[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 119 (Friday, June 20, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35391-35396]
[FR Doc No: 2014-14421]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72395; File No. SR-Phlx-2014-38]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Pricing in Multiply Listed Options

June 16, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on June 2, 2014, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below,
which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Section II of the Pricing Schedule
which pertains to Multiply Listed Options fees.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Multiply Listed Options fees includes options overlying
equities, ETFs, ETNs and indexes which are multiply listed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to amend Section II of the Exchange's
Pricing Schedule entitled ``Multiply Listed Options'' to: (i) Amend
Options Transaction Charges in Penny Pilot Options \4\ and Non-Penny
Pilot Options; (ii) amend certain Complex Order \5\ fees;

(iii) amend incentives related to achieving certain Customer Rebate
Tiers; \6\ (iv) amend the Monthly Market Maker Cap; and (v) remove
outdated rule text related to the Qualified Contingent Cross \7\ Bonus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Penny Pilot was established in January 2007 and was last
extended in May 2014. See Securities and Exchange Release No. 72245
(May 23, 2014), 79 FR 31164 (May 30, 2014) (SR-Phlx-2014-37).
    \5\ A Complex Order is any order involving the simultaneous
purchase and/or sale of two or more different options series in the
same underlying security, priced at a net debit or credit based on
the relative prices of the individual components, for the same
account, for the purpose of executing a particular investment
strategy. Furthermore, a Complex Order can also be a stock-option
order, which is an order to buy or sell a stated number of units of
an underlying stock or exchange-traded fund (``ETF'') coupled with
the purchase or sale of options contract(s). See Exchange Rule 1080,
Commentary .08(a)(i).
    \6\ The Exchange offers Customer Rebates in Section B of the
Pricing Schedule.
    \7\ A QCC Order is comprised of an order to buy or sell at least
1000 contracts that is identified as being part of a qualified
contingent trade, as that term is defined in Rule 1080(o)(3),
coupled with a contra-side order to buy or sell an equal number of
contracts. The QCC Order must be executed at a price at or between
the National Best Bid and Offer and be rejected if a Customer order
is resting on the Exchange book at the same price. A QCC Order shall
only be submitted electronically from off the floor to the PHLX XL
II System. See Rule 1080(o). See also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 64249 (April 7, 2011), 76 FR 20773 (April 13, 2011) (SR-
Phlx-2011-47) (a rule change to establish a QCC Order to facilitate
the execution of stock/option Qualified Contingent Trades (``QCTs'')
that satisfy the requirements of the trade through exemption in
connection with Rule 611(d) of Regulation NMS). A Floor QCC Order
must: (i) Be for at least 1,000 contracts, (ii) meet the six
requirements of Rule 1080(o)(3) which are modeled on the QCT
Exemption, (iii) be executed at a price at or between the National
Best Bid and Offer; and (iv) be rejected if a Customer order is
resting on the Exchange book at the same price. In order to satisfy
the 1,000-contract requirement, a Floor QCC Order must be for 1,000
contracts and could not be, for example, two 500-contract orders or
two 500-contract legs. See Rule 1064(e). See also Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 64688 (June 16, 2011), 76 FR 36606 (June
22, 2011) (SR-Phlx-2011-56).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Options Transaction Charges
    The Exchange proposes to increase the electronic Professional,\8\
Broker-Dealer \9\ and Firm \10\ Options Transaction Charges in Penny
Pilot Options to $0.48 per contract. Currently, a Professional is
assessed an electronic Options Transaction Charge of $0.30 per contract
and a Broker-Dealer and Firm are assessed an electronic Options
Transaction Charge of $0.45 per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The term ``Professional'' means any person or entity that
(i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) places more
than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a
calendar month for its own beneficial account(s). See Rule
1000(b)(14).
    \9\ The term ``Broker-Dealer'' applies to any transaction which
is not subject to any of the other transaction fees applicable
within a particular category.
    \10\ The term ``Firm'' applies to any transaction that is
identified by a member or member organization for clearing in the
Firm range at The Options Clearing Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to increase the electronic Specialist
\11\ and Market Maker \12\ Options Transaction Charge in Non-Penny
Pilot Options from $0.23 to $0.25 per contract. The Exchange believes
that these fee increases will permit the Exchange to incentivize market
participants by offering other incentives to lower prices as described
herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ A ``Specialist'' is an Exchange member who is registered as
an options specialist pursuant to Rule 1020(a).
    \12\ A ``Market Maker'' includes Registered Options Traders
(Rule 1014(b)(i) and (ii)), which includes Streaming Quote Traders
(see Rule 1014(b)(ii)(A)) and Remote Streaming Quote Traders (see
Rule 1014(b)(ii)(B)). Directed Participants are also market makers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Complex Order Fees
    The Exchange currently assesses Professionals an electronic Complex
Order fee of $0.30 per contract in Penny Pilot Options.\13\ The
Exchange will continue to offer Professionals this $0.30 per contract
fee for electronic Penny Pilot Complex Orders, which will represent a
lower fee as compared to the proposed Professional electronic Options
Transaction Charge of $0.48 per contract. The Exchange will also offer
Broker-Dealers and Firms the opportunity to lower the proposed $0.48
per contract electronic Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charges to
$0.30 per contract with respect to Complex Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See current note 13 of the Pricing Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to Non-Penny Pilot Options, the Exchange currently
assesses Professionals an electronic Complex Order fee of $0.30 per
contract in Non-Penny Pilot Options.\14\ The Exchange will continue to
offer Professionals this $0.30 per contract fee for electronic Non-
Penny Pilot Complex Orders. The Exchange will also offer Broker-Dealers
and Firms the opportunity to lower the current electronic Options
Transaction Charges of $0.70 to $0.30 per contract with respect to
Complex Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See current note 14 of the Pricing Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that offering these market participants the
opportunity to lower Complex Order fees will encourage the transaction
of these types of orders on Phlx.
Customer Rebate Tier Incentives
    Today the Exchange offers Professionals, Broker-Dealers and Firms
the opportunity to reduce electronic Options Transaction Charges in
Non-Penny Pilot Options from $0.70 to $0.60 per contract if the member
or member organization under Common Ownership with another member or
member organization qualifies, in a given month, for Customer Rebate
Tiers 2, 3, 4, or 5 in Section B of the Pricing Schedule.\15\ The
Exchange will continue to offer these market participants the
opportunity to qualify for the Customer Rebate Tiers and reduce these
electronic fees to $0.60 per contract.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See current note 14 of the Pricing Schedule as related to a
Professional and current note 15 of the Pricing Schedule as related
to Broker-Dealers and Firms.
    \16\ See revised note 14 of the Pricing Schedule which is being
applied to Broker-Dealers and Firms as well as Professionals within
the Pricing Schedule. Note 14 of the Pricing Schedule is being added
to the electronic Broker-Dealer and Firm Non-Penny Pilot Options
Transaction Charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to offer Specialists and Market Makers
an opportunity to lower the electronic Non-Penny Pilot Options
Transaction Charge from the proposed $0.25 per contract to $0.23 per
contract.\17\ Any Specialist or Market Maker member or member
organization under Common Ownership with another member or member
organization that qualifies for Customer Rebate Tiers 2, 3, 4 or 5 in
Section B of the Pricing Schedule will be assessed a $0.23 per contract
electronic Non-Penny Pilot Option Transaction Charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The Exchange is adding note 15 of the Pricing Schedule to
the electronic Specialist and Market Maker Non-Penny Pilot Options
Transaction Charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that these incentives will encourage
Specialists and Market Makers to transact a greater number of orders on
the Exchange.
Monthly Market Maker Cap
    Today, Specialists and Market Makers are subject to a ``Monthly
Market Maker Cap'' of $550,000 for: (i) Electronic and floor Option
Transaction Charges; (ii) QCC Transaction Fees (as defined in Exchange
Rule 1080(o) and Floor QCC Orders, as defined in 1064(e)); and (iii)
fees related to an order or quote that is contra to a PIXL Order or
specifically responding to a PIXL auction. The trading activity of
separate Specialist and Market Maker member organizations is aggregated
in calculating the Monthly Market Maker Cap if there is Common
Ownership between the member organizations.
    All dividend, merger, short stock interest, reversal and
conversion, jelly roll and box spread strategy executions (as defined
in Section II) are excluded from the Monthly Market Maker Cap. In
addition, Specialists or Market Makers that (i) are on the contra-side
of an electronically-delivered and executed Customer order; and (ii)
have reached the Monthly Market Maker Cap are assessed a $0.17 per
contract fee.
    The Exchange proposes to continue to assess Specialists or Market
Makers that (i) are on the contra-side of an electronically-delivered
and executed Customer order; and (ii) have reached the Monthly Market
Maker Cap a $0.17

per contract fee in both Penny and Non-Penny Pilot Options, as is the
case today. The Exchange proposes to assess no fee to Specialists or
Market Makers that (i) are on the contra-side of an electronically-
delivered and executed Customer order; and (ii) have reached the
Monthly Market Maker Cap in the following symbols: Apple, Inc.
(``AAPL''), Bank of American Corporation (``BAC''), Facebook, Inc.
(``FB''), iShares Russell 2000 (``IWM'') and PowerShares QQQ (``QQQ'').
The Exchange believes that assessing Specialists and Market Makers no
fee in these symbols if they are on the contra-side of an
electronically-delivered and executed Customer order; and have reached
the Monthly Market Maker Cap will incentivize Specialists and Market
Makers to offer improved bids and offers on the Exchange.
QCC Bonus
    The Exchange previously filed an immediately effective rule change
\18\ to offer an additional rebate applicable to both electronic QCC
Orders (``eQCC'') \19\ and Floor QCC Orders \20\ (collectively ``QCC
Orders''). The Exchange currently offers an additional rebate of
$35,000 if the member organization transacts 1,750,000 of qualifying
QCC contracts (``QCC Bonus'').\21\ The QCC Bonus was only available
during the month of May 2014. The Exchange proposes to delete the rule
text applicable to the QCC Bonus as that bonus is no longer applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72136 (May 9,
2014), 79 FR 27968 (May 15, 2004) (SR-Phlx-2014-31).
    \19\ See Rule 1080(o).
    \20\ See Rule 1064(e).
    \21\ The QCC Bonus was in addition to the maximum QCC Rebate of
$375,000 and did not count toward the maximum QCC Rebate of
$375,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Pricing
Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \22\ in general,
and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) and (b)(5) of the Act
\23\ in particular, in that it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and issuers and
other persons using any facility or system which Phlx operates or
controls, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Options Transaction Charges
    The Exchange's proposal to increase the electronic Professional,
Broker-Dealer and Firm Options Transaction Charges in Penny Pilot
Options to $0.48 per contract is reasonable because the Exchange's fees
will remain competitive with fees at other options markets.\24\ Today,
a Professional is assessed an electronic Options Transaction Charge in
Penny Pilot Options of $0.30 per contract and a Broker-Dealer and Firm
are assessed an electronic Options Transaction Charge in Penny Pilot
Options of $0.45 per contract. Despite the fee increase, the proposal
will allow the Exchange to incentivize market participants by offering
the opportunity to lower Options Transaction Charges as described
herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See the NASDAQ Options Market LLC's (``NOM'') pricing at
Chapter XV of NOM's Rulebook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to increase the electronic Professional,
Broker-Dealer and Firm Options Transaction Charges in Penny Pilot
Options to $0.48 per contract is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the Exchange will assess Professionals, Broker-
Dealers and Firms the same electronic Options Transaction Charges in
Penny Pilot Options. The Exchange does not assess Customers an
electronic Options Transaction Charge in Penny Pilot Options because
Customer order flow enhances liquidity on the Exchange for the benefit
of all market participants. Customer liquidity benefits all market
participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attracts
Specialists and Market Makers. An increase in the activity of these
market participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may
cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other
market participants. Specialists and Market Makers are assessed lower
electronic Options Transaction Charges in Penny Pilot Options as
compared to Professionals, Broker-Dealers and Firms because they have
obligations to the market and regulatory requirements, which normally
do not apply to other market participants.\25\ They have obligations to
make continuous markets, engage in a course of dealings reasonably
calculated to contribute to the maintenance of a fair and orderly
market, and not make bids or offers or enter into transactions that are
inconsistent with a course of dealings. The proposed differentiation as
between Customers, Specialists and Market Makers and other market
participants recognizes the differing contributions made to the
liquidity and trading environment on the Exchange by these market
participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Rule 1014 titled ``Obligations and Restrictions
Applicable to Specialists and Registered Options Traders.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to increase the electronic Specialist and
Market Maker Options Transaction Charge in Non-Penny Pilot Options from
$0.23 to $0.25 per contract is reasonable because the Exchange will
continue to offer Specialists and Market Makers other incentives such
as the Monthly Market Maker Cap, which incentive is not offered to
other market participants. The Exchange believes that despite the fee
increase, the fee remains competitive with other market participant
fees. Also, the Exchange is offering Specialists and Market Makers a
means to reduce the Options Transaction Charge to $0.23 per contract in
Non-Penny Pilot Options as described in more detail below.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Specialists and Market Makers could reduce the Options
Transaction Charge in Non-Penny Pilot Options from $0.25 to $0.23
per contract by qualifying for Customer Rebate Tiers 2, 3, 4 or 5 in
Section B of the Pricing Schedule, as proposed herein. See proposed
note 15 of the Pricing Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to increase the electronic Specialist and
Market Maker Options Transaction Charge in Non-Penny Pilot Options from
$0.23 to $0.25 per contract is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the Exchange will continue to assess Specialists
and Market Makers the lowest electronic Options Transaction Charge in
Non-Penny Pilot Options as compared to the $0.70 per contract
electronic Options Transaction Charge assessed to Professionals,
Broker-Dealers and Firms.\27\ Specialists and Market Makers are
assessed lower electronic Options Transaction Charges in Penny Pilot
Options as compared to Professionals, Broker-Dealers and Firms because
they have obligations to the market and regulatory requirements, which
normally do not apply to other market participants.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Customers are not assessed a Non-Penny Pilot Options
Transaction Charge.
    \28\ See note 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Complex Order Fees
    The Exchange's proposal to continue to offer Professionals, and now
Broker-Dealers and Firms, the opportunity to reduce electronic Complex
Orders to a fee of $0.30 per contract in Penny Pilot Options is
reasonable because the Exchange is increasing fees for these market
participants with this proposal. Professionals will have the
opportunity to lower the proposed $0.48 per contract electronic Options
Transaction Charge in Penny Pilot Options to $0.30 per contract with
respect to Complex Orders. This will represent a lower fee as compared
to the proposed electronic

Professional Options Transaction Charge of $0.48 per contract that will
apply to Simple Orders in Penny Pilot Options. Broker-Dealers and Firms
will likewise be offered the opportunity to reduce the proposed
increased electronic Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charges of $0.48
to $0.30 per contract with respect to Complex Orders. Therefore, these
market participants that are assessed the highest electronic fees will
have an opportunity to lower these rlectronic [sic] fees in Penny Pilot
Complex Orders.
    The Exchange's proposal to offer Broker-Dealers and Firms the same
opportunity as a Professional to reduce electronic Complex Orders to a
fee of $0.30 per contract in Penny Pilot Options is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will assess Professionals,
Broker-Dealers and Firms the same electronic Options Transaction Charge
in Penny Pilot Options of $0.30 per contract. The Exchange does not
assess Customers an electronic Options Transaction Charge in Penny
Pilot Options because Customer order flow enhances liquidity on the
Exchange for the benefit of all market participants. Specialists and
Market Makers are assessed lower electronic Options Transaction Charges
in Penny Pilot Options as compared to Professionals, Broker-Dealers and
Firms because they have obligations to the market and regulatory
requirements, which normally do not apply to other market
participants.\29\ They have obligations to make continuous markets,
engage in a course of dealings reasonably calculated to contribute to
the maintenance of a fair and orderly market, and not make bids or
offers or enter into transactions that are inconsistent with a course
of dealings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See note 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to continue to offer Professionals, and now
Broker-Dealers and Firms, the opportunity to reduce electronic Complex
Orders from $0.70 to $0.30 per contract in Non-Penny Pilot Options is
reasonable because the Exchange desires to provide these market
participants the opportunity to lower Complex Order fees in Penny and
Non-Penny Pilot Options alike. This opportunity to lower electronic
Complex Order fees, which is currently offered only to Professionals,
will be extended to Broker-Dealers and Firms in Non-Penny Pilot
Options. Professionals, Broker-Dealers and Firms are assessed the
highest electronic Options Transactions Charges in Non-Penny Pilot
Options of $0.70 per contract, as compared to other market
participants. The Exchange believes that offering these market
participants the opportunity to lower Non-Penny Pilot electronic
Complex Order fees will encourage the transaction of these types of
orders on Phlx.
    The Exchange's proposal to offer Broker-Dealers and Firms the same
opportunity as Professionals to reduce electronic Complex Orders to a
fee of $0.30 per contract in Non-Penny Pilot Options is equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will assess
Professionals, Broker-Dealers and Firms the same electronic Options
Transaction Charge in Non-Penny Pilot Options of $0.30 per contract.
The Exchange does not assess Customers an electronic Options
Transaction Charge in Non-Penny Pilot Options because Customer order
flow enhances liquidity on the Exchange for the benefit of all market
participants. Specialists and Market Makers are assessed lower
electronic Options Transaction Charges in Non-Penny Pilot Options as
compared to Professionals, Broker-Dealers and Firms because they have
obligations to the market and regulatory requirements, which normally
do not apply to other market participants.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See note 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Customer Rebate Tier Incentives
    The Exchange's proposal to offer Specialists and Market Makers an
opportunity to lower electronic Options Transaction Charges in Non-
Penny Pilot Options from $0.25 to $0.23 per contract, provided certain
criteria are met, is reasonable because the Exchange desires to offer
all market participants \31\ an opportunity to lower Non-Penny Pilot
Options Transaction Fees. The electronic Options Transaction Charges in
Non-Penny Pilot Options are higher as compared to electronic Options
Transaction Charges in Penny Pilot Options. The Exchange believes that
offering all market participants the opportunity to lower electronic
Options Transaction Charges in Non-Penny Pilot Options by incentivizing
them to transact Customer order flow in turn benefits all market
participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Today, Professionals, Broker-Dealers and Firms have an
opportunity to reduce fees to $0.60 per contract in Non-Penny Pilot
Options provided certain criteria are met Professionals, Broker-
Dealers and Firms are offered the opportunity to reduce electronic
Non-Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charges to $0.60 per contract if
the member or member organization under Common Ownership with
another member or member organization qualifies, in a given month,
for Customer Rebate Tiers 2, 3, 4, or 5 in Section B of the Pricing
Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to offer Specialists and Market Makers the
opportunity to lower electronic Options Transaction Charges in Non-
Penny Pilot Options from $0.25 to $0.23 per contract is equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will offer all market
participants, excluding Customers,\32\ a means to reduce Options
Transaction Charges by qualifying for a Customer Rebate in Section B of
the Pricing Schedule. Even with the reduced rate for Professionals,
Broker-Dealers and Firms of $0.60 per contract, Specialist and Market
Makers will continue to be assessed the lowest electronic Options
Transaction Charge in Non-Penny Pilot Options because they have
obligations to the market and regulatory requirements, which normally
do not apply to other market participants.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Customers are not assessed a Non-Penny Pilot Options
Transaction Charge.
    \33\ See note 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Monthly Market Maker Cap
    The Exchange's proposal to not assess a fee to Specialists or
Market Makers that (i) are on the contra-side of an electronically-
delivered and executed Customer order; and (ii) have reached the
Monthly Market Maker Cap in AAPL, BAC, FB, IWM and QQQ is reasonable
because the Exchange desires to incentivize Specialists and Market
Makers to transact more options in these symbols and bring additional
liquidity to the Exchange. All market participants will benefit from
the increased Customer liquidity brought to the Exchange. The Exchange
today differentiates pricing by option symbols.\34\ Specialists and
Market Makers will continue to pay the same fee of $0.17 per contract
in Penny and Non-Penny Pilot Options, when the cap is satisfied, except
for the symbols noted above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Section I of the Pricing Schedule which differentiates
pricing in SPDR S&P 500 (``SPY'') options. See also Securities
Exchange Release No. 66757 (April 6, 2012), 77 FR 22034 (April 12,
2012) (SR-Phlx-2012-45).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to not assess a fee to Specialists or
Market Makers that (i) are on the contra-side of an electronically-
delivered and executed Customer order; and (ii) have reached the
Monthly Market Maker Cap in AAPL, BAC, FB, IWM and QQQ is equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory. Specialists and Market Makers have
burdensome quoting obligations \35\ to the market that do not apply to
Customers, Professionals, Firms and Broker-Dealers. Specialists and
Market Makers serve an important role on the Exchange with regard to
order interaction and they provide liquidity in the marketplace.

Additionally, Specialists and Market Makers incur costs unlike other
market participants including, but not limited to, Payment for Order
Flow (``PFOF'') \36\ and other costs associated with market making
activities, which results in a higher average cost per execution as
compared to Firms, Broker-Dealers and Professionals. The proposed
differentiation as between Specialists and Market Makers as compared to
other market participants recognizes the differing contributions made
to the trading environment on the Exchange by these market
participants. Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by
providing more trading opportunities, which attract Specialists and
Market Makers. An increase in the activity of these market participants
in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
The Exchange believes that offering Specialists and Market Makers the
opportunity to cap fees in certain highly liquidity Penny Pilot Options
is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for the reasons noted
above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See note 25.
    \36\ Specialists and Market Makers, as compared to other market
participants, are assessed PFOF when transacting Customer electronic
orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

QCC Bonus
    The Exchange's proposal to remove rule text related to the QCC
Bonus is reasonable because removing the outdated rule text will add
clarity to the Pricing Schedule. The Exchange's proposal to remove rule
text related to the QCC Bonus is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the QCC Bonus is no longer in effect and
therefore not available to any market participant.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange's proposal to
increase electronic Options Transaction Charges for Professionals,
Broker-Dealers and Firms in Penny Pilot Options conforms pricing for
these market participants. Customers continue not be assessed Penny
Pilot Options Transaction Charges and Specialists and Market Makers
continue to be assessed the lowest electronic Options Transaction
Charges in Penny Pilot Options due to the obligations they bear in the
market.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See note 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to Non-Penny Pilot Options, the increase to
Specialists and Market Makers for electronic orders is offset by the
ability to reduce those fees by qualifying for certain Customer Rebates
in Section B of the Pricing Schedule and also the ability to cap
certain fees. The Exchange is offering all market participants that are
assessed Non-Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charges the opportunity to
reduce those fees by qualifying for certain Customer Rebates in Section
B of the Pricing Schedule.
    Professionals, as is the case today, as well as Broker-Dealers and
Firms alike will be offered the opportunity to reduce electronic
Complex Order fees in both Penny and Non-Penny Pilot Options as these
market participants are assessed the highest Penny and Non-Penny Pilot
Options Transaction Charges.
    Specialists and Market Makers will be offered the opportunity to
pay no fees, after they have satisfied the obligations related to the
Monthly Market Maker Cap, in the following symbols: AAPL, BAC, FB, IWM
and QQQ. Specialists and Market Makers have burdensome quoting
obligations \38\ to the market that do not apply to Customers,
Professionals, Firms and Broker-Dealers. Specialists and Market Makers
serve an important role on the Exchange with regard to order
interaction and they provide liquidity in the marketplace.
Additionally, Specialists and Market Makers incur costs unlike other
market participants including, but not limited to, PFOF and other costs
associated with market making activities, which results in a higher
average cost per execution as compared to Firms, Broker-Dealers and
Professionals. The proposed differentiation as between Specialists and
Market Makers as compared to other market participants recognizes the
differing contributions made to the trading environment on the Exchange
by these market participants. Customer liquidity benefits all market
participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attract
Specialists and Market Makers. An increase in the activity of these
market participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may
cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other
market participants. For these reasons noted above, the Exchange does
not believe that offering Specialists and Market Makers the opportunity
to cap fees in certain symbols imposes an undue burden on competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market, comprised of
twelve options exchanges, in which market participants can easily and
readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels
at a particular venue to be excessive or rebates to be inadequate.
Accordingly, the fees that are described in the above proposal are
influenced by these robust market forces and therefore must remain
competitive with fees charged d [sic] by other venues and therefore
must continue to be reasonable and equitably allocated to those members
that opt to direct orders to the Exchange rather than competing venues.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\39\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2014-38 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-Phlx-2014-38. This file

number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2014-38, and should be
submitted on or before July 11, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-14421 Filed 6-19-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 187 (Wednesday, September 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59183-59184]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23646]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP12-1043-000.
    Applicants: CenterPoint Energy--Mississippi River T.

    Description: 2012 Fuel Adjustment Filing to be effective 11/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 9/18/12.
    Accession Number: 20120918-5050.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 10/1/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP12-1044-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.
    Description: Tenaska Gas Negotiated Rate to be effective 9/18/2012.
    Filed Date: 9/18/12.
    Accession Number: 20120918-5052.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 10/1/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP12-1045-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Devon 34694-41 Amendment to Neg Rate Agmt to be
effective 9/15/2012.
    Filed Date: 9/18/12.
    Accession Number: 20120918-5056.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 10/1/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP12-1046-000.
    Applicants: Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company LLC.
    Description: Enterprise K12-9 Amendment to Neg Rate Agmt to be
effective 9/15/2012.
    Filed Date: 9/18/12.
    Accession Number: 20120918-5058.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 10/1/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP12-1048-000.
    Applicants: Viking Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: Conforming Backhaul Agreements.
    Filed Date: 9/18/12.
    Accession Number: 20120918-5113.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 10/1/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP12-1049-000.
    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.
    Description: Capacity Release Updates to be effective 11/1/2012
    Filed Date: 9/19/12.
    Accession Number: 20120919-5014.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 10/1/12.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, and service can be found at:
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other
information, call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-
8659.

    Dated September 19, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary
[FR Doc. 2012-23646 Filed 9-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 175 (Friday, September 9, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55788-55796]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22895]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Parts 239, 249, 269 and 274

[Release Nos. 33-9256; 34-65244; 39-2478; IC-29780]

Amendments To Include New Applicant Types on Form ID

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Final rule amendments.

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

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') is
amending Form ID to include additional applicant types in order to
facilitate processing of the form. Form ID is the application for
access codes to file on the Commission's Electronic Data Gathering,
Analysis, and Retrieval (``EDGAR'') system. The purpose of introducing
these new applicant types is to improve the Commission's internal
procedures for processing filings, including by routing Form ID filings
to the appropriate internal office or division.

DATES: Effective Date: September 9, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine Moore, Senior Special
Counsel or Andrew Bernstein, Attorney-Adviser, Office of Clearance and
Settlement, Division of Trading and Markets, Securities and Exchange
Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Form ID is filed by registrants, third party filers, or any of
their respective agents, to whom the Commission previously has not
assigned a Central Index Key (``CIK'') code, to request access codes in
order to file in electronic format through EDGAR. EDGAR access codes
include the CIK code, the CIK Confirmation Code (``CCC''), Password
(``PW''), and Password Modification Authorization Code (``PMAC'').\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See EDGAR Filing Manual (Volume I) General Information
(Section 2.4, Accessing EDGAR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, Form ID does not differentiate applicants by specific
type and simply lists as possible applicant types ``filer,'' ``filing
agent,'' ``training agent,'' ``transfer agent,'' and ``individual.''
However, the number and type of persons that use EDGAR for submitting
filings has increased since Form ID was first adopted by the Commission
and may increase further following the adoption of various rules under
the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (``Dodd-
Frank Act'').\2\ Accordingly, the Commission is amending Form ID to
list specific persons as applicant types on the form in order to allow
the form to be assigned for processing within the Commission based on
the type of applicant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection
Act, Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The new applicant types include persons that currently file on
EDGAR but who are not separately listed on Form ID, persons that
currently file forms with the Commission in paper but who may be
required to file on EDGAR in the future, and persons who will be
required to meet certain new filing obligations under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act''), including provisions added by
the Dodd-Frank Act. The amendments to Form ID also include
corresponding definitions for each new applicant type.\3\ New
applicants should select only one entity type when completing and
submitting Form ID.\4\ If an applicant qualifies as more than one of
the applicant types listed on the form, it should select the applicant
type related to the first filing it plans to submit on EDGAR. The
access codes the applicant retrieves after Form ID is approved may be
used to submit filings on EDGAR for any entity type (other than
transfer agent) provided that such filing complies with all other
applicable rules and regulations.\5\ Persons that have previously filed
Form ID applications with the Commission are not required to re-file
Form ID as a result of these amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The definitions included in Form ID are to facilitate the
correct selection of ``applicant type'' by a particular filer and
are not intended to amend or otherwise change any provision of the
federal securities laws or the regulations promulgated thereunder.
    \4\ For purposes of Form ID, the term ``person'' includes either
an individual or entity. If the applicant is also an ``individual''
as defined in the current Form ID, then the applicant must apply as
both an ``individual'' as well as another appropriate applicant type
that properly characterizes it.
    \5\ Persons that are transfer agents must apply for a separate
set of access codes even if they already submit filings on EDGAR in
another capacity. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54865
(December 4, 2006), 71 FR 74698 (December 12, 2006) (File No. S7-14-
06).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As more fully described below, the following applicant types and
applicable definitions are being added to Form ID: Investment Company,
Business Development Company or Insurance Company Separate Account,
Institutional Investment Manager (Form 13F Filer), Non-Investment
Company Applicant under the Investment Company Act of 1940, Large
Trader, Clearing Agency, Municipal Advisor, Municipal Securities
Dealer, Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization,
Security-Based Swap Data Repository, Security-Based Swap Dealer and
Major Security-Based Swap Participant, and Security-Based Swap
Execution Facility.

Investment Company, Business Development Company or Insurance Company
Separate Account, Institutional Investment Manager (Form 13F Filer),
and Non-Investment Company Applicant Under the Investment Company Act
of 1940

    Currently, a person that may fall within the applicant type of
``Investment Company, Business Development Company or Insurance Company
Separate Account,'' ``Institutional Investment Manager (Form 13F
Filer),'' or ``Non-Investment Company Applicant under the Investment
Company Act of 1940'' may make submissions on EDGAR in electronic
format without referencing the appropriate applicant type on Form ID.
As such, the Commission is adding these specific applicant types to
Form ID in order to facilitate processing of the form as filed by such
persons. The applicant type of ``Investment Company, Business
Development Company or Insurance Company Separate Account'' being added
to Form ID includes persons that meet the definition of ``investment
company'' in Section 3 of

the Investment Company Act of 1940 (``Investment Company Act'') \6\ or
otherwise register an offering of their securities on a registration
form adopted by the Commission under the Investment Company Act,
including management companies (within the meaning of Sections 4 and 5
of the Investment Company Act), face-amount certificate companies
(within the meaning of Section 2(a)(15) of the Investment Company Act),
unit investment trusts (within the meaning of Section 4 of the
Investment Company Act), business development companies (within the
meaning of Section 2(a)(48) of the Investment Company Act), and
insurance company separate accounts (including any separate account
which would be required to be registered under the Investment Company
Act except for the exclusion provided by Section 3(c)(11) of such Act
and which files a registration statement on Form N-3 or Form N-4). The
applicant type of ``Institutional Investment Manager (Form 13F Filer)''
includes any person that is required to file a Form 13F under Section
13(f) of the Exchange Act and the rules promulgated thereunder.\7\
Finally, a ``Non-Investment Company Applicant under the Investment
Company Act of 1940'' is descriptive of the type of Form ID applicant
that is submitting an application seeking an order from the Commission
for an exemption from one or more provisions of the Investment Company
Act and the rules promulgated thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 15 U.S.C. 80a-3.
    \7\ See 15 U.S.C. 78m(f)(6)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Large Trader

    The applicant type ``Large Trader'' is being added to Form ID in
order for these new registrants to retrieve EDGAR access codes and
subsequently register with the Commission as a large trader in
accordance with new Rule 13h-1 under the Exchange Act, which will
become effective as of October 3, 2011.\8\ The definition of ``Large
Trader'' that is being added to Form ID cross-references the definition
that was adopted by the Commission in Rule 13h-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64976 (July 27,
2011), 76 FR 46960 (Aug. 3, 2011) (File No. S7-10-10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clearing Agency

    Among other things, Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act added new
provisions to the Exchange Act that require clearing agencies that
clear security-based swaps to register with the Commission. It also
required that the Commission adopt rules with respect to security-based
swap clearing agencies.\9\ The Commission previously stated that it
preliminarily believes that clearing agencies should in the future file
compliance reports with the Commission in a tagged data format in
accordance with the EDGAR database, which would utilize the existing
EDGAR framework to provide electronic filings to the Commission.\10\
The definition of ``Clearing Agency'' being added to Form ID cross-
references the definition in Section 3(a)(23) of the Exchange Act.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(g), (i), and (j) (as amended by Section
763(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act).
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64017 (March 3,
2011), 76 FR 14472 (March 16, 2011) (File No. S7-08-11).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(23).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Municipal Advisor

    Section 975 of the Dodd-Frank Act amended Section 15B of the
Exchange Act to make it unlawful for ``a municipal advisor to provide
advice to or on behalf of a municipal entity or obligated person with
respect to municipal financial products or the issuance of municipal
securities, or to undertake a solicitation of a municipal entity or
obligated person, unless the municipal advisor is registered.'' \12\
Municipal Advisors register with the Commission on Form MA-T.\13\ This
current form is temporary, however, with an expiration date of December
31, 2011.\14\ On December 20, 2010, the Commission proposed rules
relating to a permanent registration regime for municipal advisors.\15\
The proposed permanent registration regime would require that an
application for the registration of a municipal advisor must be filed
electronically with the Commission on proposed new Forms MA or MA-I, as
applicable, and the Commission is considering whether such applications
should be filed through EDGAR.\16\ The definition of ``Municipal
Advisor'' on Form ID cross-references the definition in Section
15B(e)(4) of the Exchange Act.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(a)(1)(B) (as amended by Section
975(a)(1)(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act).
    \13\ 17 CFR 249.1300T.
    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62824 (September 1,
2010), 75 FR 54465 (September 8, 2010) (File No. S7-19-10).
    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63576 (December 20,
2010), 76 FR 824 (January 6, 2011) (File No. S7-45-10).
    \16\ Id. at 839.
    \17\ See 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(a)(1)(B) (as amended by Section
975(a)(1)(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Municipal Securities Dealer

    A ``Municipal Securities Dealer'' currently registers with the
Commission in paper format on Form MSD.\18\ The definition of
``Municipal Securities Dealer'' being added to Form ID cross-references
the definition in Section 3(a)(30) of the Exchange Act.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 249.1100.
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(30).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization

    A Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization (``NRSRO'')
currently registers with the Commission in paper format on Form NRSRO
\20\ and files annual reports required under Rule 17g-3 of the Exchange
Act.\21\ The Commission has proposed amending these rules to require an
NRSRO to use EDGAR in order to submit all future information and
reports.\22\ The definition of a ``Nationally Recognized Statistical
Rating Organization'' that is being added to Form ID cross-references
the definition in Section 3(a)(62) of the Exchange Act.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 249b.300.
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.17g-3.
    \22\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64514 (May 18,
2011), 76 FR 33420 (June 8, 2011) (File No. S7-18-11).
    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(62).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Security-Based Swap Data Repository

    The Dodd-Frank Act provided the Commission with broad authority to
adopt rules governing security-based swap data repositories (``SDRs'')
and to develop additional duties applicable to these SDRs. The
Commission proposed Rule 13n-1 under the Exchange Act to establish the
procedures by which SDRs could apply to the Commission for
registration.\24\ This proposed rule provided that an application for
the registration of an SDR must be filed electronically on proposed new
Form SDR with the Commission. The definition of ``Security-Based Swap
Data Repository'' being added to Form ID cross-references the
definition in Section 3(a)(75) of the Exchange Act.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63347 (November 19,
2010), 75 FR 77306 (December 10, 2010) (File No. S7-35-10).
    \25\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(75) (as amended by Section 761 of the
Dodd-Frank Act).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Security-Based Swap Dealer and Major Security-Based Swap Participant

    Section 761(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act amended Section 3(a) of the
Exchange Act to add definitions for, among others, the terms
``security-based swap dealer'' and ``major security-based swap
participant.'' \26\ Section 15F of the Exchange Act, added by section
764(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act, establishes requirements for registration
and comprehensive oversight of security-based swap dealers and major
security-

based swap participants.\27\ The definition of ``Major Security-Based
Swap Participant'' that is being added to Form ID cross-references the
definition in Section 3(a)(67)(A) of the Exchange Act.\28\ In addition,
the definition of ``Security-Based Swap Dealer'' that is being added to
Form ID cross-references the definition in Section 3(a)(71)(A) of the
Exchange Act.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Public Law 111-203, Sec.  761(a).
    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-10 (as amended by Section 764(a) of the Dodd-
Frank Act).
    \28\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(67)(A) (as amended by Section 761 of
the Dodd-Frank Act).
    \29\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(71)(A) (as amended by Section 761 of
the Dodd-Frank Act).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Securities-Based Swap Execution Facility

    Section 761(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act amended Section 3(a) of the
Exchange Act to add definitions for, among others, the term ``security-
based swap execution facility.'' \30\ In accordance with Section 763 of
the Dodd-Frank Act, the Commission proposed Regulation SB SEF under the
Exchange Act, which was designed to create a registration framework for
security-based swap execution facilities (``SB SEFs'').\31\ Proposed
rule 801(a) in Regulation SB SEF would require the registration
application for SB SEFs to be filed electronically in a tagged data
format with the Commission on Form SB SEF.\32\ The definition of a
``Securities-Based Swap Execution Facility'' that is being added to
Form ID cross-references the definition found in Section 3(a)(77) of
the Exchange Act.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Public. Law 111-203, Sec.  761(a).
    \31\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63827 (February 2,
2011), 76 FR 10948 (February 28, 2011) (File No. S7-06-11).
    \32\ Id.
    \33\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(77) (as amended by Section 763 of by
the Dodd-Frank Act).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that updating Form ID to add the above
applicant types and related definitions will facilitate the processing
of the form, including by routing Form ID filings to the appropriate
internal office or division, and allow filers to promptly retrieve
access codes and file in electronic format on EDGAR.

II. Procedural and Other Matters

    The Administrative Procedure Act (``APA'') \34\ generally requires
an agency to publish, before adopting a rule, notice of a proposed
rulemaking in the Federal Register.\35\ This requirement does not
apply, however, to, ``interpretive rules, general statements of policy,
or rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice.'' \36\
Further, the APA also generally requires that an agency publish a rule
in the Federal Register 30 days before the rule becomes effective.\37\
This requirement, however does not apply where an agency finds good
cause.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.
    \35\ See 5 U.S.C. 553(b).
    \36\ Id.
    \37\ See 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
    \38\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is amending Form ID to include new applicant types.
These new applicant types are ``Investment Company, Business
Development Company or Insurance Company Separate Account,''
``Institutional Investment Manager (13F Filer),'' ``Non-Investment
Company Applicant under the Investment Company Act of 1940,'' ``Large
Trader,'' ``Clearing Agency,'' ``Municipal Advisor,'' ``Municipal
Securities Dealer,'' ``Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating
Organization,'' ``Security-Based Swap Data Repository,'' ``Security-
Based Swap Dealer and Major Security-Based Swap Participant,'' and
``Securities-Based Swap Execution Facility.'' The sole purpose of
including these new applicant types is to improve the Commission's
internal procedures for processing filings, including routing Form ID
filings to the appropriate internal office or division. Accordingly,
the Commission finds that because the amendments relate solely to rules
of agency organization, procedure or practice, publishing the changes
for comment is unnecessary.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ For similar reasons, the amendments do not require analysis
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act or analysis of major status
under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. See 5
U.S.C. 601(2) (for purposes of Regulatory Flexibility analyses, the
term ``rule'' means any rule for which the agency publishes a
general notice of proposed rulemaking) and 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(C) (for
purposes of Congressional review of agency rulemaking, the term
``rule'' does not include any rule of agency organization,
procedure, or practice that does not substantially affect the rights
or obligations of non-agency parties).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The APA also generally requires publication of a rule in the
Federal Register at least 30 days before its effective date unless the
agency finds otherwise for good cause.\40\ As noted above, the
amendments to Form ID are intended solely to improve the Commission's
internal procedures for processing filings. These changes will not
impose a new burden on any person to file the form with the Commission
as the obligation to submit a Form ID arises from the requirement to
make filings with the Commission through EDGAR in accordance with other
rules and regulations issued by the Commission. Similarly, the
amendments do not impose any burden on persons who have previously
submitted a Form ID as these persons will not be required to re-file
the Form ID to account for the inclusion of specific applicant types.
These changes will allow the Commission to process Form IDs more
efficiently and will reduce the likelihood of unnecessary delays in
processing. For these reasons, the Commission finds good cause for
these procedural amendments to take effect immediately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Form ID, as in effect prior to these amendments, contains
``collection of information'' requirements within the meaning of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (``PRA'').\41\ Specifically, there is a
current approved collection of information for Form ID entitled ``EDGAR
Form ID'' (Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') Control No. 3235-
0328). An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 44 U.S.C. et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We do not believe that the amendments to Form ID necessitate an
increase or decrease in the current PRA burden estimates for Form ID.
Specifically, respondents to Form ID previously were required to
indicate whether they are submitting the form as a ``filer,'' ``filing
agent,'' ``training agent,'' ``transfer agent,'' or ``individual.'' The
amendments we are adopting today simply add new applicant types to
reflect persons that currently file on EDGAR but who are not separately
listed on Form ID. These new applicant types include ``Investment
Company, Business Development Company or Insurance Company Separate
Account,'' ``Institutional Investment Manager (Form 13F Filer),''
``Non-Investment Company Applicant under the Investment Company Act of
1940,'' ``Large Trader,'' ``Clearing Agency,'' ``Municipal Advisor,''
``Municipal Securities Dealer,'' ``Nationally Recognized Statistical
Rating Organization,'' ``Security-Based Swap Data Repository,''
``Security-Based Swap Dealer and Major Security-Based Swap
Participant,'' and ``Securities-Based Swap Execution Facility.''
Respondents will continue to be required to select an appropriate
applicant type, with the sole difference being that that the list of
options will increase.
    The amendments to Form ID do not impose a new burden on any person
to file the form with the Commission, nor do they impose any burden on
persons who have previously submitted a Form

ID as these persons will not be required to re-file the Form ID to
account for the inclusion of specific applicant types. The sole change
being effected by these amendments will be that new registrants will be
asked to indicate a specific applicant type when completing the Form
ID. To the extent that these new registrants will be required to
register with the Commission and make filings on EDGAR in accordance
with other Commission rules and regulations, the PRA burdens associated
with those obligations will be accounted for in the context of those
other rules and regulations.
    The total estimated burden of filing a Form ID for a filer not
currently subject to a requirement to file on EDGAR is 0.15 hours. For
the reasons discussed above, we therefore believe that the overall
information collection burden of Form ID would remain the same. As a
result, we have not submitted the revisions to the collection of
information to the Office of Management and Budget for review under 44
U.S.C. 3507(d) and 5 CFR 1320.11.

IV. Economic Analysis

A. Consideration of Costs and Benefits

    The amendments to Form ID update the form to reflect the increased
use of the EDGAR database by various persons and institutions regulated
by the Commission. Some of these entities currently file on EDGAR in
electronic format and others may be required to file on EDGAR in the
future. The amendments will facilitate the Commission's process for
reviewing and processing the form and, consequently, the ability of
filers to promptly retrieve the access codes needed to file on EDGAR.
We do not believe these amendments will impose any significant costs on
non-agency parties.

B. Consideration of Burden on Competition and Promotion of Efficiency,
Competition and Capital Formation

    Section 23(a) \42\ of the Exchange Act requires the Commission,
when making rules and regulations under the Exchange Act, to consider
the impact a new rule would have on competition. Section 23(a)(2) of
the Exchange Act prohibits the Commission from adopting any rule that
would impose a burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. Section 3(f) of the
Exchange Act \43\ and Section 2(c) of the Investment Company Act \44\
require the Commission, when engaging in rulemaking that requires it to
consider whether an action is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest, to consider, in addition to the protection of investors,
whether the action would promote efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. We do not believe that the amendments to Form ID that
reflect new entity applicant types will have any impact on competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 15 U.S.C. 78w(a).
    \43\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \44\ 15 U.S.C. 80a-2(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Statutory Authority

    We are adopting the amendments to Form ID under the authority in
Section 19(a) \45\ of the Securities Act, Sections 3(b),\46\ 13(a),\47\
23(a),\48\ and 35A \49\ of the Exchange Act, Section 319 \50\ of the
Trust Indenture Act of 1939 and Sections 30 \51\ and 38 \52\ of the
Investment Company Act of 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ 15 U.S.C. 77s(a).
    \46\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(b).
    \47\ 15 U.S.C. 78m(a).
    \48\ 15 U.S.C. 78w(a).
    \49\ 15 U.S.C. 78ll.
    \50\ 15 U.S.C. 77sss.
    \51\ 15 U.S.C. 80a-29.
    \52\ 15 U.S.C. 80a-37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Parts 239, 249, 269 and 274

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.

Text of Form Ammendments

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Commission amends
title 17, chapter II, of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows.

PART 239--FORMS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933

0
1. The authority citation for part 239, continues to read, in part, as
follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77s, 77z-2, 77z-3,
77sss, 78c, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o(d), 78u-5, 78w(a), 78ll, 78mm, 80a-
2(a), 80a-3, 80a-8, 80a-9, 80a-10, 80a-13, 80a-24, 80a-26, 80a-29,
80a-30, 80a-37, and Pub. L. No. 111-203, Sec.  939A, 124 Stat. 1376,
(2010) unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *

PART 249--FORMS, SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

0
2. The authority citation for part 249 continues to read, in part, as
follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq., and 7201 et seq.; and 18
U.S.C. 1350, unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *

PART 269--FORMS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE TRUST INDENTURE ACT OF 1939

0
3. The authority citation for part 269 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77ddd(c), 77eee, 77ggg, 77hhh, 77iii,
77jjj, 77sss, and 78ll(d), unless otherwise noted.

PART 274--FORMS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT OF 1940

0
4. The authority citation for part 274 continues to read, in part, as
follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77s, 78c(b), 78l, 78m,
78n, 78o(d), 80a-8, 80a-24, 80a-26, and 80a-29, unless otherwise
noted.
* * * * *
0
5. Form ID (referenced in Sec. Sec.  239.63, 249.446, 269.7 and 274.402
of this chapter) is revised to read as set forth in the attached
Appendix A.

    Dated: September 1, 2011.

    By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.

    Note: The following Appendix A will not appear in the Code of
Federal Regulations.

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09SE11.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09SE11.017

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09SE11.018

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09SE11.019

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09SE11.020

[FR Doc. 2011-22895 Filed 9-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-C


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 213 (Friday, November 4, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66554-66557]
[FR Doc No: 2022-24100]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0505; FRL-10301-01-OCSPP]

1,3-Benzenedicarboxylic Acid, 5-Sulfo-, Sodium Salt (1:1),
Polymer With 1,3-Benzenedicarboxylic Acid, 1,4-Cyclohexanedimethanol
and 2,2'-Oxybis[ethanol]; Tolerance Exemption

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of 1,3-benzenedicarboxylic acid, 5-sulfo-,
sodium salt (1:1), polymer with 1,3-benzenedicarboxylic acid, 1,4-
cyclohexanedimethanol and 2,2'-oxybis[ethanol] (CAS Reg. No. 54590-72-
6), when used as an inert ingredient in a pesticide chemical
formulation. SciReg, Inc., on behalf of Eastman Chemical Company,
submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA), requesting an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum
permissible level for residues of 1,3-benzenedicarboxylic acid, 5-
sulfo-, sodium salt (1:1), polymer with 1,3-benzenedicarboxylic acid,
1,4-cyclohexanedimethanol and 2,2'-oxybis[ethanol], on food or feed
commodities.

DATES: This regulation is effective November 4, 2022. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before January 3, 2023 and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0505, is available at
https://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs
Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection
Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg.,
Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room and the OPP Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For the latest
status information on EPA/DC services, docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Rosenblatt, Registration
Division (7505T), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-
0001; main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Office of the Federal Register's e-CFR site at
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40.

C. Can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file
an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0505 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
January 3, 2023. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0505, by one of
the following methods.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of August 30, 2022 (87 FR 52868) (FRL-9410-
04-OCSPP), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21
U.S.C. 346a, announcing the receipt of a pesticide petition (PP IN-
11671) filed by SciReg, Inc. (12733 Director's Loop, Woodbridge, VA
22192), on behalf of Eastman Chemical Company (P.O. Box 431, Kingsport,
TN 37662). The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.960 be amended by
establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for
residues of 1,3-benzenedicarboxylic acid, 5-sulfo-, sodium salt (1:1),
polymer with 1,3-benzenedicarboxylic acid, 1,4-cyclohexanedimethanol
and 2,2'-oxybis[ethanol] (CAS Reg. No. 54590-72-6), with a minimum
number average molecular weight of 30,400 Daltons. That document
included a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner and
solicited comments on the petitioner's request. The Agency did not
receive any public comments.
    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and use in residential settings but does not include
occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to
give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the
pesticide chemical residue in establishing an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance and to ``ensure that there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from
aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . . .'' and
specifies factors EPA is to consider in establishing an exemption.

III. Risk Assessment and Statutory Findings

    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only
in those cases where it can be shown that the risks from aggregate
exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable
circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. To
determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert
ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in
conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to
determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate
exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of
a tolerance may be established.
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability
and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also
considered available information concerning the variability of the
sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including
infants and children. In the case of certain chemical substances that
are defined as polymers, the Agency has established a set of criteria
to identify categories of polymers expected to present minimal or no
risk. The definition of a polymer is given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and the
exclusion criteria for identifying these low-risk polymers are
described in 40 CFR 723.250(d). 1,3-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, 5-sulfo-,
sodium salt (1:1), polymer with 1,3-benzenedicarboxylic acid, 1,4-
cyclohexanedimethanol and 2,2'-oxybis[ethanol], with a minimum number
average molecular weight 30,400 Daltons, conforms to the definition of
a polymer given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and meets the following criteria
that are used to identify low-risk polymers.

    1. The polymer is not a cationic polymer nor is it reasonably
anticipated to become a cationic polymer in a natural aquatic
environment.
    2. The polymer does contain as an integral part of its composition
at least two of the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen,
silicon, and sulfur.
    3. The polymer does not contain as an integral part of its
composition, except as impurities, any element other than those listed
in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii).
    4. The polymer is neither designed nor can it be reasonably
anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose, or depolymerize:
Adequate biodegradation studies (MRID 51799601 and 52003801) support
that 1,3-benzenedicarboxylic acid, 5-sulfo-, sodium salt (1:1), polymer
with 1,3-benzenedicarboxylic acid, 1,4-cyclohexanedimethanol and 2,2'-
oxybis[ethanol] is not biodegradable.
    5. The polymer is manufactured or imported from monomers and/or
reactants that are already included on the TSCA Chemical Substance
Inventory or manufactured under an applicable TSCA section 5 exemption.
    6. The polymer is not a water absorbing polymer with a number
average molecular weight (MW) greater than or equal to 10,000 Daltons.
    7. The polymer does not contain certain perfluoroalkyl moieties
consisting of a CF3- or longer chain length as listed in 40
CFR 723.250(d)(6).
    Additionally, the polymer also meets as required the following
exemption criteria specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e).
    The polymer's number average molecular weight (MW) of 30,400
Daltons is greater than 10,000 Daltons. However, the polymer contains
less than 2% oligomeric material below MW 500 and less than 5%
oligomeric material below MW 1,000.
    Thus, 1,3-benzenedicarboxylic acid, 5-sulfo-, sodium salt (1:1),
polymer with 1,3-benzenedicarboxylic acid, 1,4-cyclohexanedimethanol
and 2,2'-oxybis[ethanol] meets the criteria for a polymer to be
considered low risk under 40 CFR 723.250. Based on its conformance to
the criteria in this unit, no mammalian toxicity is anticipated from
dietary, inhalation, or dermal exposure to 1,3-benzenedicarboxylic
acid, 5-sulfo-, sodium salt (1:1), polymer with 1,3-benzenedicarboxylic
acid, 1,4-cyclohexanedimethanol and 2,2'-oxybis[ethanol].

IV. Aggregate Exposures

    For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this
exemption, EPA considered that 1,3-benzenedicarboxylic acid, 5-sulfo-,
sodium salt (1:1), polymer with 1,3-benzenedicarboxylic acid, 1,4-
cyclohexanedimethanol and 2,2'-oxybis[ethanol] could be present in all
raw and processed agricultural commodities and drinking water, and that
non-occupational non-dietary exposure was possible. The minimum number
average MW of 1,3-benzenedicarboxylic acid, 5-sulfo-, sodium salt
(1:1), polymer with 1,3-benzenedicarboxylic acid, 1,4-
cyclohexanedimethanol and 2,2'-oxybis[ethanol] is 30,400 Daltons.
Generally, a polymer of this size would be poorly absorbed through the
intact gastrointestinal tract or through intact human skin. Since 1,3-
benzenedicarboxylic acid, 5-sulfo-, sodium salt (1:1), polymer with
1,3-benzenedicarboxylic acid, 1,4-cyclohexanedimethanol and 2,2'-
oxybis[ethanol] conforms to the criteria that identify a low-risk
polymer, there are no concerns for risks associated with any potential
exposure scenarios that are reasonably foreseeable. The Agency has
determined that a tolerance is not necessary to protect the public
health.

V. Cumulative Effects From Substances With a Common Mechanism of
Toxicity

    Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering
whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency
consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative effects of
a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances that have a
common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found 1,3-benzenedicarboxylic acid, 5-sulfo-, sodium
salt (1:1), polymer with 1,3-benzenedicarboxylic acid, 1,4-
cyclohexanedimethanol and 2,2'-oxybis[ethanol] to share a common
mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and 1,3-
benzenedicarboxylic acid, 5-sulfo-, sodium salt (1:1), polymer with
1,3-benzenedicarboxylic acid, 1,4-cyclohexanedimethanol and 2,2'-
oxybis[ethanol] does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced
by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action,
therefore, EPA has assumed that 1,3-benzenedicarboxylic acid, 5-sulfo-,
sodium salt (1:1), polymer with 1,3-benzenedicarboxylic acid, 1,4-
cyclohexanedimethanol and 2,2'-oxybis[ethanol] does not have a common
mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding
EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of
toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see
EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

VI. Additional Safety Factor for the Protection of Infants and Children

    Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an
additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the
case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal
toxicity and the completeness of the data base unless EPA concludes
that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and
children. Due to the expected low toxicity of 1,3-benzenedicarboxylic
acid, 5-sulfo-, sodium salt (1:1), polymer with 1,3-benzenedicarboxylic
acid, 1,4-cyclohexanedimethanol and 2,2'-oxybis[ethanol], EPA has not
used a safety factor analysis to assess the risk. For the same reasons
the additional tenfold safety factor is unnecessary.

VII. Determination of Safety

    Based on the conformance to the criteria used to identify a low-
risk polymer, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no
harm to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from
aggregate exposure to residues of 1,3-benzenedicarboxylic acid, 5-
sulfo-, sodium salt (1:1), polymer with 1,3-benzenedicarboxylic acid,
1,4-cyclohexanedimethanol and 2,2'-oxybis[ethanol].

VIII. Other Considerations

Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since
the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance without any numerical limitation.

IX. Conclusion

    Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting residues of 1,3-
benzenedicarboxylic acid, 5-sulfo-, sodium salt (1:1), polymer with
1,3-benzenedicarboxylic acid, 1,4-cyclohexanedimethanol and 2,2'-
oxybis[ethanol] from the requirement of a tolerance will be safe.

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

XI. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: October 31, 2022.
Jennifer Saunders,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending
40 CFR chapter I as follows:

PART 180--TOLERANCES AND EXEMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE CHEMICAL RESIDUES
IN FOOD

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.960, amend table 1, in alphabetical order, by adding
the polymer ``1,3-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, 5-sulfo-, sodium salt
(1:1), polymer with 1,3-benzenedicarboxylic acid, 1,4-
cyclohexanedimethanol and 2,2'-oxybis[ethanol], minimum number average
molecular weight (in amu), 30,400'' to read as follows:

Sec.  180.960   Polymers; exemptions from the requirement of a
tolerance.

* * * * *

                        Table 1 to Sec.   180.960
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Polymer                              CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
1,3-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, 5-sulfo-, sodium salt (1:1),    54590-72-6
 polymer with 1,3-benzenedicarboxylic acid, 1,4-
 cyclohexanedimethanol and 2,2'-oxybis[ethanol], minimum
 number average molecular weight (in amu), 30,400..........

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2022-24100 Filed 11-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P