[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 204 (Tuesday, October 22, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62809-62814]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24673]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70682; File No. SR-Phlx-2013-101]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change Regarding the Short Term Option Series
Program

October 15, 2013.
    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 October 3, 2013, 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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposal to amend Rule
1012 (Series of Options Open for Trading) to expand the Short Term
Option Program (``STO Program'' or ``Program'') \3\ so that the
Exchange may: Change the current thirty option class limitation to
fifty option classes on which STOs may be opened; list or add STOs
within fifty percent (50%) above or below the closing price of the
underlying security from the preceding day if the price of the
underlying security is greater than $20, or within one hundred percent
(100%) above or below the closing price of the underlying security from
the preceding day if the price of the underlying security is less than
or equal to $20; open up to thirty STO series for each expiration date
in an STO class; add an STO strike price interval of $2.50 or greater
where the strike price is above $150; and in general harmonize the
different parts of the Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ STOs, also known as ``weekly options'' as well as ``Short
Term Options'', are series in an options class that are approved for
listing and trading on the Exchange in which the series are opened
for trading on any Thursday or Friday that is a business day and
that expire on the Friday of the next business week. If a Thursday
or Friday is not a business day, the series may be opened (or shall
expire) on the first business day immediately prior to that Thursday
or Friday, respectively. For STO Program rules regarding non-index
options, see Rule 1000(b)(44) and Commentary .11 to Rule 1012. For
STO Program rules regarding index options, which are not implicated
by this proposal, see Rule 1000A(b)(16) and Rule 1101A(b)(vi).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the
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 this proposed rule change is to amend Rule 1012 to
expand the STO Program for non-index options so that the Exchange may:
Change the current thirty option class limitation to fifty option
classes on which STOs may be opened; list or add STOs within fifty
percent (50%) above or below the closing price of the underlying
security from the preceding day if the price of the underlying security
is greater than $20, or within one hundred percent (100%) above or
below the closing price of the underlying security from the preceding
day if the price of the underlying security is less than or equal to
$20; open up to thirty STO series for each expiration date in an STO
class; add an STO strike price interval of $2.50 or greater where the
strike price is above $150; and in general harmonize the different
parts of the Program.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The price of the underlying security will be calculated
commensurate with Commentary .10(a) to Rule 1012 as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The STO Program, which was initiated in 2010,\5\ is codified in
Commentary .11 to Rule 1012 for non-index options including equity,
currency, and exchange traded fund (``ETF'') options.\6\ These sections
currently state that after an option class has been approved for
listing and trading on the Exchange, the Exchange may open for trading
on any Thursday or Friday that is a business day series of options on
no more than thirty option classes that expire on the Friday of the
following business week that is a business day.\7\ In addition to the
thirty option class limitation, there is also a limitation that no more
than twenty series for each expiration date in those classes may be
opened for trading.\8\ Furthermore, the strike price of each STO has to
be fixed with approximately the same number of strike prices being
opened above and below the value of the underlying security at about
the time that the STOs are initially opened for trading on the
Exchange, and with strike prices being within thirty percent (30%)
above or below the closing price of the underlying security from the
preceding day. The Exchange proposes in part to increase the number of
STO classes that may be opened, match the opening of initial and
additional STO strikes to what is permissible per the OLPP,\9\ add new
strike prices increments that may be used in the STO Program, and in
general harmonize the different parts of the Program (e.g., initial
listings and additional series).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62296 (June 15,
2010), 75 FR 35115 (June 21, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-84) (notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness permanently establishing STO
Program on the Exchange).
    \6\ The Exchange does not by this filing propose any changes to
Rule 1101A(b)(vi) related to the STO Program for index options.
    \7\ The increase in the number of option issues that could be
opened pursuant to the STO Program was approved in 2011. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65776 (November 17, 2011), 76 FR
72482 (November 23, 2011) (SR-Phlx-2011-131) (approval order).
    \8\ However, if the Exchange opens less than twenty (20) Short
Term Option Series for a Short Term Option Expiration Date,
additional series may be opened for trading on the Exchange when the
Exchange deems it necessary to maintain an orderly market, to meet
customer demand or when the market price of the underlying security
moves substantially from the exercise price or prices of the series
already opened. Any additional strike prices listed by the Exchange
shall be within thirty percent (30%) above or below the current
price of the underlying security. The Exchange may also open
additional strike prices of Short Term Option Series that are more
than 30% above or below the current price of the underlying security
provided that demonstrated customer interest exists for such series,
as expressed by institutional, corporate or individual customers or
their brokers. Market-makers trading for their own account shall not
be considered when determining customer interest under this
provision. The opening of the new Short Term Option Series shall not
affect the series of options of the same class previously opened.
Commentary .11(d) to Rule 1012. The Exchange proposes, as discussed
below, to change twenty (20) Short Term Option Series to thirty (30)
Short Term Option Series to achieve consistency with other proposed
rule changes.
    \9\ The full name of the OLPP (which is applicable to all option
exchanges) is Plan For The Purpose of Developing and Implementing
Procedures Designed to Facilitate the Listing and Trading of
Standardized Options Submitted Pursuant to Section 11A(a)(3)(B) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. With regard to the listing of
new series on equity, ETF, or trust issued receipt (``TIRs'') option
classes, subsection 3.(g)(i) of the OLPP states, in relevant part,
that the exercise price of each option series listed by an exchange
that chooses to list a series of options (known as the Series
Selecting Exchange) shall be fixed at a price per share which is
reasonably close to the price of the underlying equity security,
ETF, or TIR at or about the time the Series Selecting Exchange
determines to list such series. Except as provided in subparagraphs
(ii) through (iv) of the OLPP, if the price of the underlying
security is less than or equal to $20, the Series Selecting Exchange
shall not list new option series with an exercise price more than
100% above or below the price of the underlying security. If the
price of the underlying security is greater than $20, the Series
Selecting Exchange shall not list new option series with an exercise
price more than 50% above or below the price of the underlying
security.
    Subsection 3.(g)(i) of the OLPP indicates that an option series
price has to be reasonably close to the price of the underlying
security and must not exceed a maximum of 50% or 100%, depending on
the price, from the underlying. The Exchange's proposal related to
non-index options, while conforming to the current structure of the
Exchange's STO rules, is similar in practical effect to the noted
OLPP subsection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In terms of the strike price intervals, the STO Program currently
allows that the interval between strike prices on

STOs may be (i) $0.50 or greater where the strike price is less than
$75, and $1 or greater where the strike price is between $75 and $150
for all classes that participate in the STO Program; or (ii) $0.50 for
classes that trade in one dollar increments in Related non-STOs \10\
and that participate in the STO Program. Related non-STO series shall
be opened during the week prior to the week that such Related non-STO
series expire in the same manner and in the same strike price intervals
as permitted in Commentary .11 to Rule 1012.\11\ This proposal retains
many of the fundamental limitations of the STO Program while proposing
specific changes as described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Related non-STOs are non-STOs that have similar options
with longer expiration cycles (e.g., monthly Apple (AAPL) options
would be Related non-STOs to weekly AAPL options). Unlike monthly
non-index options series such as AAPL, which may not be listed
within two business days of expiration, because of the short STO
expiration cycle these options may be listed up to expiration.
    \11\ Commentary .11(e) to Rule 1012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposal
    First, the Exchange proposes to increase the number of STO classes
that may be opened after an option class has been approved for listing
and trading on the Exchange. Specifically, the Exchange proposes in
Commentary .11(a) of Rule 1012 that the Exchange may select up to fifty
currently listed option classes on which Short Term Option Series may
be opened. The Exchange proposes also that for each option class
eligible for participation in the STO Program, the Exchange may open up
to thirty STO Series for each expiration date in that class.\12\ The
Exchange believes that this proposed moderate increase is needed and
advisable in light of the demonstrated acceptance and popularity of the
STO Program among market participants, as discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The current limitation is up to thirty currently listed
option classes and up to twenty series for each expiration date in
an STO class. Commentary .11(a) of Rule 1012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the Exchange proposes to indicate under what circumstances,
subsequent to opening initial STO classes, additional STO strike prices
may be added. Specifically, the Exchange proposes in Commentary .11(c)
of Rule 1012 that any initial series listed by the Exchange shall be
reasonably close to the price of the underlying equity security and
within the following parameters: (i) If the price of the underlying
security is less than or equal to $20, additional strike prices shall
be not more than one hundred percent (100%) above or below the price of
the underlying security; and (ii) if the price of the underlying
security is greater than $20, additional strike prices shall be not
more than fifty percent (50%) above or below the price of the
underlying security. This proposal is in line with the process for
adding new series of options found in subsection 3.(g)(i) of the OLPP,
and harmonizes the Program internally. The Exchange believes that this
proposal is a reasonable and desirable enhancement to the STO Program.
    Third, the Exchange proposes changes to Commentary .11(d) of Rule
1012 to indicate that any additional strike prices listed by the
Exchange shall be reasonably close to the price of the underlying
equity security and within the following parameters: (i) If the price
of the underlying security is less than or equal to $20, additional
strike prices shall be not more than one hundred percent (100%) above
or below the price of the underlying security; and (ii) if the price of
the underlying security is greater than $20, additional strike prices
shall be not more than fifty percent (50%) above or below the price of
the underlying security. This is done so that the parameters for
opening STOs and adding strike prices are in conformity. The Exchange
proposes additional changes to Commentary .11(d) to indicate that if
the Exchange has opened less than thirty (30) Short Term Option Series
for a Short Term Option Expiration Date, the Exchange may also open
additional strike prices of Short Term Option Series that are more than
50% above or below the current price of the underlying security (if the
price is greater than $20); provided that demonstrated customer
interest exists for such series, as expressed by institutional,
corporate or individual customers or their brokers. Market Makers
trading for their own account are not considered when determining
customer interest.\13\ This is done to conform the additional strike
price methodology with the proposed 50% listing standard in the same
subsections, and to ensure that the opening 30 Short Term Option Series
language is consistent with other proposed changes,\14\ while retaining
the demonstrated interest language that may be useful in unforeseen
circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Commentary .10(a) to Rule 1012 currently states that if the
price of the underlying security is greater than $20, the Exchange
shall not list new option series with an exercise price more than
50% above or below the price of the underlying security. Immediately
before this language, the Exchange proposes to also add a carve-out
that states: ``Except as provided in Commentary .11(d) to Rule 1012
. . .''
    \14\ The Exchange believes that the 100% standard proposed for
initial listings where the price of the underlying is below $20 is
adequate and does not need to be repeated for additional series
adds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fourth, the Exchange also proposes to simplify the Delisting
Language in Commentary .11(d) of Rule 1012, which currently contains a
range methodology (at least 10% but not more than 30% above or below
the current price of the underlying),\15\ to indicate that the Exchange
will delist any series with no open interest in both the call and the
put series having a: (i) Strike higher than the highest price with open
interest in the put and/or call series for a given expiration week; and
(ii) strike lower than the lowest strike price with open interest in
the put and/or the call series for a given expiration week. The
Exchange believes that like its other proposals, the delisting proposal
will add clarity and certainty to the STO process on the Exchange, as
well as across other markets that may choose to implement similar
changes (discussed below).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Currently, the Delisting Language states: ``In the event
that the underlying security has moved such that there are no series
that are at least 10% above or below the current price of the
underlying security, the Exchange will delist any series with no
open interest in both the call and the put series having a: (i)
Strike higher than the highest price with open interest in the put
and/or call series for a given expiration week; and (ii) strike
lower than the lowest strike price with open interest in the put
and/or the call series for a given expiration week, so as to list
series that are at least 10% but not more than 30% above or below
the current price of the underlying security. In the event that the
underlying security has moved such that there are no series that are
at least 10% above or below the current price of the underlying
security and all existing series have open interest, the Exchange
may list additional series, in excess of the 30 allowed under
Commentary .11, that are between 10% and 30% above or below the
price of the underlying security.'' Commentary .11(d) of Rule 1012.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70116 (August 5, 2013), 78
FR 48754 (August 9, 2013) (SR-Phlx-2013-79) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness regarding delisting series and opening up to
five consecutive weekly expirations of STOs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fifth, the Exchange proposes to add $2.50 strike price intervals to
the STO Program. Specifically, the Exchange proposes in Commentary
.11(e) of Rule 1012 to indicate that the interval between strike prices
on STOs may be $2.50 or greater where the strike price is above $150.
This proposed change complements the current STO strike price
intervals, which are $0.50 or greater where the strike price is less
than $75, and $1 or greater where the strike price is between $75 and
$150 for all classes that participate in the STO Program.\16\ The
proposed $2.50 strike price interval addresses the issue that above a
$150 strike price STO strike

price intervals must currently be an exceedingly wide $5.00 or
greater.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ STO strike price intervals may also be in $1 increments in
Related non-STOs that participate in the STO Program. Commentary .11
of Rule 1012.
    \17\ See, e.g., Commentary .05 to Rule 1012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All options exchanges that have weeklies programs have similar
rules regarding their own programs, and tend to emulate STO changes
that are initiated by other options exchanges. The Exchange recognizes
that while this may result in a potentially increased combined capacity
footprint of exchanges with weeklies programs, the specific beneficial
changes proposed in this filing greatly outweigh any such potential
impact.
    The principal reason for the proposed expansion is market demand
for additional STO classes and series and a desire to make the STO
Program more effective. There is continuing strong customer demand for
having the ability to execute hedging and trading strategies via STOs,
particularly in the current fast and volatile multi-faceted trading and
investing environment that extends across numerous markets and
platforms \18\ and includes market moving events such as significant
market volatility, corporate events, or large market, sector, or
individual issue price swings. The Exchange has been requested by
traders and other market participants to expand the STO Program to
allow additional STO offerings and increased efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ These include, without limitation, options, equities,
futures, derivatives, indexes, ETFs, exchange traded notes,
currencies, and over the counter instruments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order that the Exchange not exceed the current thirty option
class and twenty option series restriction, the Exchange has on
occasion had to turn away STO customers (traders and investors) because
it could not list, or had to delist, STOs or could not open adequate
STO Series because of restrictions in the STO Program. This has
negatively impacted investors and traders, particularly retail public
customers, who have continued to request the Exchange not to remove STO
classes or add STO classes, or have requested the Exchange to expand
the STO Program so that additional STO classes and series could be
opened that would allow the market participants to execute trading and
hedging strategies.\19\ There are, as discussed, substantial benefits
to market participants having the ability to trade eligible option
classes within the STO Program. Furthermore, the Exchange supports the
objective of responding to customer need to enhance successful programs
to make them more efficient for hedging and trading purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The Exchange noted, in its STO Program expansion proposal
in 2011, that it was requested by a retail investor to reinstate an
STO class that the Exchange had to remove from trading because of
the class option limitation within the Program. The investor told
the Exchange that he had used the removed class as a powerful tool
for hedging a market sector, and that various strategies that the
investor put into play were disrupted and eliminated when the class
was removed. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65776 (November
17, 2011), 76 FR 72482 (November 23, 2011) (SR-Phlx-2011-131) (order
approving opening STO series on 30 option classes).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the STO Program has been well-received by
market participants, in particular by retail investors. The volume of
STO trading has increased by 132% since the beginning of 2011 \20\ and
continues to grow, such that currently STOs represent 20% of trading
volume on the Exchange and 31% of trading volume across all option
exchanges.\21\ The Exchange believes that weekly expiration options
will continue to grow in importance for all market participants,
including institutional and retail investors.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Since the STO Program was initiated in 2010 on the Exchange
and other markets (some of which were established after the STO
Program was initiated), STO Program volume has expanded by more than
3000%.
    \21\ During the same period of time, however, the volume of
standard monthly options across all exchanges has, on the other
hand, declined by 28%.
    \22\ The current STO Program, which is similar across all
options markets that have weeklies programs, is in its current
formulation one of the more challenging industry-wide listings
program to administer. Recognizing the importance of the Program,
the Exchange is seeking to improve the Program for non-index STOs by
making it more uniform and logical.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed revisions to the STO Program will permit the Exchange
to meet customer demand for better STO Program use and efficiency,
harmonization of OLPP and STO Program rules, internal harmonization of
the STO Program, and a reasonable expansion of strike price intervals
in the Program.
    By way of example, if an investor wants to gain exposure to a
relatively higher priced security like AAPL, he may invest in AAPL
stock and/or AAPL options. Currently, the investor must choose a strike
price that might lack the precision he is looking for in order to gain
or reduce exposure to AAPL. If the investor is looking to invest in a
long position in AAPL, for example, he may choose to execute a covered
call strategy by selling calls on AAPL. Assume AAPL is trading at $415.
Under the current rules the nearest out of the money STO call would be
the $420.00 strike, which would, with one week until expiration, trade
at or about $2.15. If the $417.50 strike were available per this
proposal, however, the investor could sell calls at approximately
$3.15. This would allow the investor to still execute an out of the
money covered call strategy, but would increase the potential return by
$1, or approximately 46% ($1/$2.15), thus offering approximately 46%
additional risk protection. To the investor writing covered calls on
his AAPL equity position, this extra risk protection could be very
significant on an annual basis, and costly if not available.
    By way of a second example, if an investor wants to gain exposure
to a lower priced security like Banc of America (BAC), he may invest in
BAC stock and/or options. Assume BAC is trading at $14.60. The investor
may have established a long position in a non-STO BAC option like, for
example, the standard expiration BAC Aug 17th 1.00 calls. To offset
some of the risk the investor possesses in the BAC Aug 17th 1.00 calls,
the investor may wish to make a corresponding trade in the BAC Aug 10th
(STO) 1.00 call. Currently, the investor does not have this risk
reduction strategy available to him, as the current BAC STO does not
have available strikes. The proposal would correct this shortcoming.
    By way of further example, in a lower priced stock such as BAC
there may be a need for tighter strike price intervals in case of a
precipitous drop in price. Assume BAC is trading at $14.60. Assume BAC
announces a large loss, and the stock price drops to $6. The Exchange
believes that investors should have the ability to use calls or puts
with a more targeted strike price to attain proper risk protection--one
of the great advantages of options. Because current STO rules do not
allow a strike price below $9.50 in the BAC STO, however, an investor
looking to purchase out of the money put protection for a short period
of time, and at a lower premium than a longer term option, is not able
to do so. BAC $9.50 strike puts would trade at a premium of about $3.50
or more, and would require the investor to sell or exercise his puts by
expiration if they remained in the money. An Aug 10th $5.00 out of the
money STO option in BAC, on the other hand, would trade a much more
affordable premium due to being out of the money, and would only
require the investor to sell or exercise his put if the BAC stock price
continued its precipitous drop. Clearly, the ability to make more
targeted and efficient decisions regarding the protection of
investments is of great importance to investments and market
participants, and should be encouraged.
    Following are illustrations of the STO listing process per the
rules as proposed. Assume that the Alcoa Inc. (AA) STO closes at $7.92.
Pursuant to the proposed rule, STOs may be added between $1 and $15.50
(half point strike

intervals are currently permitted where the strike price is below $75).
On day one, the maximum number of Short Term Option Series that may be
listed are thirty. If the Exchange opens less than thirty Short Term
Option Series, additional series may be added as the underlying price
moves. If the AA price moves to $10, additional series can be added as
high as $20 (100% above the underlying price). If the AA price moves to
$5, additional lower strikes would not be added, since the initial
strikes go as low as possible ($1). Or, assume that the McDonald's
Corporation (MCD) STO closes at $96.26. Pursuant to the proposed rule,
Short Term Options Series may be added between $49 and $144 (in $0.50
and $1 intervals). On day one, no more than thirty Short Term Option
Series may be listed. If the Exchange opens less than thirty Short Term
Option Series, additional series may be added as the underlying price
moves. If the MCD price moves to $105, additional series can be added
as high as $155 (50% above the underlying price). If the MCD price
moves to $87, additional lower strikes can be added as low as $43.50.
To list strikes above the 50% threshold, however, there must be
demonstrated customer interest for such series, as expressed by
institutional, corporate or individual customers or their brokers.
    Following are illustrations of the STO delisting process per the
rules as proposed. Series delisting would occur under the proposed rule
if the stock price moves and there are no series at least 10% above/
below the current price. Assume AA closed at $7.92 and strikes were
listed between $1 and $15. If the AA price moved to $15, and there were
no strikes at $16.50 or above (at least 10% above the current price),
the delisting process would begin. For the delisting process, staff
would simply need to check what, if any, strikes are higher than the
highest strike with open interest, and lower than the lowest strike
with open interest. Unlike the current delisting process, there would
be no need to check whether strikes were within a listing band (e.g.,
10% to 30%). Or, assume that MCD closed at $96.26 and strikes were
listed between $82 and $110. If the MCD price moved to $104, and there
were no strikes at $115 or above (at least 10% above the current
price), the delisting process would begin. For the delisting process,
staff would simply need to check what strikes are higher than the
highest strike with open interest, and lower than the lowest strike
with open interest.
    With regard to the impact of this proposal on system capacity, the
Exchange has analyzed its capacity and represents that it and the
Options Price Reporting Authority (``OPRA'') have the necessary systems
capacity to handle any potential additional traffic associated with
this current amendment to the STO Program. The Exchange believes that
its members will not have a capacity issue as a result of this
proposal. The Exchange represents that it will monitor the trading
volume associated with the additional options series listed as a result
of this proposal and the effect (if any) of these additional series on
market fragmentation and on the capacity of the Exchange's automated
systems.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ As noted previously, because the STO Program is an
industry-wide program, exchanges tend to emulate the rule filings of
one another. The Exchange recognizes that while this may result in a
potentially increased combined capacity footprint of exchanges with
weeklies programs, the Exchange believes that the specific
beneficial changes proposed in this filing greatly outweigh any such
potential impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \24\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \25\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public
interest. Expanding the classes and additional series that can be
opened in the STO Program, simplifying the delisting process, and
allowing $2.50 strike price intervals will result in a continuing
benefit to investors by giving them more flexibility to closely tailor
their investment and hedging decisions in greater number of securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The STO Program has been well-received by market participants, and
in particular by retail investors, and has seen increasing trading
volume. The Exchange believes that the current proposed revisions to
the STO Program will permit the Exchange to meet customer demand for
enhanced STO Program use and efficiency, harmonization of OLPP and STO
Program rules, and a reasonable expansion of strike price intervals in
the Program to the benefit of investors, market participants, and the
marketplace.
    With regard to the impact of this proposal on system capacity, the
Exchange believes that it and OPRA have the necessary systems capacity
to handle any potential additional traffic associated with this current
amendment to the STO Program. The Exchange believes that its members
will not have a capacity issue as a result of this proposal. All
exchanges that have STO programs have largely similar STO rules and
tend to emulate STO rule changes proposals initiated by other
exchanges. While the Exchange recognizes that this proposal may be
copied by other exchanges and impact their capacity, the Exchange
believes that any such potential capacity impact will not outweigh (and
does not outweigh for the Exchange) the significant benefits that this
proposal will afford market participants and the market in general in
terms of significantly greater flexibility and increases in efficient
trading and hedging options.
    The proposed revisions to the STO Program will permit the Exchange
to meet customer demand for better STO Program use and efficiency,
harmonization of OLPP and STO Program rules, internal harmonization of
the STO Program, and a reasonable expansion of strike price intervals
in the Program.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the
Exchange believes that the proposal is decidedly pro-competitive. The
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will result in
additional investment options and opportunities to achieve the
investment objectives of market participants seeking efficient trading
and hedging vehicles, to the benefit of investors, market participants,
and the marketplace in general.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission shall: (a) By order approve
or disapprove such proposed rule change, or (b) institute proceedings

to determine whether the proposed rule change should be 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_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2013-101 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2013-101. 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 on official business
days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal offices of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-Phlx-2013-101, and should be submitted on or before
November 12, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\26\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-24673 Filed 10-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 69 (Wednesday, April 10, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21267-21272]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08400]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0092; FRL-9381-5]

Dinotefuran; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
dinotefuran in or on all food/feed items (other than those covered by a
higher tolerance as a result of use on growing crops) in food/feed
handling establishments. BASF Corporation requested these tolerances
under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective April 10, 2013. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before June 10, 2013, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0092, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-
5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rita Kumar, Registration Division,
Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703) 308-8291; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather

provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document
applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0092 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
June 10, 2013. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0092, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of May 23, 2012 (77 FR 30481) (FRL-9347-8),
EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C.
346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 1F7967)
by BASF Corporation, c/o Landis International Inc., P.O. Box 5126, 3185
Madison Highway, Valdosta, GA 31603. The petition requested that 40 CFR
180.603 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the
insecticide dinotefuran, (RS)-1-methyl-2-nitro-3-((tetrahydro-3-
furanyl)methyl)guanidine in or on food/feed commodities not covered by
a higher tolerance at 0.01 parts per million (ppm). That document
referenced a summary of the petition prepared by BASF Corporation, the
registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the
notice of filing.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. * *
*.''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for dinotefuran including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with dinotefuran follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.
    Dinotefuran has low acute toxicity by oral, dermal, and inhalation
exposure routes. It is not a dermal sensitizer, but causes a low level
of skin irritation. The main target of toxicity is the nervous system,
but effects on the nervous system were only observed at high doses.
Nervous system toxicity was manifested as clinical signs and decreased
motor activity seen after acute dosing (in both rats and rabbits) and
changes in motor activity which are consistent with effects on the
nicotinic cholinergic nervous system seen after repeated dosing.
Typically, low to moderate levels of neonicotinoids, such as
dinotefuran, activate the nicotinic acetylcholine receptors causing
stimulation of the peripheral nervous system (PNS). High levels of
neonicotinoids can over stimulate the PNS, maintaining cation channels
in the open state which blocks the action potential and leads to
paralysis.
    Dinotefuran was well tolerated at high doses following dietary
administration for ninety days to mice, rats, and dogs. The most
sensitive effects were decreases in body weight and/or body weight
gain, but even these effects occurred at or near the limit dose.
Changes in spleen and thymus weights were seen in mice, rats and dogs
following subchronic and chronic dietary exposures. However, these
weight changes were not corroborated with alterations in hematology
parameters, histopathological lesions in these organs, or toxicity to
the hematopoietic system. Furthermore, the toxicology data base
contains immunotoxicity studies in mice and rats and a developmental
immunotoxicity study in rats. In the immunotoxicity studies there were
no effects on T-cell dependent antibody response when tested up to the
limit dose in male and female mice and in male and female rats. There
were no changes in spleen

and thymus weight and there were no histopathological lesions in these
organs. In the developmental immunotoxicity study, there was no
evidence of an effect on the functionality of the immune system in rats
that were exposed to dinotefuran at the limit dose during the prenatal,
postnatal, and post-weaning periods. Consequently, the thymus weight
changes seen in dogs and the spleen weight changes seen in mice and
rats were not considered to be toxicologically relevant.
    No systemic or neurotoxicity was seen following repeated dermal
applications at the limit dose to rats for 28 days. No systemic or
portal of entry effects were seen following repeated inhalation
exposure at the maximum obtainable concentrations to rats for 28 days.
    In the prenatal studies, no maternal or developmental toxicity was
seen at the limit dose in rats. In rabbits, maternal toxicity
manifested as clinical signs of neurotoxicity, but no developmental
toxicity was seen. In the reproduction study, parental, offspring, and
reproductive toxicity was seen at the limit dose. Parental toxicity
included decreased body weight gain, transient decrease in food
consumption, and decreased thyroid weights. Offspring toxicity was
characterized as decreased forelimb grip strength or hindlimb grip
strength in the F1 pups. There was no adverse effect on
reproductive performance at any dose. In the developmental
neurotoxicity study, no maternal or offspring toxicity was seen at any
dose including the limit dose.
    There was no evidence of carcinogenicity in male and female mice
and in male and female rats fed diets containing dinotefuran at the
limit dose for 78 weeks to mice and 104 weeks to rats. Dinotefuran was
non-mutagenic in both in vivo and in vitro assays. Specific information
on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by
dinotefuran as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and
the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity
studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document
``Dinotefuran: Human Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Section 3 Uses
on Rice and Food/Feed Handling Establishments, and New Horse Spot-On
and Total Release Fogger Products'' pages 40-45 in docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0092.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors (U/SF) are used in conjunction
with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to
as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a
safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency
assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk.
Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an
occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more
information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization
and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for dinotefuran used for
human risk assessment is shown in the Table of this unit. The
dinotefuran hazard profile was updated in the risk assessment completed
on July 20, 2012, and nothing has changed since this update. For a more
detailed discussion of the endpoint selection, refer to Appendix A.3 on
pp 44-47 in the document titled ``Dinotefuran: Human Health Risk
Assessment for Proposed Section 3 Uses on Tuberous and Corm Vegetables
Subgroup 1C, Onion Subgroup 3-07A, Onion Subgroup 3-07B, Small Fruit
Subgroup 13-07F, Berry Subgroup 13-07H, Peach, and Watercress, And a
Tolerance on Imported Tea'' in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0433.

   Table--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Dinotefuran for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Point of Departure
        Exposure/scenario            and Uncertainty/     RfD, PAD, LOC for     Study and toxicological effects
                                      Safety Factors       risk assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (general population  NOAEL = 125 mg/kg/    Acute RfD = 1.25 mg/ Developmental Toxicity Study in
 including infants and children).   day.                  kg/day.              Rabbits. LOAEL = 300 mg/kg/day
                                   UFA = 10x...........  aPAD = 1.25 mg/kg/    based on clinical signs in does
                                   UFH = 10x...........   day.                 (prone position, panting, tremor
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........                        and erythema) seen following the
                                                                               first dose on Gestation Day 6.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic dietary (All populations)  NOAEL= 99.7 mg/kg/    Chronic RfD = 1.0    Chronic Toxicity/Carcinogenicity
                                    day.                  mg/kg/day.           Study in Rats. LOAEL = 991 mg/kg/
                                   UFA = 10x...........  cPAD = 1.0 mg/kg/     day based on decreased body
                                   UFH = 10x...........   day.                 weight gain and nephrotoxicity.
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incidental oral short-term (1 to   NOAEL= 99.7 mg/kg/    LOC for MOE = 100..  Chronic Toxicity/Carcinogenicity
 30 days).                          day.                                       Study in Rats. LOAEL = 991 mg/kg/
                                   UFA = 10x...........                        day based on decreased body
                                   UFH = 10x...........                        weight gain and nephrotoxicity.
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level
  of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-
  level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor.
  UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among
  members of the human population (intraspecies).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to dinotefuran, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing dinotefuran tolerances in 40 CFR
180.603. EPA assessed dietary exposures from dinotefuran in food as
follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.
    Such effects were identified for dinotefuran. In estimating acute
dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) under the National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA). As
to residue levels in food, EPA assumed 100 percent crop treated (PCT)
and tolerance-level residues for all current crops.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA under
NHANES/WWEIA. As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed 100 PCT and
tolerance-level residues for all current crops.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that dinotefuran does not pose a cancer risk to humans.
Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing
cancer risk is unnecessary.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the
dietary assessment for dinotefuran. Tolerance level residues and/or 100
PCT were assumed for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for dinotefuran in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of dinotefuran. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    Based on the Tier 1 Rice Model and Screening Concentration in
Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, the estimated drinking water
concentrations (EDWCs) of dinotefuran for acute exposures are estimated
to be 269 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 4.9 ppb for
ground water, and for chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are
estimated to be 253-257 ppb, depending upon retention time from 10-30
days, for surface water and 4.9 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 269 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 257 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets. Dinotefuran is
currently registered for the following uses that could result in
residential exposures: Turf, ornamentals, vegetable gardens, roach and
ant bait, pet spot-ons, indoor aerosol sprays, crack and crevice
sprays, etc. EPA assessed residential exposure using the following
assumptions: Because no dermal or inhalation endpoints were chosen for
dinotefuran, post-application residential dermal and inhalation
exposure scenarios were not assessed. As a result, risk assessments
were only completed for post-application scenarios in which incidental
oral exposures are expected. The post-application exposure and risk
estimates for all existing residential uses resulted in risk estimates
that are not of concern (MOEs ranged from 1,100 to 5,900,000). Further
information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for
residential exposures may be found at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/trac/science/trac6a05.pdf.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found dinotefuran to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and dinotefuran does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
dinotefuran does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA SF. In
applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X,
or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data
available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. In the prenatal studies, no
maternal or developmental toxicity was seen at the limit dose in rats.
In rabbits, maternal toxicity manifested as clinical signs of
neurotoxicity but no developmental toxicity was seen. In the rat
reproduction study, parental, offspring, and reproductive toxicity was
seen at the limit dose. Parental toxicity included decreased body
weight gain, transient decrease in food consumption, and decreased
thyroid weights. Offspring toxicity was characterized as decreased
forelimb grip strength or hindlimb grip strength in the F1
pups. There was no adverse effect on reproductive performance at any
dose. In the developmental neurotoxicity study, no maternal or
offspring toxicity was seen at any dose including the limit dose.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for dinotefuran is complete.
    ii. The neurotoxic potential of dinotefuran has been adequately
considered. Dinotefuran is a neonicotinoid and has a neurotoxic mode of
pesticidal action. Consistent with the mode of action, changes in motor
activity were seen in repeat-dose studies, including the subchronic

neurotoxicity study. Additionally, decreased grip strength and brain
weight were observed in the offspring of a multi-generation
reproduction study albeit at doses close to the limit dose. For these
reasons, a developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) study was required. The
DNT study did not show evidence of a unique sensitivity of the
developing nervous system; no effects on neurobehavioral parameters
were seen in the offspring at any dose, including the limit dose.
    iii. As discussed in Unit III.D.2., there is no evidence that
dinotefuran results in increased susceptibility in in utero rats or
rabbits in the prenatal developmental studies or in young rats in the
2-generation reproduction study.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used
to assess exposure to dinotefuran in drinking water. EPA used similarly
conservative assumptions to assess post-application exposure of
children from incidental oral exposures. These assessments will not
underestimate the exposure and risks posed by dinotefuran.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to dinotefuran will occupy 7.6% of the aPAD for all infants < 1 year
old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
dinotefuran from food and water will utilize 3.9 of the cPAD for
children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest
exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding
residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of
dinotefuran is not expected.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Dinotefuran
is currently registered for uses that could result in short-term
residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is
appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with
short-term residential exposures to dinotefuran.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water,
and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 790. Because
EPA's level of concern for dinotefuran is a MOE of 100 or below, these
MOEs are not of concern.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level). Intermediate-term exposure is not expected for the adult
residential exposure pathway. Therefore, the intermediate-term
aggregate risk would be equivalent to the chronic dietary exposure
estimate. For children, intermediate-term incidental oral exposures
could potentially occur from indoor uses. However, while it is possible
for children to be exposed for longer durations, the magnitude of
residues is expected to be lower due to dissipation or other
activities. Since incidental oral short- and intermediate-term toxicity
endpoints and points of departure are the same, the short-term
aggregate risk estimate, which includes the highest residential
exposure estimate (from turf), is protective of any intermediate-term
exposures.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, dinotefuran is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to dinotefuran residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology, a high performance liquid
chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC/MS/MS method for the
determination of residues of dinotefuran, and the metabolites DN, and
UF; an HPLC/ultraviolet (UV) detection method for the determination of
residues of dinotefuran; and HPLC/MS and HPLC/MS/MS methods for the
determination of DN and UF) is available to enforce the tolerance
expression.
    The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD
20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has not established a MRL for dinotefuran.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, a tolerance of 0.01 ppm is established for residues of
dinotefuran, (RS)-1-methyl-2-nitro3-((tetrahydro-3-
furanyl)methyl)guanidine, including its metabolites and degradates, in
or on all food and/or feed commodities (other than those already
covered by a higher tolerance as a result of use on growing crops or
inadvertent residues) in food and/or feed handling establishments where
food and/or feed products are held, stored, processed, prepared, or
served. Compliance with the tolerance level is to be determined by
measuring only dinotefuran.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d)
in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and

Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under
Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been exempted
from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is not subject
to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: April 2, 2013.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. Section 180.603 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(3) to read as
follows:

Sec.  180.603  Dinotefuran; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *
    (3) A tolerance of 0.01 parts per million is established for
residues of the insecticide dinotefuran, (RS)-1-methyl-2-nitro-3-
((tetrahydro-3-furanyl)methyl)guanidine, including its metabolites and
degradates, in or on all food and/or feed commodities (other than those
covered by a higher tolerance as a result of use on growing crops or
inadvertent residues) when residues result from application of
dinotefuran in food and/or feed handling establishments where food and/
or feed products are held, stored, processed, prepared, or served.
Compliance with the tolerance level is to be determined by measuring
only dinotefuran.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-08400 Filed 4-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 71 (Tuesday, April 14, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20035-20038]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08452]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74680; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2015-029]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Modify NASDAQ Rule 7051 Fees Relating to Pricing for Direct Circuit
Connections

April 8, 2015.
    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 26, 2015, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II 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

    NASDAQ is proposing to amend Rule 7051 to increase installation and
monthly fees assessed for Direct Circuit Connection to NASDAQ, and to
waive certain installation fees thereunder for a limited time. The
exchange will implement the proposed changes on April 1, 2015.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com at NASDAQ's principal office, 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, NASDAQ included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of those

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
    NASDAQ is proposing to amend Rule 7051 entitled ``Direct
Connectivity to Nasdaq'' to increase the installation and monthly fees
assessed for 1Gb and 10Gb connectivity to the Exchange. Direct
connectivity offers market participants one of several means by which
they may connect to NASDAQ.\3\ Currently, the Exchange offers a 10Gb
circuit connection, a 1Gb circuit connection, and a 1Gb Ultra
connection, all of which provide connectivity to the NASDAQ System.\4\
The offerings are differentiated by the total capacity of the fiber
connection (represented in Gigabytes or ``Gb'') and the type of switch
used. A switch is a type of network hardware that acts as the
``gatekeeper'' for all clients' orders sent to the System \5\ and
orders them in sequence for entry into the System for execution. The
1Gb ``Ultra'' fiber connection offering uses lower latency \6\ switches
than the 1Gb fiber connection offering.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Market participants may also connect to NASDAQ through the
colocation facility or third parties. Direct connectivity is offered
through data centers in Carteret, NJ, Secaucus, NJ, Ashburn, VA, and
Chicago, IL.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62663 (August 9,
2010), 75 FR 49543 (August 13, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-077).
    \5\ As defined in Rule 4751(a).
    \6\ The term ``latency'' for the purposes of this rule filing
means a measure of the time it takes for an order to enter into a
switch and then exit for entry into the System.
    \7\ Each of NASDAQ's connection offerings use [sic] different
switches, but the switches are of uniform type within each offering
(i.e., all 1G connectivity options currently use the same switches).
As a consequence, all client subscribers to a particular
connectivity option receive the same latency in terms of the
capabilities of their switches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange assesses separate installation and ongoing monthly
fees for subscription to each option. For 1Gb connectivity, the
Exchange assesses an installation fee of $1,000 and ongoing monthly
fees of $1,000. For 10Gb connectivity, the Exchange charges an
installation fee of $1,000 and ongoing monthly fees of $5,000. For 1Gb
Ultra, the Exchange charges an installation fee of $1,500 and ongoing
monthly fees of $1,500. The Exchange adopted 10Gb and 1Gb offering and
related fees in August 2010, and has not increase [sic] fees for these
offerings since.\8\ The Exchange adopted 1Gb Ultra in August 2014, and
has not increased fees for the offering since.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Supra note 4.
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72811 (August 11,
2014), 79 FR 48262 (August 15, 2014) (SR-NASDAQ-2014-079).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of increased costs in offering these fiber connectivity
options, and declining subscribership to 1Gb connectivity, the Exchange
is proposing to increase the fees assessed for all three of the
offerings. In terms of installation fees, the Exchange is proposing to
harmonize the cost of installation by increasing the installation fees
assessed for 10Gb and 1Gb connectivity from $1,000 to $1,500, which is
the fee currently assessed for installation of 1Gb Ultra connectivity.
The Exchange is proposing to waive the installation fees for the months
of April through July, 2015, for all three connectivity options. As
such, both new subscriptions and customers transferring from one
connectivity option to another during that time will not be assessed
the installation fee. The Exchange notes that this will allow customers
to move from one offering to another, or to move the location of their
connectivity from one direct connectivity access point to another, with
no penalty in the form of an installation fee.
    The Exchange is also proposing to increase the ongoing monthly fees
for each connectivity option. Specifically, the Exchange is proposing
to increase the ongoing monthly fees for 10Gb connectivity from $5,000
to $7,500. The Exchange is proposing to increase the ongoing monthly
fee for 1Gb connectivity from $1,000 to $2,500. Lastly, the Exchange is
proposing to increase the ongoing monthly fee for 1Gb Ultra from $1,500
to $2,500.
2. Statutory Basis
    NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\10\ in general, and with
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any
facility or system which NASDAQ operates or controls, and is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed increased fees are
reasonable because they allow the Exchange to realign the fees assessed
for the service with the costs incurred by NASDAQ in offering the
service, which have increased since the offerings were first adopted.
Specifically, NASDAQ has incurred increases in the cost of labor and
networks in the installation and maintenance of equipment. The Exchange
notes that the 1Gb and 10Gb infrastructures have been upgraded over the
last 5 years with improvements in network performance along with a
continued increase in bandwidth capacity constraints due to market data
feeds growing. Consequently, this has resulted in higher networking
costs that NASDAQ is now proposing to pass on through connectivity
fees. In terms of labor, installation effort and costs have increased,
which include NASDAQ data center operations and network engineering
teams in multiple locations, data center vendor costs, and optical
equipment that needs to be purchased, installed and maintained. The
Exchange notes that it is not increasing the charge for installation of
1Gb Ultra connectivity because the fee implemented in 2014 already
incorporated these elevated costs and continues to cover the
installation costs.
    The Exchange also believes that the proposed increases in the
ongoing monthly fees for all three connectivity options are reasonable.
The Exchange notes that it is increasing the ongoing monthly fees for
each of the connectivity options in light of the higher networking and
labor costs NASDAQ incurs in supporting the services. In addition, the
Exchange has lost subscribers to the 1Gb connectivity option, which has
resulted in fewer subscribers over which to spread the fixed costs of
the service. As a consequence, the Exchange believes that it is
reasonable to increase the monthly charge more than it is increasing
the monthly charge for the 1Gb Ultra connectivity offering, which will
result in the same monthly charge for both 1Gb and 1Gb Ultra
connectivity offerings but will allow NASDAQ to compensate for the
lower subscribership of the 1Gb connectivity option. The Exchange notes
that the fees are similar to the fees NASDAQ charges member firms for
co-location connectivity.\12\ Lastly, the proposed fees are comparable
to the fees charged for similar connectivity by other exchanges. For
example, the International Securities Exchange LLC (``ISE'') offers
four connectivity options that provide access to its two markets. ISE
charges the following monthly fees for connectivity: $750 for its 1Gb
option, $4,000 for its 10Gb option, $7,000 for its 10Gb low latency
option, and $12,500 for its 40Gb

low latency option. The Exchange notes that its connectivity options
provide access to three exchanges (NASDAQ, NASDAQ OMX BX and NASDAQ OMX
PHLX), which is reflected in the premium above the comparable ISE
connectivity.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Rule 7034(b).
    \13\ See ISE Fee Schedule, Section IV.B. available at http://www.ise.com/fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the fees for these services are
equitably allocated consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act and are
non-discriminatory consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act in that
all direct connect clients are offered the same service and there is no
differentiation among them with regard to the fees charged for such
services. In particular, the proposed fees are equitably allocated
because all member firms that subscribe to a particular connectivity
option under the rule will be assessed the same fee. The proposed
installation fees are [sic] and are not unfairly discriminatory because
the Exchange is increasing the fees for each service in amounts that
are reflective of the increased costs associated with offering each of
the connectivity options, and are in amounts representative of the
value provided to their subscribers. The proposed waiver of the
installation fees is both equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because it will allow all subscribers the option to subscribe to
another connectivity offering, to the extent the proposed connectivity
fees of their existing connections are deemed too high in relationship
to the benefit received. With regard to the ongoing monthly fee
increases, the 10Gb connectivity option provides the fastest
connectivity option with the greatest capacity and also represents the
greatest cost to NASDAQ in offering it among the three options.
Accordingly, NASDAQ is increasing the fee the most to users that
receive the greatest benefit. As noted above, NASDAQ is increasing the
1Gb ongoing monthly fees more than the 1Gb Ultra connectivity option,
which provides the same capacity but lower latency than the 1Gb option.
The Exchange believes that the proposed increase in the 1Gb
connectivity option monthly fee is both an equitable allocation of a
fee and not unfairly discriminatory because lower subscribership to the
option has resulted in fewer subscribers to bear the increased costs of
offering the service.
    The Exchange notes that should a particular exchange charges [sic]
excessive fees for direct connectivity services affected members will
opt to terminate their direct connectivity arrangements with that
exchange, and pursue a range of alternative trading strategies not
dependent upon the exchange's direct connectivity services.
Accordingly, the exchange charging excessive fees would stand to lose
not only direct connectivity revenues, but also any other revenues
associated with the customer's operations. Moreover, all of the
Exchange's fees for these services are equitably allocated consistent
with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act and consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of
the Act are non-discriminatory in that all direct connect clients are
offered the same service and there is no differentiation among them
with regard to the fees charged for such services.

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.\14\
As discussed above, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees for
direct connectivity services are comparable to the fees charged for the
same service provided to other exchanges' customers. Additionally, such
costs are constrained by the robust competition for order flow among
exchanges and non-exchange markets, because direct connectivity exists
to advance that competition, and excessive fees for direct connectivity
services would serve to impair an exchange's ability to compete for
order flow. Therefore, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule
change enhances, rather than burdens, competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\15\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2015-029 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-NASDAQ-2015-029. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2015-029 and should
be submitted on or before May 5, 2015.

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

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-08452 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 83 (Tuesday, April 30, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 25322]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10146]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension: Form S-8; OMB Control No. 3235-0066, SEC File No. 270-66

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Form S-8 (17 CFR 239.16b) under the Securities Act of 1933 (15
U.S.C. 77a et seq.) is the primary registration statement used by
eligible registrants to register securities to be issued in connection
with an employee benefit plan. We estimate that Form S-8 takes
approximately 24 hours per response to prepare and is filed by
approximately 2,200 respondents. In addition, we estimate that 50% of
the preparation time (12 hours) is completed in-house by the filer for
a total annual reporting burden of 26,400 (12 hours per response x
2,200 responses).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    Please direct your written comments to Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia 22312; or
send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: April 24, 2013.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-10146 Filed 4-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P