[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 69 (Monday, April 11, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21415-21417]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08179]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77518; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2016-13]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing of
Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Amend Rule
955NY(c) by Revising the Clearing Member Requirements for Entering an
Order Into the Electronic Order Capture System (``EOC'')

April 5, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on March 22, 2016, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
MKT'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. On March 30, 2016, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to
the proposed rule change. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment
No. 1, from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 955NY(c) by revising the
requirements for entering an order into the Electronic Order Capture
System (``EOC''). The proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
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
    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 955NY(c) by revising
the requirements for entering an order into the EOC. Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to eliminate the pre-trade EOC requirement that ATP
Holders give up the name of the Clearing Member \4\ responsible for
clearing each trade before representing a trade in open outcry. \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Rule 900.2NY defines ``Clearing Member'' as an Exchange ATP
Holder which has been admitted to membership in the Options Clearing
Corporation pursuant to the provisions of the Rules of the Options
Clearing Corporation.
    \5\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange clarified that it is
proposing to amend the timing in which Clearing Member information
will be entered into the EOC. More specifically, the Exchange noted
that Rule 955NY(c)(1) requires the other items included in Rule
956NY(a), including the ``CMTA Information and the name of the
clearing OTP Holder or Firm,'' to be included in the EOC ``as the
events occur and/or during trade reporting procedures which may
occur after the representation and execution of the order.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EOC is the Exchange's floor-based electronic audit trail and
order tracking system that provides an accurate time-sequenced record
of all orders and transactions entered and executed on the floor of the
Exchange.\6\ This process, commonly referred to as the
``systemization'' of an order, is composed of the contractual terms of
an order that are required to be disclosed in order to effect a trade.
The EOC was developed to comply with an order of the Commission, which
required that the Exchange, in coordination with other exchanges,
``design and implement a consolidated options audit trail system
(`COATS'),'' that would ``enable the options exchanges to reconstruct
markets promptly, effectively surveil them and enforce order handling,
firm quote, trade reporting and other rules.'' \7\ In particular, the
Exchange was required incorporate into the audit trail all non-
electronic orders ``such that the audit trail provides an accurate,
time-sequenced record of electronic and other orders, quotations and
transactions on such respondent exchange, beginning with the receipt of
an order by such respondent exchange and further documenting the life
of the order through the process of execution, partial execution, or
cancellation of that order, which audit trail shall be readily
retrievable in the common computer format.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ This system includes the electronic communications interface
between booth terminals and the Floor Broker work stations.
    \7\ See Section IV.B.e.(v) of the Commission's Order Instituting
Public Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Sections 19(h)(1) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings and Imposing
Remedial Sanctions (the ``Order''). See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 43268 (September 11, 2000) and Administrative Proceeding
File No. 3-10282.
    \8\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Current Rule 955NY(c) sets forth the EOC entry requirements and
mandates that every ATP Holder that receives an order for execution on
the Exchange ``must immediately, prior to representation in the trading
crowd, record the details of the order (including any modification of
the terms of the order or cancellation of the order) into the EOC,
unless such order has been entered into the Exchange's other electronic
order processing facilities (e.g., orders sent electronically through
the Exchange's Member Firm Interface).'' \9\ Among other pre-trade EOC
requirements under current Rule 955NY(c)(1), every ATP Holder must
provide ``the name of the clearing ATP Holder'' (the ``Give Up
Requirement'') \10\ Rule 955NY(c)(1) also provides that ``[t]he
remaining elements prescribed in Rule 956NY and any additional
information with respect to the order shall be recorded as the events
occur and/or during trade reporting procedures which may occur after
the representation and execution of the order.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Rule 955NY(c).
    \10\ See Rule 955NY(c)(1)(vii). Rule 955NY(c)(1) also requires
the following data points to be entered upon receipt of an order:
(i) The option symbol; (ii) the expiration date of the option; (iii)
the exercise price; (iv) buy or sell with applicable limit or stop
price or special instructions; (v) call or put; (vi) the quantity of
contracts; as well as such other information as may be required by
the Exchange from time to time. Rule 955NY(c)(1) also provides that
the Exchange may also require additional information if needed and
provides that the remaining data elements prescribed in Rule 956NY
[see infra n. 10] are to be recorded as the events occur and/or
during trade reporting procedures. The Exchange proposes to add the
words ``in the EOC'' to Rule 955NY(c)(1) to make clear where the
additional information would be recorded. See proposed Rule
955NY(c)(1).
    \11\ See Rule 955NY (c)(1). The Exchange notes that one such
element prescribed in Rule 956NY(a) to be recorded by each ATP
Holder is ``CMTA Information and the name of the clearing ATP
Holder,'' and therefore, per Rule 955NY(c)(1), this information
would still be disclosed ``as the events occur and/or during trade
reporting procedures which may occur after the representation and
execution of the order.'' Id. See also Rule 956NY(a) (Record of
Orders) (requiring that ATP Holders maintain a record of each order
that includes that the following data elements: (1) CMTA Information
and the name of the clearing ATP Holder; (2) options symbol,
expiration month, exercise price and type of options; (3) side of
the market and order type; (4) quantity of options; (5) limit or
stop price or special conditions; (6) opening or closing
transaction; (7) time in force; (8) account origin code; and (9)
whether the order was solicited or unsolicited.) See also Rule 957NY
(Reporting Duties), infra n. 12.

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

    Pursuant to the proposed rule change, ATP Holders would no longer
be subject to the pre-trade Give Up Requirement. Floor Brokers have
told the Exchange that the identity of the firm through which each
trade will clear is not always initially provided when an order is
presented and that waiting to receive this information and enter it
into EOC can delay the representation and execution of an order. In
today's trading environment of rapidly moving markets and the need to
execute an order and hedge a trade in real or near real time, even a
slight delay can prove to be detrimental to the handling of an order.
The proposed change to eliminate the Give Up Requirement prior to
execution of each trade would not impair the Exchange's ability to
comply with the Order. Specifically, the EOC would still provide an
accurate, time-sequenced record beginning with the receipt of an order
and document the life of the order through the process of execution,
partial execution, or cancellation. Entry of information pursuant to
the Give Up Requirement would occur after the order had been
represented and executed in the Trading Crowd.\12\ Thus, only the
timing of the disclosure of such information would be affected by this
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See id.; see also Commentary .01 to Rule 957NY (providing
that for each transaction executed on the Options Floor, the
responsible ATP Holder will immediately report, among other
information, both its assigned broker initial code and the name of
the contra clearing member).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that, similar to a filing it submitted in
2013,\13\ the proposed rule change relates only to the system entry
requirements for floor-based orders and would not change rules
governing the record of orders (Rule 956NY). Floor Brokers would
continue to be required to maintain proper order records, as part of
each trade record, including the identity of the clearing ATP
Holder.\14\ In that regard, Floor Brokers would continue to be required
to give up the responsible Clearing Member on each trade as part of
each trade record.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release 69081 (March 8,
2013), 78 FR 16332, 16333 (March 14, 2013) (SR-NYSEMKT-2013-16)
(noting that ``[b]ecause the CMTA information, the opening/closing
designation, the account origin code, the time if force and whether
an order was solicited or unsolicited are not contractual terms of a
trade itself nor are they required data elements pursuant to the
Exchange's order format requirements, the Exchange does not believe
this information needs to be entered into the EOC prior to an order
being represented in the Trading Crowd, but may be entered
contemporaneously upon the receipt of such information, even if that
occurs after the order had been represented and executed in the
Trading Crowd'').
    \14\ The Exchange notes that another exchange has made
modifications to its rules related to the Order. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 63071 (October 8, 2010), 75 FR 63876,
63877-78 (October 18, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-139) (immediately
effective filing to amend language related to the timing of the
entry of clearing information, noting in relevant part that ``[t]he
clearing information, which is the contra-side clearing information,
is not required to be entered pursuant to COATS. Rather, this
information facilitates the identification of the trade for
clearing.''). The Exchange notes that the Philadelphia Stock
Exchange proposed these changes to its rules without solicitation of
the exchanges that were subject to the Order, including the
Exchange. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that exchanges' changes
to their rules put in place to comply with the Order are
appropriately effected pursuant to the provisions of Section
19(b)(1) of the Act and Rule 19b-4 thereunder. See 15 U.S.C.
78s(b)(1); 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \15\ See supra nn. 11, 12. In addition, the Exchange notes that
this proposal would not change rules governing trade reporting
requirements (Rule 957NY) (i.e., that ``[t]ransactions not reported
to [the Options Pricing Reporting Authority] within 90 seconds after
the execution will be designated as (`late,'' per Rule 957(a)). The
Exchange also notes that last year it revised and detailed the
process in which an ATP Holder ``gives up'' or selects a Clearing
Member responsible for the clearance of an Exchange transaction (the
``Give Up Process''). See Securities and Exchange Act Release 75642
(August 7, 2015), 80 FR 48594 (August 13, 2015) (SR-NYSEMKT-2015-55)
(revising the Exchange's Give Up Process through modifications to
Rules 960, 961 and 954NY).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act,\16\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5),\17\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitation transactions
in securities, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \18\ requirement that the
rules of an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination
between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the proposed change to order entry requirements for
the EOC (i.e., eliminating the pre-trade Give Up) is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities by ensuring that the terms of an order continue to be
properly systematized prior to the order being represented in the
Trading Crowd. The proposed change to eliminate the Give Up Requirement
prior to execution of each trade would not impair the Exchange's
ability to comply with the Order. Specifically, the EOC would still
provide an accurate, time-sequenced record of electronic and other
orders, quotations and transactions, beginning with the receipt of the
order and documenting the life of the order through the process of
execution, partial execution, or cancellation.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See supra n. 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal is also designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, by ensuring that the Exchange is
continues to meet its obligation to create and maintain a time-
sequenced record of orders, quotations and transactions on the
Exchange. This proposal does not alter--or, as stated above, impair,
the Exchange's obligation to incorporate into its audit trail all non-
electronic orders to provide an accurate, time-sequenced record of
electronic and other orders, quotations and transactions that documents
the life of the order from receipt through the execution, partial
execution, or cancellation.\20\ Moreover, the proposed change merely
removes the Give Up Requirement from pre-trade systemization, it does
not alter that give ups must be disclosed as part of the Give Up
Process and as part of trade reporting on the Exchange.\21\
Accordingly, nothing in this proposal would alter the Exchange's
obligations pursuant to, or ability to comply with, the Order. The
Exchange notes that it has previously modified the non-contractual data
elements required pursuant to Rule 955NY(c) (i.e., not mandated by the
Order).\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Id.
    \21\ See supra nn. 11, 12, 15.
    \22\ See supra n. 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed change would
reduce the burden on Floor Brokers to enter order information prior to
representation which would, in turn, promote just and equitable
principles of trade and remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market by reducing the delay in representation and
execution of an order on the Exchange.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that this proposed rule change would
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change would
reduce the burden on Floor Brokers that have reported that the identity
of the firm through which each trade will clear is not always initially
provided when an order is presented and that waiting to receive this
information and enter it into EOC can delay the representation and
execution of an order. By reducing Floor Brokers' burden on order entry
compliance, the Exchange believes the proposal will improve the
competitiveness of Exchange Floor Brokers, by enabling more timely
executions of open outcry trades and promoting competition for order
flow among market participants and the options exchanges.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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 No. SR-NYSEMKT-2016-13 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 No. SR-NYSEMKT-2016-13. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2016-13, and should be
submitted on or before May 2, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2016-08179 Filed 4-8-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 78 (Friday, April 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 21389]
[FR Doc No: 2010-9490]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2010-11]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to
improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of
FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the
inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to
affect the legal status of the petitions or their final disposition.

DATES: Comments on these petitions must identify the petition docket
number involved and must be received on or before May 13, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2010-
0168 using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tyneka L. Thomas,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
Ralen Gao,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 20, 2010.
Pamela Hamilton-Powell,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petitions for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2010-0168.
    Petitioner: Broken Wing, LLC.
    Section of 14 CFR Affected: Sec. Sec.  91.3, 91.7, 91.105.
    Description of Relief Sought: Broken Wing, LLC requests an
exemption from Sec. Sec.  91.3, 91.7, 91.105 to allow for flight
operations involving Boeing 727 in support of the National Geographic
(USA), Channel 4 (UK), and German ProSieben scientific demonstration
and filming operation for television broadcast. The purpose of this
project is to replicate a survivable aircraft landing mishap for the
purposes of aerial filming and television exhibition by controlling a
large passenger aircraft into a precise, controlled impact with the
ground at a designated and prepared spot.

[FR Doc. 2010-9490 Filed 4-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 139 (Wednesday, July 20, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43231-43236]
[FR Doc No: 2011-18101]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 174 and 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0082; FRL-8880-1]

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

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

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

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

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 19, 2011.

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed at the end of the pesticide petition
summary of interest.

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

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

II. What action is the agency taking?

    EPA is announcing its receipt of several pesticide petitions filed
under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),
21 U.S.C. 346a, requesting the establishment or modification of
regulations in 40 CFR part 174 or part 180 for residues of pesticide
chemicals in or on various food commodities. The Agency is taking
public comment on the requests before responding to the petitioners.
EPA is not proposing any particular action at this time. EPA has
determined that the pesticide petitions described in this document
contain the data or information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2);
however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted
data at this time or whether the data support granting of the pesticide
petitions. After considering the public comments, EPA intends to
evaluate whether and what action may be warranted. Additional data may
be needed before EPA can make a final determination on these pesticide
petitions.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of each of the petitions
that are the subject of this document, prepared by the petitioner, is
included in a docket EPA has created for each rulemaking. The docket
for each of the petitions is available on-line at http://www.regulations.gov.
    As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), (21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3)),
EPA is publishing notice of the petition so that the public has an
opportunity to comment on this request for the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food
commodities. Further information on the petition may be obtained
through the petition summary referenced in this unit.
New Tolerances
    1. PP 1E7842. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0343). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton,
NJ 08540, requests to establish tolerances in 40 CFR part 180 for
residues of the insecticide methoxyfenozide per se, benzoic acid, 3-
methoxy-2-methyl-, 2-(3,5-dimethylbenzoyl)-2-(1,1-dimethylethyl)
hydrazide, in or on fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at 1.9 parts per million
(ppm); lemon, oil at 45 ppm; citrus, oil (except lemon) at 100 ppm;
vegetable, root, except sugar beet, subgroup 1B at 0.8 ppm; and beet,
sugar at 0.5 ppm. Analytical methodology for the magnitude of residue
studies in citrus was based on a procedure based on Dow AgroSciences
method GRM 02.25 ``Determination of Residues of Methoxyfenozide in High
Moisture Crops by Liquid Chromatography with Tandem Mass Spectrometry
Detection (LC/MS/MS)''. Analytical methodology for the magnitude of
residue studies in root crops used a procedure based on the Rohm and
Haas Technical Report No. 34-98-87, ``Tolerance enforcement method for
Parent RH-2485 in Pome Fruit'' with minor modifications. Contact:
Sidney Jackson,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    2. PP 1E7850. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0357). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton,
NJ 08540, requests to establish tolerances in 40 CFR part 180 for
residues of the insecticide fenpyrazamine, 5-amino-2,3-dihydro-2-(1-
methylethyl)-4-(2-

methylphenyl)-3-oxo-1H-pyrazole-1-carbothioic acid, S-2-propen-1-yl
ester in or on caneberry subgroup 13-07A at 7.0 ppm; bushberry subgroup
13-07B at 7.0 ppm; pistachio at 0.02 ppm; and ginseng at 0.8 ppm. A
practical analytical method utilizing LC/MS detection is available and
has been validated for detecting and measuring residues of
fenpyrazamine (fenpyrazamine and S-2188-DC) in and on crops. Contact:
Sidney Jackson,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. PP 1E7851. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0398). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton,
NJ 08540, requests to establish tolerances in 40 CFR part 180 for
residues of the fungicide azoxystrobin, (methyl (E)-2-[2-[6-(2-
cyanophenoxy)pyrimidin-4-yloxy]phenyl]-3-methoxyacrylate) and the Z
isomer of azoxystrobin, (methyl (Z)-2-[2-[6-(2-cyanophenoxy)pyrimidin-
4-yloxy]pheny1]-3-methoxyacrylate), in or on onion, bulb, subgroup 3-
07A at 1.0 ppm; onion, green, subgroup 3-07B at 7.5 ppm; caneberry
subgroup 13-07A at 5.0 ppm; bushberry subgroup 13-07B at 3.0 ppm; small
fruit vine climbing subgroup, except fuzzy kiwifruit, 13-07F at 1.0
ppm; low growing berry subgroup 13-07G, except cranberry, at 10.0 ppm;
vegetable, fruiting, subgroup 8-10A at 0.2 ppm; vegetable, fruiting,
subgroups 8-10B at 2.0 ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at 10.0 ppm;
rapeseed subgroup 20A at 1.0 ppm; sunflower subgroup 20B at 0.5 ppm;
cottonseed subgroup 20C at 0.6 ppm; wasabi at 50.0 ppm; dragon fruit at
2.0 ppm. An adequate analytical method, gas chromatography with
nitrogen-phosphorus detection (GC/NPD) or in mobile phase by high
performance liquid chromatography with ultra-violet detection (HPLC/
UV), is available for enforcement purposes with a limit of detection
that allows monitoring of food with residues at or above the levels set
in these tolerances. The Analytical Chemistry section of the EPA
concluded that the method(s) are adequate for enforcement. Analytical
methods are also available for analyzing meat, milk, poultry and eggs
which also underwent successful independent laboratory validations.
Contact: Andrew Ertman,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    4. PP 1E7852. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0300). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton,
NJ 08540, requests to establish tolerances in 40 CFR part 180 for
residues of the fungicide difenoconazole, 1-[2-[2-chloro-4-(4-
chlorophenoxy)phenyl]-4-methyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-ylmethyl]-1H-1,2,4,-
triazole, including its metabolites and degradates in or on vegetable,
fruiting, group 8-10 at 0.6 ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at 0.6 ppm;
fruit, pome, group 11-10 at 1.0 ppm; and low growing berry subgroup 13-
07G, except cranberry at 2.5 ppm. Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., has
submitted a practical analytical method (AG-575B) for detecting and
measuring levels of difenoconazole in or on food with a limit of
quantitation (LOQ) that allows monitoring of food with residues at or
above the levels set in the proposed tolerances. Method REM 147.08 is
also available for enforcement method, for the determination of
residues of difenoconazole in crops. Residues are qualified by LC/MS/
MS. Contact: Sidney Jackson,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    5. PP 1E7853. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0395). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton,
NJ 08540, requests to establish tolerances in 40 CFR part 180 for
residues of the fungicide fludioxonil, (4-(2, 2-difluoro-1,3-
benzodioxol-4-yl)-1H-pyrrole-3-carbonitrile), in or on acerola at 5.0
ppm; atemoya at 20 ppm; biriba at 20 ppm; cherimoya at 20 ppm; custard
apple at 20 ppm; feijoa at 5.0 ppm; guava at 5.0 ppm; ilama at 20 ppm;
jaboticaba at 5.0 ppm; passionfruit at 5.0 ppm; soursop at 20 ppm;
starfruit at 5.0 ppm; sugar apple at 20 ppm; wax jambu at 5.0 ppm;
ginseng at 3.0 ppm; onion, bulb subgroup 3-07A at 0.2 ppm; onion, green
subgroup 3-07B at 7.0 ppm; caneberry subgroup 13-07A at 5.0 ppm;
bushberry subgroup 13-07B at 2.0 ppm; fruit, small vine climbing,
except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F at 1.0 ppm; berry, low growing,
subgroup 13-07G, except cranberry at 2.0 ppm; vegetable, fruiting,
group 8-10, except tomato at 0.7 ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at 10
ppm; fruit, pome, group 11-10 at 5.0 ppm; leafy greens subgroup 4A at
30 ppm; potato at 6.0 ppm; pineapple at 8.0 ppm; and dragon fruit at
1.0 ppm. Syngenta has developed and validated analytical methodology
for enforcement purposes. This method (Syngenta Crop Protection Method
AG-597B) has passed an Agency petition method validation for several
commodities, and is currently the enforcement method for fludioxonil.
An extensive database of method validation data using this method on
various crop commodities is available. Contact: Laura Nollen, (703)
305-7390, e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    6. PP 1E7854. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0394). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton,
NJ 08540, requests to establish tolerances in 40 CFR part 180 for
residues of the fungicide cyprodinil, 4-cyclopropyl-6-methyl-N-phenyl-
2-pyrimidinamine, in or on onion, bulb, subgroup 3-07A at 0.6 ppm;
onion, green, subgroup 3-07B at 4.0 ppm; caneberry subgroup 13-07A at
10.0 ppm; bushberry subgroup 13-07B at 3.0 ppm; fruit, small vine
climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F at 2.0 ppm; berry,
low growing, subgroup 13-07G, except cranberry at 5.0 ppm; dragon fruit
at 2.0 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11-10 at 1.7 ppm; vegetable, fruiting,
group 8-10 at 1.3 ppm; and leafy greens subgroup 4A at 40 ppm. Syngenta
Crop Protection has developed and validated analytical methodology for
enforcement purposes. This method (Syngenta Crop Protection Method AG-
631B) has passed an Agency petition method validation for several
commodities and is currently the enforcement method for cyprodinil. An
extensive database of method validation data using this method on
various crop commodities is available. Contact: Laura Nollen, (703)
305-7390, e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    7. PP 1E7855. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0397). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton,
NJ 08540, requests to establish tolerances in 40 CFR part 180 for
residues of the fungicide propiconazole, 1-[[2-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-
propyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-yl] methyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole and its metabolites
determined as 2,4,-dichlorobenzoic acid (DCBA) and expressed as parent
compound, in or on bean, snap at 0.8 ppm; bean, succulent shelled at
0.15 ppm; bean, dry seed at 0.3 ppm; legume, foliage at 25 ppm; tomato
at 2.5 ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at 8.0 ppm; fruit, stone, group
12, except plum at 7.0 ppm; plum at 1.0 ppm. Analytical methods AG-626
and AG-454A were developed for the determination of residues of
propiconazole and its metabolites containing the DCBA moiety.
Analytical method AG-626 has been accepted and published by EPA as the
tolerance enforcement method for crops. Contact: Andrew Ertman, (703)
308-9367, e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    8. PP 1E7861. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0477). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton,
NJ 08540, requests to establish tolerances in 40 CFR part 180 for
residues of the fungicide pyrimethanil, (4,6-dimethyl-N-phenyl-2-
pyrimidinamine), in or on onion, bulb, subgroup 03-07A at 0.1 ppm;
onion, green, subgroup 03-07B at 2.0 ppm; berry and small fruit, small

fruit vine climbing subgroup, except fuzzy kiwifruit 13-07F at 5.0 ppm;
berry and small fruit, low growing berry subgroup 13-07G at 3.0 ppm;
and ginseng at 2.5 ppm. The plant metabolism studies demonstrated that
analysis for the parent compound, pyrimethanil is sufficient to enable
the assessment of the relevant residues in crop commodities.
Pyrimethanil was extracted from apples by homogenization with acetone.
An aliquot of the extract was diluted with a mixture of acetonitrile
and water with subsequent residue determination by HPLC/MS/MS. The
method allows the detection and measurement of residues in or on
agricultural commodities at or above the proposed tolerance level.
Contact: Andrew Ertman,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    9. PP 1E7864. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0449). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton,
NJ 08540, requests to establish tolerances in 40 CFR part 180 for
residues of the miticide acequinocyl, [2-(acetyloxy)-3-dodecyl-1,4-
naphthalenedione] and its metabolite, 2-dodecyl-3-hydroxy-1,4-
naphthoquinone, expressed as acequinocyl equivalents, in or on bean,
succulent shelled at 0.15 ppm; caneberry subgroup 13-07A at 4.5 ppm;
cherry at 0.8 ppm; cowpea, forage at 9.0 ppm; cucumber at 0.15 ppm;
melon subgroup 9A at 0.06 ppm; soybean, vegetable, succulent at 0.25
ppm; fruit, small vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-
07F at 1.6 ppm; and berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G at 0.4 ppm. The
analytical method to quantitate residues of acequinocyl and
acequinocyl-OH in/on food crops utilizes HPLC/MS/MS detection all crops
listed in the petition. The lowest level of method validation (LLMV)
for acequinocyl and acequinocyl-OH varied with the crop matrix.
Contact: Laura Nollen,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    10. PP 1E7878. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0521). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton,
NJ 08540, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for
residues of the herbicide pendimethalin, N-(1-ethylpropyl)-3,4-
dimethyl-2,6dinitrobenzenamine, and its 3, 5-dinitrobenzyl alcohol
metabolite (CL 202347), in or on lettuce, leaf at 3.0 ppm; Brassica,
leafy greens, subgroup 5B at 0.2 ppm; turnip greens at 0.2 ppm; melons
subgroup 9A at 0.1 ppm; vegetable, soybean, succulent at 0.1 ppm; and
small fruit vine climbing subgroup 13-07E, except grape at 0.1 ppm.
Section 408 (b)(3) of the amended FDCA requires EPA to determine that
there is a practical method for detecting and measuring levels of the
pesticide chemical residue in or on food and that the tolerance be set
at a level at or above of the limit of detection of the designated
method. In plants, the method is aqueous organic solvent extraction,
column cleanup, and quantitation by GC. The method has a LOQ of 0.05
ppm for pendimethalin and the alcohol metabolite. Contact: Andrew
Ertman,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    11. PP 0F7713. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0456). Bayer CropScience, 2 T.W.
Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12014, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709,
requests to establish tolerances in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the
fungicide trifloxystrobin (benzeneacetic acid, (E,E)-[alpha]-
(methoxyimino)-2-[[[[1-[3-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]
ethylidene]amino]oxy]methyl]-methyl ester) and the free form of its
acid metabolite CGA-321113 ((E,E)-methoxyimino-[2-[1-(3-
trifluoromethyl-phenyl)-ethylideneaminooxymethyl]-phenyl]acetic acid),
in or on alfalfa, forage at 0.01 ppm and alfalfa, hay at 0.01 ppm. A
practical analytical methodology for detecting and measuring levels of
trifloxystrobin in or on raw agricultural commodities has been
submitted. The method is based on crop specific cleanup procedures and
determination by gas chromatography with nitrogen-phosphorus detection.
A newer analytical method is available employing identical solvent
mixtures and solvent to matrix ratio (as the first method), deuterated
internal standards, and LC/MS/MS with an electrospray interface,
operated in the positive ion mode. Contact: Tawanda Maignan, (703) 308-
8050, e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    12. PP 0F7785. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0959). Syngenta Crop Protection,
Inc., P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27409, requests to establish
tolerances in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the fungicide
difenoconazole, 1-[2-[2-chloro-4-(4-chlorophenoxy) phenyl]-4-methyl-
1,3-dioxolan-2-ylmethyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole, in or on oats, forage at
0.1 ppm; oats, hay at 0.1 ppm; oats, straw at 0.1 ppm; oats, grain at
0.1 ppm; rye, forage at 0.1 ppm; rye, straw at 0.1 ppm; rye, grain at
0.1 ppm; and wheat, hay at 0.1 ppm. Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., has
submitted a practical analytical method (AG-575B) for detecting and
measuring levels of difenoconazole in or on food with a LOQ that allows
monitoring of food with residues at or above the levels set in the
proposed tolerances. Method REM 147.08 is also available for
enforcement method for the determination of residues of difenoconazole
in crops. Residues are qualified by LC/MS/MS. A practical analytical
method (AG-544A) for detecting and measuring levels of difenoconazole
in or on cattle tissues and milk, and poultry tissues and eggs with a
LOQ that allows monitoring of food with residues at or above the levels
set in the proposed tolerances. Tolerances in meat, milk, poultry or
eggs were established for enforcement purposes. Contact: Rose Mary
Kearns,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    13. PP 0F7800. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0388). BASF Corporation, P.O. Box
13528, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, requests to amend the
tolerances in 40 CFR part 180.493 for residues of the fungicide
dimethomorph, [(E,Z)4-[3-(4-chlorophenyl)-3-(3,4-dimethoxyphenyl)-1-
oxo-2-propenyl]-morpholine], in or on the raw agricultural commodity
Brassica, Subgroup 5A from 2.0 ppm to 5.0 ppm; Brassica, Subgroup 5B
from 20.0 ppm to 30.0 ppm; and green onion, Subgroup 3B from 2.0 ppm to
11.0 ppm. A reliable method for the determination of dimethomorph
residues in Brassica- subgroup 5A, Brassica--subgroup 5B and green
onions exists; this method is the FDA Multi-Residue Method, Protocol D,
as published in the Pesticide Analytical Manual I. Contact: Tamue
Gibson,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    14. PP 0F7808. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0486). Syngenta Crop Protection,
Inc., P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27409, requests to establish
tolerances in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the fungicide cyprodinil,
2-pyrimidinamine, 4-cyclopropyl-6-methyl-N-phenyl, in or on nut, tree,
group 14 at 0.10 ppm and almond, hulls at 18.0 ppm. Syngenta Crop
Protection has developed and validated analytical methodology for
enforcement purposes. This method (Syngenta Crop Protection Method AG-
631B) has passed an Agency petition method validation for several
commodities and is currently the enforcement method for cyprodinil. An
extensive database of method validation data using this method on
various crop commodities is available. Contact: Lisa Jones, (703) 308-
9424, e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    15. PP 0F7816. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0387). BASF Corporation, P.O. Box
13528, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, requests to establish a
tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the fungicide
dimethomorph, [(E,Z)4-[3-(4-chlorophenyl)-3-(3,4-dimethoxyphenyl)-1-
oxo-2-propenyl]-morpholine], in or on

vegetable, leafy at 16 ppm. A reliable method for the determination of
dimethomorph residues in leafy vegetables exists; this method is the
FDA Multi-Residue Method, Protocol D, as published in the Pesticide
Analytical Manual I. Contact: Tamue Gibson,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    16. PP 1F7831. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0487). Syngenta Crop Protection,
Inc., P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27409, requests to establish a
tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the fungicide fludioxonil,
[4-(2,2-difluoro-1,3-benzodioxol-4-yl)-1H-pyrrole-3-carbonitrile], in
or on vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 01C at 0.04 ppm. Syngenta
has developed and validated analytical methodology for enforcement
purposes. This method (Syngenta Crop Protection Method AG-597B) has
passed an Agency petition method validation for several commodities,
and is currently the enforcement method for fludioxonil. This method
has also been forwarded to the FDA for inclusion into PAM II. Contact:
Lisa Jones,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Amended Tolerances
    1. PP 1E7842. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0343). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton,
NJ 08540, requests to remove the established tolerances in 40 CFR
180.544 for residues of the insecticide methoxyfenozide, including its
metabolites and degradates, in or on vegetable, root, subgroup 1A and
citrus oil at 100 ppm from the table in paragraph (a) as well as fruit,
citrus, group 10 from the table in paragraph (c) upon the approval of
the proposed tolerances under ``New Tolerance''. Additionally, the
petition proposes to revise the tolerance expressions in 40 CFR 180.544
to read as follows:
    (a)(1) Tolerances are established for residues of the insecticide
methoxyfenozide, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the
commodities in the table below. Compliance with the tolerance levels
specified below is to be determined by measuring only methoxyfenozide
[benzoic acid, 3-methoxy-2-methyl-, 2-(3,5-dimethylbenzoyl)-2-(1,1-
dimethylethyl) hydrazide].
    (a)(2) Tolerances are established for residues of the insecticide
methoxyfenozide, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the
commodities in the table below. Compliance with the tolerance levels
specified below is to be determined by measuring only the sum of
methoxyfenozide [benzoic acid, 3-methoxy-2-methyl-, 2-(3,5-
dimethylbenzoyl)-2-(1,1-dimethylethyl) hydrazide] and its glucuronide
metabolite ([beta]-D-Glucopyranuronic acid, 3-[[2-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-
2-(3,5-dimethylbenzoyl)-hydrazino]carbonyl]-2-methylphenyl-),
calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of methoxyfenozide.
    (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. Time-limited tolerances
specified in the following table are established for residues of the
insecticide methoxyfenozide, including its metabolites and degradates,
in or on the specified agricultural commodities, resulting from use of
the pesticide pursuant to FFIFRA section 18 emergency exemptions.
Compliance with the tolerance levels specified below is to be
determined by measuring only methoxyfenozide [benzoic acid, 3-methoxy-
2-methyl-, 2-(3,5-dimethylbenzoyl)-2-(1,1-dimethylethyl) hydrazide].
The expired tolerances will be revoked on the date specified in the
table.
    (d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. (1) Tolerances are
established for the indirect or inadvertent residues of the insecticide
methoxyfenozide, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the
raw agricultural commodities in the table below, when present therein
as a result of the application of methoxyfenozide to growing crops as
listed in paragraph (a) of this section. Compliance with the tolerance
levels specified below is to be determined by measuring only
methoxyfenozide [benzoic acid, 3-methoxy-2-methyl-, 2-(3,5-
dimethylbenzoyl)-2-(1,1-dimethylethyl) hydrazide].
    (2) Tolerances are established for the indirect or inadvertent
residues of the insecticide methoxyfenozide, including its metabolites
and degradates, in or on the raw agricultural commodities in the table
below, when present therein as a result of the application of
methoxyfenozide to growing crops as listed in paragraph (a) of this
section. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified below is to be
determined by measuring only the sum of methoxyfenozide [benzoic acid,
3-methoxy-2-methyl-, 2-(3,5-dimethylbenzoyl)-2-(1,1-dimethylethyl)
hydrazide] and the following metabolites (all calculated as the
stoichiometric equivalent of methoxyfenozide): Free phenol of
methoxyfenozide [3,5-dimethylbenzoic acid N-tert-butyl- N'-(3-hydroxy-
2-methylbenzoyl) hydrazide], the glucose conjugate of the phenol [3,5-
dimethyl benzoic acid N-tert-butyl- N'-[3 ([beta]-D-glucopyranosyloxy)-
2-methylbenzoyl]-hydrazide] and the malonylglycosyl conjugate of the
phenol [3,5-dimethyl benzoic acid N-tert-butyl- N'-[3 ([beta]-D-6-
malonyl-glucopyranosyl-1-oxy)-2-methylbenzoyl]-hydrazide]. Contact:
Sidney Jackson,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    2. PP 1E7851. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0398). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton,
NJ 08540, requests to amend the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.507 for
residues of the fungicide azoxystrobin: (methyl (E)-2-[2-[6-(2-
cyanophenoxy)pyrimidin-4-yloxy]phenyl]-3-methoxyacrylate) and the Z
isomer of azoxystrobin, (methyl (Z)-2-[2-[6-(2-cyanophenoxy)pyrimidin-
4-yloxy]phenyl]-3-methoxyacrylate), in or on vegetable, tuberous and
corm, subgroup 1C from 0.03 ppm to 6.0 ppm. Upon approval of the
aforementioned tolerances under ``New Tolerance'', it is proposed that
40 CFR 180.507 be amended to remove the established tolerances for the
residues of azoxystrobin in or on the raw agricultural commodities:
Onion, bulb at 1.0 ppm; onion, green at 7.5 ppm; caneberry subgroup
13A, at 5.0 ppm; bushberry subgroup 13B at 3.0 ppm; Juneberry at 3.0
ppm; lingonberry at 3.0 ppm; salal at 3.0 ppm; grape at 1.0 ppm;
strawberry at 10.0 ppm; tomato at 0.2 ppm; vegetable, fruiting, group
8, except tomato at 2.0 ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10 at 10.0 ppm;
canola, seed at 1.0 ppm; cotton, undelinted seed at 0.6 ppm; crambe,
seed at 0.5 ppm; flax, seed at 0.5 ppm; mustard, field, seed at 0.5
ppm; mustard, Indian, seed at 0.5 ppm; mustard, seed at 0.5 ppm;
rapeseed, Indian at 0.5 ppm; rapeseed, seed at 0.5 ppm; safflower, seed
at 0.5 ppm; sunflower, seed at 0.5 ppm; and potato at 0.03 ppm.
Contact: Andrew Ertman,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. PP 1E7852. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0300). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton,
NJ 08540, requests to amend the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.475 for
residues of the fungicide difenoconazole, 1-[2-[2-chloro-4-(4-
chlorophenoxy)phenyl]-4-methyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-ylmethyl]-1H-1,2,4,-
triazole, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on vegetable,
tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C from 0.01 ppm to 4.0 ppm. In addition,
the petition proposes to remove established tolerances in or on the raw
agricultural commodities: Potato, processed waste at 0.04 ppm;
vegetables, fruiting, group 8 at 0.6 ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10 at
0.6 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11 at 1.0 ppm; and strawberry at 2.5 ppm.
Contact:

Sidney Jackson,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    4. PP 1E7853. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0395). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton,
NJ 08540, requests to amend the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.516 for
residues of the fungicide fludioxonil, (4-(2, 2-difluoro-1,3-
benzodioxol-4-yl)-1H-pyrrole-3-carbonitrile), in or on avocado from
0.45 ppm to 5.0 ppm; sapote, black from 0.45 ppm to 5.0 ppm; canistel
from 0.45 ppm to 5.0 ppm; sapote, mamey from 0.45 ppm to 5.0 ppm; mango
from 0.45 ppm to 5.0 ppm; papaya from 0.45 ppm to 5.0 ppm; sapodilla
from 0.45 ppm to 5.0 ppm; star apple from 0.45 ppm to 5.0 ppm; longan
from 1.0 ppm to 20 ppm; lychee from 1.0 ppm to 20 ppm; pulasan from 1.0
ppm to 20 ppm; rambutan from 1.0 ppm to 20 ppm; Spanish lime from 1.0
ppm to 20 ppm; and tomato from 0.50 ppm to 3.0 ppm. Upon approval of
the aforementioned tolerances under ``New Tolerance'', the petition
finally requests to amend 40 CFR 180.516 by removing the established
tolerances for residues of fludioxonil in or on the following raw
agricultural commodities: Onion, bulb at 0.2 ppm; onion, green at 7.0
ppm; caneberry subgroup 13A at 5.0 ppm; bushberry subgroup 13B at 2.0
ppm; Juneberry at 2.0 ppm; lingonberry at 2.0 ppm; salal at 2.0 ppm;
grape at 1.0 ppm; strawberry at 2.0 ppm; vegetable, fruiting, group 8
at 0.01 ppm; tomatillo at 0.50 ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10 at 10 ppm;
fruit, pome, group 11 at 5.0 ppm; and leafy greens subgroup 4A, except
spinach at 30 ppm. Syngenta has developed and validated analytical
methodology for enforcement purposes. This method (Syngenta Crop
Protection Method AG-597B) has passed an Agency petition method
validation for several commodities, and is currently the enforcement
method for fludioxonil. An extensive database of method validation data
using this method on various crop commodities is available. Contact:
Laura Nollen,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    5. PP 1E7854. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0394). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton,
NJ 08540, requests to amend the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.532 for
residues of the fungicide cyprodinil, 4-cyclopropyl-6-methyl-N-phenyl-
2-pyrimidinamine, in or on citrus, oil from 340 ppm to 60.0 ppm. Upon
approval of the aforementioned tolerances under ``New Tolerance'', it
is proposed that 40 CFR 180.532 be amended to remove the established
tolerances for the residues of cyprodinil in or on the following raw
agricultural commodities: Onion, bulb at 0.60 ppm; onion, green at 4.0
ppm; caneberry subgroup 13A at 10 ppm; bushberry subgroup 13B at 3.0
ppm; Juneberry at 3.0 ppm; lingonberry at 3.0 ppm; salal at 3.0 ppm;
grape at 2.0 ppm; strawberry at 5.0 ppm; fruit, pome at 1.7 ppm;
tomatillo at 0.45 ppm; tomato at 0.45 ppm; and leafy greens subgroup
4A, except spinach at 30 ppm. Syngenta Crop Protection has developed
and validated analytical methodology for enforcement purposes. This
method (Syngenta Crop Protection Method AG-631B) has passed an Agency
petition method validation for several commodities and is currently the
enforcement method for cyprodinil. An extensive database of method
validation data using this method on various crop commodities is
available. Contact: Laura Nollen,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    6. PP 1E7855. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0397). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton,
NJ 08540, requests to remove the established tolerance in 40 CFR
180.434 for residues of the fungicide propiconazole, 1-[[2-(2,4-
dichlorophenyl)-4-propyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-yl] methyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole
and its metabolites determined as 2,4,-dichlorobenzoic acid and
expressed as parent compound, in or on fruit, stone, group 12 at 1.0
ppm. Contact: Andrew Ertman,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    7. PP 1E7864. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0449). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton,
NJ 08540, requests to remove the existing tolerances in 40 CFR 180.599
for residues of the miticide acequinocyl, [2-(acetyloxy)-3-dodecyl-1,4-
naphthalenedione] and its metabolite, 2-dodecyl-3-hydroxy-1,4-
naphthoquinone, expressed as acequinocyl equivalents, in or on grape at
1.6 ppm and strawberry at 0.4 ppm, as they will be superseded by
inclusion in subgroup 13-07F and 13-07G, respectively under ``New
Tolerance''. Contact: Laura Nollen,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    8. PP 0F7808. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0486). Syngenta Crop Protection,
Inc., P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27409, requests to remove
established tolerances in 40 CFR 180.532 for residues of the fungicide
cyprodinil: 2-pyrimidinamine, 4-cyclopropyl-6-methyl-N-phenyl, in or on
almond at 0.02 ppm and pistachio at 0.10 ppm upon approval of the
aforementioned tolerances under ``New Tolerance''. Contact: Lisa Jones,
(703) 308-9424, e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    9. PP 1F7871. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0677). Arysta LifeScience North
America, LLC, 15401 Weston Parkway, Suite 150, Cary, NC 27513, requests
to amend the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.609 for residues of the fungicide
fluoxastrobin, (1E)-[2-[[6-(2-chlorophenoxy)-5-fluoro-4-
pyrimidinyl]oxy]phenyl] (5,6-dihydro-1,4,2-dioxazin-3-yl)methanone O-
methyloxime and its Z isomer, (1Z)-[2-[[6-(2-chlorophenoxy)-5-fluoro-4-
pyrimidinyl]oxy]phenyl](5,6-dihydro-1,4,2-dioxazin-3-yl)methanone O-
methyloxime, in or on peanut from 0.01 ppm to 0.02 ppm; and peanut,
oil, refined from 0.03 ppm to 0.06 ppm. Adequate analytical methodology
is available for enforcement purposes. The method comprises microwave
solvent extraction followed by a solid phase extraction clean up and
quantification by HPLC/MS/MS. The individual detector responses for
measured E- and Z-isomers is summed to give total residue. Contact:
Heather Garvie,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
List of Subjects

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

    Dated: July 8, 2011.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2011-18101 Filed 7-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 173 (Friday, September 8, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42576-42577]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19013]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket Number NHTSA-2017-0032]

Reports, Forms, and Recordkeeping Requirements

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Request for public comment on proposed collection of
information.

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

SUMMARY: Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from
the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit
public comment on proposed collections of information, including
extensions and reinstatement of previously approved collections. This
document describes one collection of information for which NHTSA
intends to seek OMB approval.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 7, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number at the
heading of this notice by any of the following methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments on the electronic docket site by
clicking on ``Help and Information'' or ``Help/Info.''
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.

     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number. Note that all comments received will be posted without
change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided. Please see the Privacy Act discussion below. We
will consider all comments received before the close of business on the
comment closing date indicated above. To the extent possible, we will
also consider comments filed after the closing date.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
Holidays. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information or access
to background documents, contact Wayne McKenzie, Office of Crash
Avoidance Standards (NVS-121), National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, West Building, 4th Floor, Room W43-462, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Mr. McKenzie can be reached at (202)
366-1810.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB
for approval, it must publish a document in the Federal Register
providing a 60-day comment period and otherwise consult with members of
the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of
information. The OMB has promulgated regulations describing what must
be included in such a document. Under OMB's regulations (at 5 CFR
1320.8(d)), an agency must ask for public comment on the following:
    (i) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
    (iv) How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submissions of responses.
    In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks public comment on
the following proposed collection of information:
    Title: 49 CFR 571.125, Warning Devices.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2127-0506.
    Affected Public: Businesses or other for profit organizations.
    Abstract: 49 U.S.C. 30111, 30112 and 30117 of the National Traffic
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 as amended (``the Safety Act''),
authorized the issuance of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
(FMVSS). The Secretary is authorized to issue, amend, and revoke such
rules and regulations as she/he deems necessary. Using this authority,
the agency issued FMVSS No.125, ``Warning Devices'' (Appendix 2) which
applies to devices, without self-contained energy sources, that are
designed to be carried mandatory in buses and trucks that have a Gross
Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) greater than 10,000 pounds and voluntarily
in other vehicles. These devices are used to warn approaching traffic
of the presence of a stopped vehicle, except for devices designed to be
permanently affixed to the vehicles.
    Estimated Annual Burden: 1 hour.
    Number of Respondents: 3.

    Issued in Washington, DC on:
Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2017-19013 Filed 9-7-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 34 (Thursday, February 20, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9820-9823]
[FR Doc No: 2020-03314]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88194; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2020-12]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the NYSE
Arca Equities Fees and Charges

February 13, 2020.
    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 February 3, 2020, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Arca Equities Fees and
Charges (``Fee Schedule'') to introduce an alternative requirement to
qualify for the Tape B Tier 1 pricing tier. The Exchange proposes to
implement the fee changes effective February 3, 2020. The proposed rule
change is available on the Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
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
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to introduce an
alternative requirement to qualify for the Tape B Tier 1 pricing tier.
    The proposed changes respond to the current competitive environment
where order flow providers have a choice of where to direct liquidity-
providing orders by offering further incentives for ETP Holders \3\ to
send additional displayed liquidity to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ All references to ETP Holders in connection with this
proposed fee change include Market Makers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to implement the fee changes effective
February 3, 2020.
Background
    The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for
competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices,
products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS,
the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the Commission itself recognized, the market for trading
services in NMS stocks has become ``more fragmented and competitive.''
\5\ Indeed, equity trading is currently dispersed across 13
exchanges,\6\ 31 alternative trading systems,\7\ and numerous broker-
dealer internalizers and wholesalers, all competing for order flow.
Based on publicly-available information, no single exchange currently
has more than 20% market share (whether including or excluding auction
volume).\8\ Therefore, no exchange possesses significant

pricing power in the execution of equity order flow. More specifically,
the Exchange currently has less than 10% market share of executed
volume of equity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808, 84 FR 5202,
5253 (February 20, 2019) (File No. S7-05-18) (Final Rule).
    \6\ See Cboe U.S. Equities Market Volume Summary, available at
https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share. See generally
https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/divisionsmarketregmrexchangesshtml.html.
    \7\ See FINRA ATS Transparency Data, available at https://otctransparency.finra.org/otctransparency/AtsIssueData. A list of
alternative trading systems registered with the Commission is
available at https://www.sec.gov/foia/docs/atslist.htm.
    \8\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Equities Market Volume Summary,
available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
move order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of
products. While it is not possible to know a firm's reason for shifting
order flow, the Exchange believes that one such reason is because of
fee changes at any of the registered exchanges or non-exchange venues
to which a firm routes order flow. With respect to non-marketable order
flow that would provide displayed liquidity on an Exchange against
which market makers can quote, ETP Holders can choose from any one of
the 13 currently operating registered exchanges to route such order
flow. Accordingly, competitive forces constrain exchange transaction
fees and credits that relate to orders that would provide displayed
liquidity on an exchange.
Proposed Rule Change
    The proposed rule change is designed to be available to all ETP
Holders on the Exchange and is intended to provide ETP Holders an
opportunity to receive rebates by quoting and trading more on the
Exchange.
    The Exchange currently provides credits to ETP Holders who submit
orders that provide displayed liquidity on the Exchange. The Exchange
currently has multiple levels of credits for orders that provide
displayed liquidity that are based on the amount of volume of such
orders that ETP Holders send to the Exchange.
    As described in greater detail below, the Exchange proposes to
introduce an alternative requirement to qualify for the current Tape B
Tier 1 rebate for orders that provide liquidity to the Exchange in Tape
B securities.
    Currently, a Tape B Tier 1 credit of $0.0030 \9\ per share applies
to ETP Holders that, on a daily basis, measured monthly, directly
execute providing volume in Tape B securities that is equal to at least
1.50% of US Tape B CADV for the billing month. With this proposed rule
change, the Exchange proposes to introduce an alternative method for
ETP Holders to qualify for the Tape B Tier 1 credit. As proposed, ETP
Holders could alternatively qualify for the Tape B Tier 1 credit if an
ETP Holder who is affiliated with an OTP Holder or OTP Firm that
provides an ADV of electronic posted executions for the account of a
market maker in all issues on NYSE Arca Options (excluding mini
options) of at least 0.55% of total Customer equity and ETF option ADV
as reported by The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') and the ETP
Holder directly executes providing volume in Tape B securities during
the billing month that is equal to
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Under the Basic Rate, ETP Holders receive a credit of
$0.0020 per share for Tape B orders that provide liquidity to the
Book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     at least 1.00% of US Tape B CADV for the billing month of
February 2020.
     at least 1.15% of US Tape B CADV for the billing month of
March 2020.
     at least 1.25% of US Tape B CADV for the billing month of
April 2020 and each billing month thereafter.
    For example, assume an ETP Holder has providing ADV of at least 15
million shares in a billing month where US Tape B CADV is 1.2 billion
shares, or 1.25% of US Tape B CADV. Currently, that ETP Holder would
not qualify under the current volume requirement which requires ETP
Holders to add at least 1.5% of US Tape B for the billing month.
However, if that same ETP Holder was affiliated with an OTP Holder or
OTP Firm that provides an ADV of electronic posted executions for the
account of a market maker in all issues on NYSE Arca Options of at
least 110,000 contracts in a billing month where total Customer equity
and ETF option volume was 20 million contracts, or 0.55% of total
Customer equity and ETF option volume, then the ETP Holder would
qualify under the proposed alternative requirement and would receive a
credit of $0.0030 per share for orders that provide liquidity in Tape B
Securities.
    For all other fees and credits, tiered or basic rates apply based
on a firm's qualifying levels.
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to encourage ETP Holders
to promote price discovery and market quality for the benefit of all
market participants. The Exchange believes that providing credits to
ETP Holders that are affiliated with an OTP Holder or OTP Firm that add
liquidity in Tape B securities to the Exchange could lead to increased
trading on the Exchange's equities and options markets.\10\ As noted
above, the Exchange operates in a competitive environment, particularly
as it relates to attracting non-marketable orders, which add liquidity
to the Exchange. Because, as proposed, the tier requires an ETP Holder
increase the volume of its trades against orders that add liquidity in
Tape B securities at increasing levels in February 2020, March 2020,
April 2020 and thereafter at the April 2020 level, coupled with the
required minimum of options volume, the Exchange believes the proposed
credit would provide an incentive for ETP Holders to route additional
liquidity to the Exchange in order to qualify for it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ There are currently 55 firms that are both ETP Holders and
OTP Holders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address any
other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any significant problems
that market participants would have in complying with the proposed
changes.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\11\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\12\ in particular,
because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and other persons
using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposed Fee Change Is Reasonable
    As discussed above, the Exchange operates in a highly fragmented
and competitive market. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically,
in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market
forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized
that current regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably
successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that
are most important to investors and listed companies.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the Commission itself recognized, the market for trading
services in NMS stocks has become ``more fragmented and competitive.''
\14\ Indeed, equity trading is currently dispersed across 13
exchanges,\15\ 31 alternative trading systems,\16\ and numerous broker-
dealer

internalizers and wholesalers, all competing for order flow. As noted
above, no exchange possesses significant pricing power in the execution
of equity order flow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808, 84 FR 5202,
5253 (February 20, 2019) (File No. S7-05-18) (Final rule).
    \15\ See Cboe Global Markets, U.S. Equities Market Volume
Summary, available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/.
    \16\ See FINRA ATS Transparency Data, available at https://otctransparency.finra.org/otctransparency/AtsIssueData. A list of
alternative trading systems registered with the Commission is
available at https://www.sec.gov/foia/docs/atslist.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given this competitive environment, the proposal represents a
reasonable attempt to attract additional order flow to the Exchange. In
particular, the Exchange believes the proposed amendment to Tape B Tier
1 is reasonable because it provides ETP Holders affiliated with an OTP
Holder or OTP Firm with an additional way to qualify for the Tape B
Tier 1 rebate through equity and options orders. The Exchange believes
that the proposed alternative to qualify for the tier utilizing a lower
equity volume requirement coupled with a minimum options volume
requirement is reasonable because the proposal provides firms with
greater flexibility to reach volume tiers across asset classes, thereby
creating an added incentive for ETP Holders to bring additional order
flow to a public exchange, thereby encouraging greater participation
and liquidity.
    The Exchange notes that volume-based incentives and discounts have
been widely adopted by exchanges, including the Exchange, and are
reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they are
available to all ETP Holders on an equal basis. They also provide
additional benefits or discounts that are reasonably related to the
value of the Exchange's market quality and associated higher levels of
market activity, such as higher levels of liquidity provision and/or
growth patterns. Additionally, as noted above, the Exchange operates in
a highly competitive market. The Exchange is one of several venues and
off-exchange venues to which market participants may direct their order
flow, and it represents a small percentage of the overall market.
Competing exchanges offer similar tiered pricing structures to that of
the Exchange, including schedules of rebates and fees that apply based
on members achieving certain volume thresholds.
    Moreover, the Exchange believes the proposed amendment to Tape B
Tier 1 is a reasonable means to encourage ETP Holders to increase their
liquidity on the Exchange and their participation on NYSE Arca Options.
The Exchange believes amending the current pricing tier by adopting an
alternative requirement may encourage those ETP Holders who could not
previously achieve the pricing tier to increase their order flow on the
Exchange and on NYSE Arca Options. Increased liquidity benefits all
investors by deepening the Exchange's liquidity pool, offering
additional flexibility for all investors to enjoy cost savings,
supporting the quality of price discovery, promoting market
transparency and improving investor protection.
The Proposed Fee Change Is an Equitable Allocation of Fees and Credits
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change to adopt an
alternative way to qualify for the Tape B Tier 1 credit equitably
allocates its fees and credits among market participants because it is
reasonably related to the value of the Exchange's market quality
associated with higher equities and options volume. Additionally, a
number of ETP Holders have a reasonable opportunity to satisfy the
tier's criteria.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See supra, note 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange does not know how much order flow ETP Holders choose
to route to other exchanges or to off-exchange venues. The proposed
alternative method to qualify for the Tape B Tier 1 credit would be
available to all ETP Holders that are also [sic] OTP Holders or OTP
Firms. There are currently 3 ETP Holders that qualify for the Tape B
Tier 1 credit. And as noted above, there are 55 firms that are both ETP
Holders and OTP Holders and a number of such firms could qualify for
Tape B Tier 1 credits under the proposed alternative method. Without
having a view of an ETP Holder's activity on other markets and off-
exchange venues, the Exchange has no way of knowing whether this
proposed rule change would result in any ETP Holder affiliated with an
OTP Holder or OTP Firm to increase participation in the Exchange's
equities and options markets to qualify for the existing and proposed
new credits. The Exchange cannot predict with certainty how many ETP
Holders would avail themselves of this opportunity. The Exchange
believes the proposed amended tier could provide an incentive for other
ETP Holders to submit additional liquidity on the Exchange and on NYSE
Arca Options to qualify for the rebate. To the extent an ETP Holder
participates on the Exchange but not on NYSE Arca Options, the Exchange
believes that the proposal is still reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory with respect to such ETP Holder based on the
overall benefit to the Exchange resulting from the success of NYSE Arca
Options. In particular, such success would allow the Exchange to
continue to provide and potentially expand its existing incentive
programs to the benefit of all participants on the Exchange, whether
they participate on NYSE Arca Options or not.
    The proposal neither targets nor will it have a disparate impact on
any particular category of market participant. Rather, should an ETP
Holder not meet the proposed criteria, the ETP Holder can still qualify
for the same credit by meeting the current criteria which does not
require it to have any affiliation with an OTP Holder or OTP Firm and
conduct options trading on NYSE Arca Options. ETP Holders also have
several other tiers to aim to achieve to receive rebates.
The Proposed Fee Change Is Not Unfairly Discriminatory
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is not unfairly
discriminatory. In the prevailing competitive environment, ETP Holders
are free to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe that
alternatives offer them better value.
    The Exchange believes it is not unfairly discriminatory to provide
an alternative way to qualify for per share credits, as the proposed
credit would be provided on an equal basis to all ETP Holders that are
affiliated with an OTP Holder or OTP Firm that add liquidity by meeting
the proposed alternative requirement of Tape B Tier 1. Further, the
Exchange believes the proposed alternative requirement would
incentivize ETP Holders that are affiliated with an OTP Holder or OTP
Firm to send their options orders to the Exchange to qualify for the
pricing tier. The Exchange also believes that the proposed change is
not unfairly discriminatory because it is reasonably related to the
value to the Exchange's market quality associated with higher volume.
    The proposal to amend the volume requirement to qualify for the
Tape B Tier 1 credit neither targets nor will it have a disparate
impact on any particular category of market participant. The proposal
does not permit unfair discrimination because the amended threshold
would be applied to all similarly situated ETP Holders, who would all
be eligible for the same credit on an equal basis. Accordingly, no ETP
Holder already operating on the Exchange would be disadvantaged by this
allocation of fees.
    Finally, the submission of orders to the Exchange is optional for
ETP Holders in that they could choose whether to submit orders to the
Exchange and, if they do, the extent of its activity in this regard.
The Exchange believes that it is subject to significant

competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement
regarding the burden on competition.
    For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal
is consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\18\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above, the Exchange believes
that the proposed changes would encourage the submission of additional
liquidity to a public exchange, thereby promoting market depth, price
discovery and transparency and enhancing order execution opportunities
for ETP Holders. As a result, the Exchange believes that the proposed
change furthers the Commission's goal in adopting Regulation NMS of
fostering integrated competition among orders, which promotes ``more
efficient pricing of individual stocks for all types of orders, large
and small.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \19\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808, 70 FR 37495,
37498-99 (June 29, 2005) (S7-10-04) (Final Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Intramarket Competition. The proposed change is designed to attract
additional equities and options order flow to the Exchange. The
Exchange believes that the proposed amendment to the volume requirement
under Tape B Tier 1 would continue to incentivize market participants
to direct providing displayed order flow to the Exchange and greater
participation on NYSE Arca Options. Greater liquidity benefits all
market participants on the Exchange by providing more trading
opportunities and encourages ETP Holders to send orders to the
Exchange, thereby contributing to robust levels of liquidity, which
benefits all market participants. The proposed volume requirement would
be applicable to all similarly-situated market participants, and, as
such, the proposed change would not impose a disparate burden on
competition among market participants on the Exchange.
    Intermarket Competition. The Exchange operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily choose to
send their orders to other exchange and off-exchange venues if they
deem fee levels at those other venues to be more favorable. As noted
above, the Exchange's market share of intraday trading (i.e., excluding
auctions) is less than 10%. In such an environment, the Exchange must
continually adjust its fees and rebates to remain competitive with
other exchanges and with off-exchange venues. Because competitors are
free to modify their own fees and credits in response, and because
market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices,
the Exchange does not believe its proposed fee change can impose any
burden on intermarket competition.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change could promote
competition between the Exchange and other execution venues, including
those that currently offer similar order types and comparable
transaction pricing, by encouraging additional orders to be sent to the
Exchange for execution.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \20\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \21\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \22\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-NYSEArca-2020-12 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-NYSEArca-2020-12. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal offices of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2020-12, and should be
submitted on or before March 12, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-03314 Filed 2-19-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P