subject to change under the proposal. Currently, Exchange Rule
1080(m) states that the PHLX XL system will route only customer FIND
and SRCH orders. While the proposed rule change would expand routable
FIND orders to include non-customer FIND orders, the proposal would re-
define a SRCH order as a customer order that is routable at any time.
The purpose of this change is to ensure that only customer SRCH orders
continue to be eligible for routing. Just as today, non-customer SRCH
orders will not be eligible for routing. Non-customer orders received
that are designated as SRCH orders will be placed on the limit order
book if not executed on the Exchange upon receipt.
    The Exchange notes that very few customers use the SRCH order type.
Additionally, the Exchange has noted that there is no demand for the
use of SRCH orders on the part of non-customers, as these participants
tend to be sensitive to, and prefer to control, the charges incurred
when their order is routed. The Exchange believes, however, that non-
customers submitting their orders to the Exchange will use FIND orders.
FIND orders allow participants to access potential liquidity on away
markets while enabling them to manage expectations of the number of
times their orders are routed. This helps participants to plan for and
ascertain the fees they would incur each time their order is routed.
Thus, the Exchange believes that the expansion of the FIND order to
non-customer participants is appropriate and useful in the processing
of non-customer orders seeking the best execution in the marketplace as
a whole.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\11\ in general and with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\12\ in that it is designed to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest; and is not designed to
permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers, or to regulate by virtue of any authority conferred by the Act
matters not related to the purposes of the Act or the administration of
the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is also
consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act \13\ in that it does not
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically, the proposal
would expand the routing capabilities of certain orders that are
eligible for routing to other exchanges, despite the fact that such
other exchanges are competitors of the Exchange. This benefits
investors because the Exchange's system will route to away markets at
better prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change removes impediments to and perfects the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by
enabling non-customer orders to have access to liquidity on other
exchanges each time they submit a FIND order to the Exchange, providing
for best executions in the national market system.
    The Exchange further believes that the proposed rule change does
not permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers,
or dealers. FIND orders submitted after the Opening Process, by either
customers or non-customers, will be handled by the PHLX XL system in
the same manner and will be provided with equal access to liquidity on
other exchanges. This treatment of customer and non-customer FIND
orders ensures that there is no unfair discrimination between customers
and non-customers submitting such orders to the Exchange after the
Opening Process.

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

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

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\14\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-Phlx-2012-41 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-Phlx-2012-41. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's

Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the
submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with
respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission,
and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change
between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be
withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3
p.m. Copies of 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 No. SR-Phlx-2012-41 and should be submitted on or
before May 3, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-8778 Filed 4-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 7, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34726-34728]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12168]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95017; File No. SR-DTC-2022-005]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
To Eliminate Certain Fees Charged to Applicants

June 1, 2022.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on May 24, 2022, The Depository Trust Company (``DTC'') 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 clearing agency. DTC filed the proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4)
thereunder.\4\ The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change \5\ consists of modifications to the (i)
DTC Fee Guide (``Fee Guide'') \6\ and (ii) Policy Statement on the
Admission of Participants and Pledgees (``Policy Statement''),\7\ to
eliminate certain fees charged to legal entities that formally make an
application (``Application'') to DTC to become either a Participant \8\
(each, a ``Participant Applicant'') or a Pledgee \9\ (each, a ``Pledgee
Applicant'') of DTC (Participant Applicants and Pledgee Applicants,
referred to collectively as ``Applicants'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Capitalized terms not defined herein are defined in the
Rules, By-Laws and Organization Certificate of DTC (the ``Rules''),
available at www.dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/legal/rules/
dtc_rules.pdf.
    \6\ Available at http://www.dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/
legal/fee-guides/dtcfeeguide.pdf?la=en.
    \7\ See Policy Statement, supra note 5.
    \8\ See Rule 2, Section 1, supra note 5.
    \9\ See Rule 2, Section 3, supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More specifically, the Fee Guide will be amended to remove a charge
to (A) each Participant Applicant of $5,000 in connection with its
Application to become a Participant \10\ (``Participant Application
Fee''), and (B) each Pledgee Applicant of $2,500 in connection with its
Application to become a Pledgee \11\ (``Pledgee Application Fee'')
(Participant Application Fee and Pledgee Application Fee, collectively
referred to as ``Application Fees''). The Policy Statement will be
amended to remove text relating to the Application Fees. These proposed
changes are described in greater detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Fee Guide, supra note 6, at 16.
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency 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 clearing agency has prepared summaries,
set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant
aspects of such statements.

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The proposed rule change consists of modifications to the Fee Guide
and Policy Statement to eliminate certain fees charged to Applicants.
More specifically, the Fee Guide will be amended to remove the
Application Fees. The Policy Statement will be amended to remove text
relating to the Application Fees. These proposed changes are described
in greater detail below.
Background
    DTC may approve an Applicant that is eligible for admission as a
Participant or Pledgee \12\ only upon a determination by DTC that the
Applicant meets reasonable standards of financial condition,
operational capability and character at the time of its Application and
on an ongoing basis thereafter.\13\ To facilitate DTC's review of an
Application so that DTC may determine whether the Applicant satisfies
these standards, the Applicant must satisfy DTC's Application
requirements in form and substance satisfactory to DTC, including, but
not limited to, required documentation (``Required Documentation''), in
accordance with the Rules.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Rule 3 (setting forth qualifications for eligibility
for Participants) and Section 3 of Rule 2 (setting forth Persons/
entity types that may become Pledgees), supra note 5.
    \13\ See Rule 2, supra note 5.
    \14\ See Rule 2 and the Policy Statement, supra note 5 (setting
forth Required Documentation and other requirements that an
Applicant must satisfy prior to DTC's approval of the Applicant's
Application).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DTC charges each Applicant the applicable Application Fee as
established by the Fee Guide.\15\ The Application Fees were implemented
to help offset expenses associated with the review of Applications.\16\
Payment of the full amount of the Application Fee is due as of the date
DTC provides the Applicant with access to DTC's online Application
portal (``Portal'') \17\ and related payment instructions.\18\ An
Application Fee is non-refundable \19\ regardless of the outcome of the
respective Application (i.e., approval, disapproval or expiration).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Fee Guide, supra note 6, at 16.
    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83544 (June 28,
2018), 83 FR 31223 (July 3, 2018) (SR-DTC-2018-002).
    \17\ The Portal is a closed website that allows Applicants to
retrieve the Application forms and templates for the Required
Documentation, and to submit their completed Application materials,
including Required Documentation, to DTC.
    \18\ See Fee Guide, supra note 6, at 16.
    \19\ See Policy Statement, supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DTC's clearing agency affiliates, National Securities Clearing
Corporation (``NSCC'') and Fixed Income Clearing Corporation
(``FICC''), follow similar membership application processes and require
similar documentation from their respective applicants as described
above for DTC. However, despite following similar membership
application processes, DTC charges Application Fees, while NSCC and
FICC do not. DTC believes harmonizing its practice with its affiliates'
practices would reduce inconsistency between the respective application
processes and provide enhanced consistency relating to requirements for
applicants, in particular where an entity applies to

become a Participant of DTC and a member of NSCC and/or FICC.
    Additionally, DTC believes that the Application Fees are not
necessary because the amount collected from them is immaterial.\20\
Therefore, the elimination of the Application Fees will not have a
material effect on DTC's overall recovery of costs and expenses
associated with the application process, but it will help reduce costs
for Applicants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ In 2020, six Participant Applications were opened, with a
total amount $30,000 in Application Fees billed. In 2021, eight
Participant Applications were opened with a total amount of $40,000
in Application Fees billed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule Change
    To effectuate this proposed rule change, DTC will discontinue
charging Application Fees and remove the Application Fees from the Fee
Guide. Further, DTC will delete a reference to Application Fees and the
following paragraph from the beginning of Section 3 of the Policy
Statement:
    All applicants to become Participants or Pledgees must pay a non-
refundable application fee as specified in the Procedures for each
application made by the applicant to DTC to become a Participant or
Pledgee.
2. Statutory Basis
    Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act \21\ requires that the Rules
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its participants. DTC believes the proposed
elimination of the fees is consistent with this requirement. As stated
above, the amount of revenue collected on an annual basis by DTC
through Application Fees is not material to its recovery of costs and
expenses associated with the application process or to DTC's annual
revenue and expenses.\22\ Instead of charging the Application Fees to
offset the costs to review Applications, DTC believes it would be more
appropriate to absorb the costs as an operating expense through DTC's
internal budget process.\23\ This approach also would be more
consistent with that of its affiliates NSCC and FICC, which follow
similar membership application review processes but do not charge
membership application fees, as noted above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(D).
    \22\ See DTC Financial Statements as of and for the Years Ended
December 31, 2021 and 2020, and Report of Independent Registered
Accounting Firm, available at https://www.dtcc.com/-/media/Files/Downloads/legal/financials/2021/DTC-Annual-Financial-Statements-2021-and-2020.pdf, at 3 (providing DTC's statement of income, which
includes revenue and expenses for 2021 and 2020).
    \23\ See DTC Disclosure Framework, available at https://www.dtcc.com/-/media/Files/Downloads/legal/policy-and-compliance/DTC_Disclosure_Framework.pdf, at 123 (providing a description of
DTC's formal budgeting process).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, DTC believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(D) because it will help provide for
the equitable allocation of reasonable fees among its participants.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    DTC believes that the proposed rule change could impact competition
by promoting it. That is, by eliminating the Applications Fees,
Applicants could redirect those financial resources to other purposes
that could benefit their competitive position.

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    DTC has not received or solicited any written comments relating to
this proposal. If any written comments are received, they would be
publicly filed as an Exhibit 2 to this filing, as required by Form 19b-
4 and the General Instructions thereto.
    Persons submitting comments are cautioned that, according to
Section IV (Solicitation of Comments) of the Exhibit 1A in the General
Instructions to Form 19b-4, the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from comment submissions. Commenters should
submit only information that they wish to make available publicly,
including their name, email address, and any other identifying
information.
    All prospective commenters should follow the Commission's
instructions on how to submit comments, available at https://www.sec.gov/regulatory-actions/how-to-submit-comments. General
questions regarding the rule filing process or logistical questions
regarding this filing should be directed to the Main Office of the
Commission's Division of Trading and Markets at
[email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    DTC reserves the right not to respond to any comments 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) \25\ of the Act and paragraph (f) \26\ of Rule 19b-4
thereunder. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \26\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-DTC-2022-005 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-DTC-2022-005. 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 the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of DTC and on DTCC's website
(http://dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings.aspx). 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-DTC-2022-005 and should be submitted on
or before June 28, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-12168 Filed 6-6-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: September 15, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 179)]
[Notices]
[Page 53244-53246]
[DOCID:fr15se08-67]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0662; FRL-8381-3]

Pesticide Registration Review; New Dockets Opened for Review and
Comment; Closure of the Fenamiphos Registration Review Case

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has established registration review dockets for the
pesticides listed in the table in Unit III.A. With this document, EPA
is opening the public comment period for these registration reviews.
Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide registrations
to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the statutory
standard for registration, that is, the pesticide can perform its
intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human health
or the environment. Registration review dockets contain information
that will assist the public in understanding the types of information
and issues that the Agency may consider during the course of
registration reviews. Through this program, EPA is ensuring that each
pesticide's registration is based on current scientific and other
knowledge, including its effects on human health and the environment.
This document also announces the Agency's intent not to open a
registration review docket for fenaminphos. This pesticide does not
currently have any actively registered pesticide products and is not,
therefore, scheduled for review under the registration review program.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 17, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments identified by the docket identification
(ID) number for the specific pesticide of interest provided in the
table in Unit III.A., by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation 8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Instructions: Direct your comments to the docket ID numbers listed
in the table in Unit III.A. for the pesticides you are commenting on.
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
docket without change and may be made available on-line at http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-mail. The
regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means
EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment
directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. 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. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although, listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of
operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  For pesticide specific information
contact: The Chemical Review Manager identified in the table in Unit
III.A. for the pesticide of interest.
    For general information contact: Kevin Costello, Special Review and
Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address: costello.kevin @epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

     This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, farmworker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry;
pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale,
distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be
interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities that may be affected by this action. 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. 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 e-mail. 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
pesticide(s) discussed in this document, compared to the general
population.

II. Authority

    EPA is initiating its reviews of the pesticides identified in this
document pursuant to section 3(g) of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Procedural Regulations
for Registration Review at 40 CFR part 155, subpart C. Section 3(g) of
FIFRA provides, among other things, that the registrations of
pesticides are to be reviewed every 15 years. Under FIFRA section 3(a),
a pesticide product may be registered or remain registered only if it
meets the statutory standard for registration given in FIFRA section
3(c)(5). When used in accordance with widespread and commonly
recognized practice, the pesticide product must perform its intended
function without unreasonable adverse effects on the environment; that
is, without any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, or a human
dietary risk from residues that result from the use of a pesticide in
or on food.

III. Registration Reviews

 A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    As directed by FIFRA section 3(g), EPA is reviewing the pesticide
registrations identified in the table in this unit to assure that they
continue to satisfy the FIFRA standard for registration--that is, they
can still be used without unreasonable adverse effects on human health
or the environment. A pesticide's registration review begins when the
Agency establishes a docket for the pesticide's registration review
case and opens the docket for public review and comment. At present,
EPA is opening registration review dockets for the cases identified in
the following table.

               Table--Registration Review Dockets Opening
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Chemical Review
  Registration Review Case Name                            Manager,
           and Number              Docket ID Number    Telephone Number,
                                                        E-mail Address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trinexapac-ethyl Case 7228                            87<PHONE_NUMBER>,
                                                      rothwell.kylie@epa
                                                       .gov
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clethodim Case 7226      EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-06  Kelly Ballard,
                                   58<PHONE_NUMBER>,
                                                      ballard.kelly@epa.
                                                       gov
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flumetsulam Case  7229   EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-06  Malanie Biscoe,
                                   25<PHONE_NUMBER>,
                                                      biscoe.melanie@epa
                                                       .gov
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Soap salts Case  4083    EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-05  Monica Wait,
                                   19<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                                       v
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flutolnil                         EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-01  Jill Bloom,
                                   48<PHONE_NUMBER>,
                                                      bloom,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Agency is also announcing that it will not conduct a
registration review for fenamiphos (registration review case 333). In
October 2006, the Agency issued schedules for upcoming registration
reviews and included fenamiphos as one of the pesticides scheduled for
registration review. Since first identifying fenamiphos as a
Registration Review pesticide, the Agency has determined that there are
no current fenamiphos Section 3 or Section 24(c) registrations.
Therefore, the Agency has determined that fenamiphos is no longer
subject to registration review. A Registration Review docket will not
be opened for fenamiphos and the fenamiphos registration review case
has been closed pursuant to 40 CFR 155.42(c).

B. Docket Content

    1. Review dockets. The registration review dockets contain
information that the Agency may consider in the course of the
registration review. The Agency may include information from its files
including, but not limited to, the following information:
     An overview of the registration review case status.
     A list of current product registrations and registrants.
     Federal Register notices regarding any pending
registration actions.
     Federal Register notices regarding current or pending
tolerances.
     Risk assessments.
     Bibliographies concerning current registrations.
     Summaries of incident data.
     Any other pertinent data or information.
     Each docket contains a document summarizing what the Agency
currently knows about the pesticide case and a preliminary work plan
for anticipated data and assessment needs. Additional documents provide
more detailed information. During this public comment period, the
Agency is asking that interested persons identify any additional
information they believe the Agency should consider during the
registration reviews of these pesticides. The Agency identifies in each
docket the areas where public comment is specifically requested, though
comment in any area is welcome.
    2. Other related information. More information on these cases,
including the active ingredients for each case, may be located in the
registration review schedule on the Agency's website at http://
www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/schedule.htm.. Information on
the Agency's registration review program and its implementing
regulation may be seen at http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_
review.
    3. Information submission requirements. Anyone may submit data or
information in response to this document. To be considered during a
pesticide's registration review, the submitted data or information must
meet the following requirements:
     To ensure that EPA will consider data or information
submitted, interested persons must submit the data or information
during the comment period. The Agency may, at its discretion, consider
data or information submitted at a later date.
     The data or information submitted must be presented in a
legible and useable form. For example, an English translation must
accompany any material that is not in English and a written transcript
must accompany any information submitted as an audiographic or
videographic record. Written material may be submitted in paper or
electronic form.
     Submitters must clearly identify the source of any
submitted data or information.
     Submitters may request the Agency to reconsider data or
information that the Agency rejected in a previous review. However,
submitters must explain why they believe the Agency should reconsider
the data or information in the pesticide's registration review.
     As provided in 40 CFR 155.58, the registration review
docket for each pesticide case will remain publicly accessible through
the duration of the registration review process; that is, until all
actions required in the final decision on the registration review case
have been completed.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: September 4, 2008.
Peter Caulkins,
Acting Director, Special Review and Registration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E8-21482 Filed 9-12-08; 8:45 a.m.]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S