[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 165 (Friday, August 24, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51599-51600]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20823]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67696; File No. SR-ICC-2012-12]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Schedule 502 of the ICE Clear
Credit Rules To Provide for Clearing of Additional Single Name
Investment Grade CDS Contracts

August 20, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder \2\ notice is hereby given that
on August 9, 2012, ICE Clear Credit LLC (``ICC'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule
change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have
been prepared primarily by ICC. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The purpose of proposed rule change is to provide for the clearance
of the following twenty additional investment grade Standard North
American Corporate Single Name CDS contracts: Nucor Corporation; V.F.
Corporation; The Procter & Gamble Company; Encana Corporation;
Weatherford International Ltd.; Chevron Corporation; Nexen Inc.; Energy
Transfer Partners, L.P.; Apache Corporation; Kimco Realty Corporation;
Prudential Financial, Inc.; Prologis, L.P.; HCP, Inc.; Lincoln National
Corporation; The Travelers Companies, Inc.; Textron Financial
Corporation; Textron Inc.; The Williams Companies, Inc.; Pacific Gas
and Electric Company; and Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.
(the ``Additional Single Names'').

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

    In its filing with the Commission, ICC 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. ICC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these
statements.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Commission has modified the text of the summaries
prepared by ICC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    As with the Standard North American Corporate Single Names
currently cleared, ICC plans to provide for the clearance of contracts
with a restructuring type of no restructuring, standardized maturity
dates up to the 10-year tenor and both standardized coupons. One of the
Additional Single Names (Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.) was
recently added by Markit as one of the one hundred

twenty-five single constituents of its Markit CDX North American
Investment Grade Series 18 Index, and is not currently being cleared by
ICC. Another of the Additional Single Names (Textron Financial
Corporation) is a constituent of the Series 8 through 12 of the Markit
CDX North American Investment Grade Index, and has not been cleared
previously by ICC. All other Additional Single Names are not
constituents of Series 8 through 18 of the Markit CDX North American
Investment Grade Index. The Additional Single Names do not require any
changes to the body of the ICC Rules. ICC will clear the Additional
Single Names pursuant to ICC's existing Rules. The Additional Single
Names do not require any changes to the ICC risk management framework
including the ICC margin methodology, guaranty fund methodology,
pricing parameters, or pricing model. The only change being submitted
is the inclusion of the Additional Single Names to Schedule 502 of the
ICC Rules. The Additional Single Names have been reviewed by the ICC
Risk Department, the ICC Trading Advisory Committee, and the ICC Risk
Committee.
    ICC believes that the clearing of the Additional Single Names is
consistent with the purposes and requirements of Section 17A of the Act
\4\ and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to ICC because
it will facilitate the prompt and accurate settlement of security-based
swaps and contribute to the safeguarding of securities and funds
associated with security-based swap transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    ICC does not believe the proposed rule change would have any
impact, or impose any burden, on competition.

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

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been
solicited or received. ICC will notify the Commission of any written
comments received by ICC.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change; or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtmlSec.  ); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ICC-2012-12 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICC-2012-12. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtmlSec.  ). 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 Section, 100
F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between
the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filings will also
be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of ICC
and on ICC's Web site at https://www.theice.com/publicdocs/regulatory_filings/ICEClearCredit_080912.pdf.
    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-ICC-2012-12
and should be submitted on or before September 14, 2012.

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. 2012-20823 Filed 8-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 89 (Thursday, May 7, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27254-27258]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09712]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88795; File No. SR-CboeBZX-2020-036]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 14.11, Other Securities

May 1, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on April 29, 2020, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BZX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange proposes rule changes in several places in Exchange
Rule 14.11, Other Securities, to amend the initial period after
commencement of trading of an ETP, as defined below, on the Exchange as
it specifically relates to holders of record and/or beneficial holders.
The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/regulation/rule_filings/bzx/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, 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 Exchange proposes to make several changes to Rule 14.11 in
order to amend the continued listing standards applicable to ETPs \3\
listed on the Exchange. Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to
amend its rules such that they would provide additional time for an ETP
to meet the applicable Beneficial Holders \4\ standards in the
Exchange's listing rules (the ``Beneficial Holders Rules'').\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For the purpose of this filing, the term ETP means
securities listed pursuant to Rule 14.11(c) (Index Fund Shares),
Rule 14.11(i) (Managed Fund Shares), and Rule 14.11(l) (Exchange-
Traded Fund Shares (``ETF Shares'')).
    \4\ As it relates to this filing, ``Beneficial Holders'' shall
mean beneficial holders and, where applicable in a particular
continued listing standard, record holders.
    \5\ The Exchange notes that its Rules related to the listing and
trading of other product types (that is, products that are not ETPs
as defined above) have similar requirements related to Beneficial
Holders which the Exchange is not proposing to eliminate at this
time. Specifically, the Exchange is only proposing to amend the
Beneficial Holders Rules as it pertains to Index Fund Shares,
Managed Fund Shares, and ETF Shares because such product types
represent the vast majority of products listed on the Exchange. The
Exchange may consider proposing to amend the Beneficial Holders
Rules for other product types in a future proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the Exchange's continued listing standards for ETPs
generally require that, following the initial 12 month period after
commencement of trading on the Exchange, the Exchange shall consider
the suspension of trading in and will commence delisting proceedings
under Rule 14.12 for an ETP for which there are fewer than 50
Beneficial Holders for 30 or more consecutive trading days. The
Exchange is proposing to change the date at which an ETP would need to
have at least 50 Beneficial Holders or be subject to delisting
proceedings under Rule 14.12 from 12 months after commencement of
trading on the Exchange to 36 months after commencement of trading on
the Exchange.
    As further described below, the Exchange believes it is appropriate
to increase the period of time for an ETP to comply with the applicable
Beneficial Holders Rule from 12 months to 36 months because: (i) It
would bring the rule more in line with the life cycle of an ETP; (ii)
the economic and competitive structures in place in the ETP ecosystem
naturally incentivize issuers to de-list products rather than
continuing to list products that do not garner investor interest; and
(iii) extending the period from 12 to 36 months will not meaningfully
impact the manipulation concerns that the Beneficial Holders Rules are
intended to address.
    First, the ETP space is more competitive than it has ever been--
with more than 2,000 ETPs listed on U.S. national securities exchanges
competing for investor assets, the natural cycle for an average ETP to
gain traction in the market is growing longer and longer. As more and
more ETPs have come to market, many distribution platforms have become
more restrictive about the ETPs that they allow on their systems, often
requiring a minimum existing track record (e.g., at least 12 months)
and meeting certain thresholds for assets under management (e.g., at
least $100 million) for an ETP to be added. Similarly, many larger
entities are unwilling to invest in ETPs that do not have at least one
calendar year track record. All of these factors have contributed to
the natural slowing of the average ETP's growth cycle and,
unsurprisingly, the Exchange has seen a significant number of
deficiencies based on a failure to meet the applicable Beneficial
Holders Rule over the last several years.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchange has issued deficiency notifications to 34 ETPs
for non-compliance with Beneficial Holders Rules in the last five
years. In addition, 22 ETPs have voluntarily delisted within their
first year listed on the Exchange. While this isn't specifically
attributable to non-compliance with the Beneficial Holder Rules, the
most likely reasons for voluntarily delisting an ETP in its first
year would be either: (i) Failure or anticipated failure to meet the
Beneficial Holders Rules; or (ii) the issuer believing that the ETP
was not economically viable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Changing the timeline for meeting the Beneficial Holders Rules from
12 months to 36 months would provide ETPs with a more reasonable runway
to establish a track record and grow assets under management, both of
which generally precede the accumulation of Beneficial Holders.
Further, the Exchange believes that extending that runway will
encourage smaller issuers to make the necessary capital expenditures to
launch additional ETPs, as well as help both large and small issuers by
allowing them to continue to list and promote products that they
believe can succeed and that they are willing to continue paying for,
all of which will help to foster competition and innovation in the ETP
marketplace.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange notes that of the 34 ETPs that received
deficiency notifications for non-compliance with Beneficial Holders
Rules, 27 reached compliance while going through the delisting
process under Rule 14.12 and continued to list on the Exchange. As
such, the 12 month threshold for the Beneficial Holders Rules had no
meaningful impact on whether such ETPs could list on the Exchange
and only served as regulatory and administrative burdens for issuers
to manage, which the Exchange believes makes it more difficult for
smaller issuers to compete.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the economic and competitive structures in place in the ETP
ecosystem naturally incentivize issuers to de-list products rather than
continuing to list products that do not garner investor interest,
meaning that the rule does not provide any meaningful ``pruning''
function for the industry. Rather, the Exchange has found that, as
currently constructed, the 12 month Beneficial Holders Rules have
instead resulted in the forced termination of ETPs that issuers
believed were still economically viable. While some observers might
argue that forced delisting of an ETP based on a failure to meet the
Beneficial Holders Rule is a good way to reduce the number of ETPs in
the marketplace that have not drawn meaningful market interest, the
Exchange vehemently disagrees with this sentiment. First, there are
significant costs associated with both the initial launch and continued
operation of an ETP and the Exchange has found that the ecosystem

tends to prune itself of ETPs without meaningful investor interest. In
fact, the Exchange has had 69 products that have voluntarily delisted
in the last two years,\8\ creating meaningful turnover in products
which issuers believe are not economically viable. Second, the Exchange
contests the underlying assumption that the number of Beneficial
Holders is even a meaningful measure of market interest in an ETP.
While a very high Beneficial Holder count would most certainly indicate
an ETP's success, the absence of Beneficial Holders is not necessarily
a good measure of market interest or the amount of assets held by the
ETP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ There are currently 357 ETPs listed on the Exchange, meaning
that there's been a nearly 20% voluntary turnover of ETPs listed on
the Exchange over the last two years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further to this point, the Beneficial Holders Rules are not rules
that an ETP issuer is incentivized to cut close or exceed by the
smallest amount possible. Unlike most other quantitative or disclosure
based listing requirements, an ETP issuer is incentivized to have as
many Beneficial Holders as possible and would almost certainly prefer
that they were able to meet and exceed the applicable Beneficial
Holders Rule as soon as possible after beginning trading on the
Exchange. As such, extending the time period from 12 months to 36
months will not provide issuers with a longer window to intentionally
keep the number of Beneficial Holders lower, but, rather, will only
extend the period during which an ETP could have fewer than 50
Beneficial Holders in specific instances where an issuer is unable to
meet the 50 Beneficial Holders threshold but still believes that the
ETP is viable and worth the cost of continued operation. Again, it
takes money and resources to launch and operate an ETP and where an
issuer does not believe that an ETP is economically viable, both common
sense and prior experience point to issuers delisting these products.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that making this change does not
create any significant change in the risk of manipulation for ETPs
listed on the Exchange for several reasons. First, the Exchange does
not believe that there is anything particularly important about the
50th Beneficial Holder that reduces the manipulation risk associated
with an ETP as compared to the 49th, nor is there any manipulation
concern that arises on the 366th day after an ETP began trading on the
Exchange that didn't otherwise exist on the 1st, 2nd, or 365th day.
Rather, the Exchange believes that the rule is generally intended to
ensure that products that do not have broad ownership and could be
susceptible to manipulation by a few parties are not able to list on
the Exchange after they've had sufficient time to diversify their
ownership base. Leaving aside the issue of whether an open-ended ETP
with creation and redemption processes would really be subject to
manipulation by virtue of narrow ownership, the Exchange believes that,
for all of the reasons explained above, 36 months is a more appropriate
amount of time to consider sufficient time to diversify an ETP's
ownership base.
    Further to this point, the Exchange has in place a robust
surveillance program for ETPs that allows it to monitor trading of ETPs
during all trading sessions on the Exchange and it believes are
sufficient to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and the
applicable federal securities laws. These surveillances generally focus
on detecting securities trading outside of their normal patterns, which
could be indicative of manipulative or other violative activity. When
such situations are detected, surveillance analysis follows and
investigations are opened, where appropriate, to review the behavior of
all relevant parties for all relevant trading violations. Further, the
Exchange or the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (``FINRA''),\9\
on behalf of the Exchange, or both, communicate as needed regarding
trading in ETPs with other markets and other entities that are members
of the Intermarket Surveillance Group (``ISG''), and the Exchange or
FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, may obtain trading
information in ETPs from such markets and other entities. The Exchange
believes that these robust surveillance procedures will further act to
mitigate any manipulation concerns that arise from extending the
compliance period for the Beneficial Holders Rules from 12 months to 36
months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ FINRA conducts cross-market surveillances on behalf of the
Exchange pursuant to a regulatory services agreement. The Exchange
is responsible for FINRA's performance under this regulatory
services agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the other continued listing
standards in the Exchange's rules or representations that constitute
continued listing standards in Exchange rule filings (either the
disclosure obligations applicable under Rule 6c-11 of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 for series of ETF Shares or the diversity,
liquidity, and size of an ETP's holdings or reference assets applicable
to Index Fund Shares and Managed Fund Shares) are generally sufficient
to mitigate manipulation concerns associated with the applicable ETP.
During the first 12 months of trading on the Exchange when the
Beneficial Holders Rules do not apply, these disclosure and
quantitative obligations, in conjunction with the Exchange's
surveillance program (as discussed above), are generally deemed
sufficient to prevent any manipulation concerns in Exchange-listed
ETPs. As such, the Exchange believes that extending the period from 12
months to 36 months does not significantly increase any risk of
manipulation that wasn't already generally deemed acceptable for the
first 12 months that an ETP was listed. Again, the Exchange is not
proposing to eliminate the Beneficial Holders Rules, but merely to
extend the period for an ETP to meet the 50 Beneficial Holder
requirement.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \10\ in general and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \11\ in
particular in that it is designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general,
to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule changes are designed to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest because it would prevent the
premature delisting of ETPs that have not had sufficient time to build
up to 50 Beneficial Holders without significantly impacting the
manipulation concerns that the Beneficial Holders Rules are intended to
address.
    The Exchange believes it is appropriate to increase the period of
time for an ETP to comply with the applicable Beneficial Holders Rule
from 12 months to 36 months because: (i) It would bring the rule more
in line with the life cycle of an ETP; (ii) the economic and
competitive structures in place in the ETP ecosystem naturally
incentivize issuers to de-list products rather than continuing to list
products that do not garner investor interest; and (iii) extending the
period from 12 to 36 months will not meaningfully impact the
manipulation concerns that the Beneficial Holders Rules are intended to
address.

    First, the ETP space is more competitive than it has ever been--
with more than 2,000 ETPs listed on U.S. national securities exchanges
competing for investor assets, the natural cycle for an average ETP to
gain traction in the market is growing longer and longer. As more and
more ETPs have come to market, many distribution platforms have become
more restrictive about the ETPs that they allow on their systems, often
requiring a minimum existing track record (e.g., at least 12 months)
and meeting certain thresholds for assets under management (e.g., at
least $100 million) for an ETP to be added. Similarly, many larger
entities are unwilling to invest in ETPs that do not have at least one
calendar year track record. All of these factors have contributed to
the natural slowing of the average ETP's growth cycle and,
unsurprisingly, the Exchange has seen a significant number of
deficiencies based on a failure to meet the applicable Beneficial
Holders Rule over the last several years.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The Exchange has issued deficiency notifications to 34 ETPs
for non-compliance with Beneficial Holders Rules in the last five
years. In addition, 22 ETPs have voluntarily delisted within their
first year listed on the Exchange. While this isn't specifically
attributable to non-compliance with the Beneficial Holder Rules, the
most likely reasons for voluntarily delisting an ETP in its first
year would be either: (i) Failure or anticipated failure to meet the
Beneficial Holders Rules; or (ii) the issuer believing that the ETP
was not economically viable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Changing the timeline for meeting the Beneficial Holders Rules from
12 months to 36 months would provide ETPs with a more reasonable runway
to establish a track record and grow assets under management, both of
which generally precede the accumulation of Beneficial Holders.
Further, the Exchange believes that extending that runway will
encourage smaller issuers to make the necessary capital expenditures to
launch additional ETPs, as well as help both large and small issuers by
allowing them to continue to list and promote products that they
believe can succeed and that they are willing to continue paying for,
all of which will help to foster competition and innovation in the ETP
marketplace.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Exchange notes that of the 34 ETPs that received
deficiency notifications for non-compliance with Beneficial Holders
Rules, 27 reached compliance while going through the delisting
process under Rule 14.12 and continued to list on the Exchange. As
such, the 12 month threshold for the Beneficial Holders Rules had no
meaningful impact on whether such ETPs could list on the Exchange
and only served as regulatory and administrative burdens for issuers
to manage, which the Exchange believes makes it more difficult for
smaller issuers to compete.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the economic and competitive structures in place in the ETP
ecosystem naturally incentivize issuers to de-list products rather than
continuing to list products that do not garner investor interest,
meaning that the rule does not provide any meaningful ``pruning''
function for the industry. Rather, the Exchange has found that, as
currently constructed, the 12 month Beneficial Holders Rules have
instead resulted in the forced termination of ETPs that issuers
believed were still economically viable. While some observers might
argue that forced delisting of an ETP based on a failure to meet the
Beneficial Holders Rule is a good way to reduce the number of ETPs in
the marketplace that have not drawn meaningful market interest, the
Exchange vehemently disagrees with this sentiment. First, there are
significant costs associated with both the initial launch and continued
operation of an ETP and the Exchange has found that the ecosystem tends
to prune itself of ETPs without meaningful investor interest. In fact,
the Exchange has had 69 products that have voluntarily delisted in the
last two years,\14\ creating meaningful turnover in products which
issuers believe are not economically viable. Second, the Exchange
contests the underlying assumption that the number of Beneficial
Holders is even a meaningful measure of market interest in an ETP.
While a very high Beneficial Holder count would most certainly indicate
an ETP's success, the absence of Beneficial Holders is not necessarily
a good measure of market interest or the amount of assets held by the
ETP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ There are currently 357 ETPs listed on the Exchange,
meaning that there's been a nearly 20% voluntary turnover of ETPs
listed on the Exchange over the last two years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further to this point, the Beneficial Holders Rules are not rules
that an ETP issuer is incentivized to cut close or exceed by the
smallest amount possible. Unlike most other quantitative or disclosure
based listing requirements, an ETP issuer is incentivized to have as
many Beneficial Holders as possible and would almost certainly prefer
that they were able to meet and exceed the applicable Beneficial
Holders Rule as soon as possible after beginning trading on the
Exchange. As such, extending the time period from 12 months to 36
months will not provide issuers with a longer window to intentionally
keep the number of Beneficial Holders lower, but, rather, will only
extend the period during which an ETP could have fewer than 50
Beneficial Holders in specific instances where an issuer is unable to
meet the 50 Beneficial Holders threshold but still believes that the
ETP is viable and worth the cost of continued operation. Again, it
takes money and resources to launch and operate an ETP and where an
issuer does not believe that an ETP is economically viable, both common
sense and prior experience point to issuers delisting these products.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that making this change does not
create any significant change in the risk of manipulation for ETPs
listed on the Exchange for several reasons. First, the Exchange does
not believe that there is anything particularly important about the
50th Beneficial Holder that reduces the manipulation risk associated
with an ETP as compared to the 49th, nor is there any manipulation
concern that arises on the 366th day after an ETP began trading on the
Exchange that didn't otherwise exist on the 1st, 2nd, or 365th day.
Rather, the Exchange believes that the rule is generally intended to
ensure that products that do not have broad ownership and could be
susceptible to manipulation by a few parties are not able to list on
the Exchange after they've had sufficient time to diversify their
ownership base. Leaving aside the issue of whether an open-ended ETP
with creation and redemption processes would really be subject to
manipulation by virtue of narrow ownership, the Exchange believes that,
for all of the reasons explained above, 36 months is a more appropriate
amount of time to consider sufficient time to diversify an ETP's
ownership base.
    Further to this point, the Exchange has in place a robust
surveillance program for ETPs that allows it to monitor trading of ETPs
during all trading sessions on the Exchange and it believes are
sufficient to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and the
applicable federal securities laws. These surveillances generally focus
on detecting securities trading outside of their normal patterns, which
could be indicative of manipulative or other violative activity. When
such situations are detected, surveillance analysis follows and
investigations are opened, where appropriate, to review the behavior of
all relevant parties for all relevant trading violations. Further, the
Exchange or the FINRA,\15\ on behalf of the Exchange, or both,
communicate as needed regarding trading in ETPs with other markets and
other entities that are

members of the ISG, and the Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the
Exchange, or both, may obtain trading information in ETPs from such
markets and other entities. The Exchange believes that these robust
surveillance procedures will further act to mitigate any manipulation
concerns that arise from extending the compliance period for the
Beneficial Holders Rules from 12 months to 36 months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ FINRA conducts cross-market surveillances on behalf of the
Exchange pursuant to a regulatory services agreement. The Exchange
is responsible for FINRA's performance under this regulatory
services agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the other continued listing
standards in the Exchange's rules or representations that constitute
continued listing standards in Exchange rule filings (either the
disclosure obligations applicable under Rule 6c-11 of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 for series of ETF Shares or the diversity,
liquidity, and size of an ETP's holdings or reference assets applicable
to Index Fund Shares and Managed Fund Shares) are generally sufficient
to mitigate manipulation concerns associated with the applicable ETP.
During the first 12 months of trading on the Exchange when the
Beneficial Holders Rules do not apply, these disclosure and
quantitative obligations, in conjunction with the Exchange's
surveillance program (as discussed above), are generally deemed
sufficient to prevent any manipulation concerns in Exchange-listed
ETPs. As such, the Exchange believes that extending the period from 12
months to 36 months will not significantly increase any risk of
manipulation that wasn't already generally deemed acceptable for the
first 12 months that an ETP was listed. Again, the Exchange is not
proposing to eliminate the Beneficial Holders Rules, but merely to
extend the period for an ETP to meet the 50 Beneficial Holder
requirement.
    The proposed rule change is also designed to protect investors and
the public interest because the Exchange is only proposing to amend the
continued listing requirement related to Beneficial Holders and all
ETPs listed on the Exchange would continue to be subject to the full
panoply of Exchange rules and procedures that currently govern the
trading of equity securities on the Exchange.
    For the above reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. Instead, the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would help to encourage smaller
issuers to make the necessary capital expenditures to launch additional
ETPs, as well as help both large and small issuers by allowing them to
continue to list and promote products that they believe can succeed and
that they are willing to continue paying for, which will enhance
competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and
the marketplace.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CboeBZX-2020-036 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-CboeBZX-2020-036. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CboeBZX-2020-036, and should be
submitted on or before May 28, 2020.

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

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-09712 Filed 5-6-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 249 (Wednesday, December 28, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 95677-95679]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31299]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79637; File No. SR-NYSE-2016-86]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Amending Rule 123D and the Listed Company Manual

December 21, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on December 13, 2016, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''
or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 123D and the Listed Company
Manual to eliminate the requirement for Floor Official approval for
halts in trading. The proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 123D and the Listed Company
Manual to eliminate the requirement for Floor Official \4\ approval
before halting trading in a security. The Exchange believes that in
today's trading environment, the requirement for Floor Official
approval before halting trading in a security is unnecessary and
duplicative of Exchange obligations to assess whether to halt trading
in a security under Section 202.06 of the Listed Company Manual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``Floor Official'' encompasses Floor Governor, Floor
Official, Executive Floor Governor and Senior Floor Governor, as
their responsibilities are currently assigned in connection with
trading halts. See also Rules 46 and 46A defining Floor Governor,
Floor Official, and Executive Floor Governor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Current Rule 123D(d) provides that once trading has commenced,
trading may only be halted with the approval of a Floor Governor or two
Floor Officials and that an Executive Floor Governor, or in their
absence a Senior Floor Governor, should be consulted if it is felt that
trading should be halted in a bank or brokerage stock due to a
potential misperception regarding the company's financial viability.\5\
The rule further provides that if a listed company notifies the
Exchange in advance of publication concerning news which might have a
substantial market impact, the Exchange should advise an Executive
Floor Governor or Floor Governor, or in their absence, a Floor
Official, and specifies procedures for Floor Governors to overrule the
Exchange's determination that a security should be halted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Rules 46 and 46A (defining the terms Floor Official,
Senior Floor Official, Executive Floor Official, Floor Governor, and
Executive Floor Governor).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commensurate with the evolution of the equities markets and trading
on the Exchange towards more automated processes, the procedures and
situations requiring approvals by Floor Officials have also evolved.
For example, the Exchange previously eliminated the ability of a Floor
broker to seek an exception to Rule 122 requirements if Floor Official
permission is obtained.\6\ In connection with trading halts, the
Exchange is responsible for determining whether to halt trading in a
security under Section 202.06(B) of the Listed Company Manual. Thus,
requiring Floor Official approval before a trading halt can be invoked
is an unnecessary pro forma step rather than a substantive requirement.
Moreover, obtaining Floor Governor approval adds an extra manual step
to the process, which could impede the timely dissemination of a
trading halt. Finally, given market fragmentation and highly automated
equities trading environment, the Exchange does not believe that Floor
Governors, who do not have contact with the listed company, should be
in a position to override an Exchange determination to halt trading in
a security. Consequently, the Exchange proposes to delete Rule 123D(d)
in its entirety as unnecessary and duplicative of existing Exchange
obligations specified in the Listed Company Manual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67345 (July 3,
2012), 77 FR 40683 (July 10, 2012) (SR-NYSE-2012-20) (notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness of proposed rule change amending
certain Exchange rules related to floor official duties and
responsibilities).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to make a related change to Section
202.06(B) of the Listed Company Manual to delete two references to Rule
123D that would be rendered obsolete by the proposed deletion of Rule
123D(d). In addition, the Exchange proposes to re-letter the remaining
subsections of Rule 123D to account for the deletion of Rule 123D(d).
    The Exchange proposes to make a related change to eliminate the
requirement in Rule 123D(e) that an ``Equipment Changeover'' halt in
trading requires the approval of a Floor Governor or two Floor
Officials as such approval is no longer necessary. An Equipment
Changeover halt is a non-regulatory halt condition that only halts
trading on the Exchange. The Exchange believes that if circumstances
arise warranting an Equipment Changeover halt, obtaining Floor Official
approval before halting trading adds an unnecessary step that is no
longer needed in today's automated markets.
    Because of the procedural changes associated with the proposed rule
changes, the Exchange proposes to announce the eliminations via Trader
Update and anticipates implementing the changes in the first quarter of
2017.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule changes are consistent with Section 6(b) \7\ of
the Act, in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\8\
in particular, in that they are designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes support the
objectives of the Act by amending duties and responsibilities once
assigned to Floor Officials to better comport with the Exchange's
current regulatory structure and to reflect the changing technology and
development of its automated systems. Specifically, eliminating the
unnecessary step of obtaining Floor Official approval in connection
with trading halts would remove impediments to and perfect a national
market system by streamlining and simplifying functionality and
complexity in connection with trading halts. The Exchange believes that
streamlining the procedures and eliminating unnecessary Floor Official
approval requirements would be consistent with the public interest and
the protection of investors because investors will not be harmed and in
fact would benefit from the removal of unnecessary functionality. The
Exchange also believes that eliminating Floor Official approval would
benefit investors by adding transparency and clarity to the Exchange's
rules.

    The Exchange believes that the proposed deletion of two references
to Rule 123D in Section 202.06B of the Listed Company Manual is
reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the
references are obsolete. The proposed changes would result in the
removal of obsolete text from the Listed Company Manual and therefore
add greater clarity to the Listed Company Manual regarding halts in
trading.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed re-lettering of the
remaining subsections of Rule 123D is reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because the proposed change would add greater
clarity to the Exchange's rule book.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change is not
designed to address any competitive issue but rather would streamline
functionality, eliminate an unnecessary step, and streamline forms,
thereby reducing confusion and making the Exchange's rules easier to
understand and navigate.

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

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

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\10\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \11\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b4(f)(6)(iii),\12\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \13\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2016-86 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2016-86. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2016-86 and should be
submitted on or before January 18, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-31299 Filed 12-27-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 39 (Wednesday, February 27, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13337-13338]
[FR Doc No: 2013-04527]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0010; FRL-9377-5]

Pesticide Experimental Use Permit; Receipt of Application;
Comment Request

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA's receipt of an application 71049-
EUP-L from KIM-C1, LLC, requesting an experimental use permit (EUP) for
the plant growth regulator, forchlorfenuron. The Agency has determined
that the permit may be of regional and national significance.
Therefore, because of the potential significance, EPA is seeking
comments on this application.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 29, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0010, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia Giles-Parker, Registration
Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. Although this
action may be of particular interest to those persons who conduct or
sponsor research on pesticides, the Agency has not attempted to
describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

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

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.

    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the
pesticide(s) discussed in this document, compared to the general
population.

II. What action is the agency taking?

    Under section 5 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136c, EPA can allow manufacturers to
field test pesticides under development. Manufacturers are required to
obtain an EUP before testing new pesticides or new uses of pesticides
if they conduct experimental field tests on 10 acres or more of land or
one acre or more of water.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 172.11(a), the Agency has determined that the
following EUP application may be of regional and national significance,
and therefore is seeking public comment on the EUP application.
    Submitter: KIM-C1, LLC, 2547 W. Shaw Avenue, Suite 116, Fresno, CA
93711.
    EUP Number: 71049-EUP-L.
    Pesticide Chemical: Forchlorfenuron.
    Type of Chemical: Plant Growth Regulator.
    Summary of Request: Crop Uses and Timing of Application (only one
application permitted per crop per year): Almond from 80% petal fall to
the time when nutlet length averages 4-6 millimeters (mm); cherry at
shuck split or a later application at straw color to color break; fig
when average fig is 12-15 mm; pear at 15-25 days post-petal fall;
pistachio at beginning of kernel formation when shells start to fill at
approximately 5-7 weeks after bloom; plum/prune during bloom. The
amount of chemical product to be used is 77,400 fluid ounces or 605
gallons on 1,935 acres. from 2013-2015.
    A copy of the application and any information submitted is
available for public review in the docket established for this EUP
application.
    Following the review of the application and any comments and data
received in response to this solicitation, EPA will decide whether to
issue or deny the EUP request, and if issued, the conditions under
which it is to be conducted. Any issuance of an EUP will be announced
in the Federal Register.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Experimental use permits.

    Dated: February 15, 2013.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2013-04527 Filed 2-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 204 (Tuesday, October 24, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49205-49206]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22978]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM98-1-000]

Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public Notice

    This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of
the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
    Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission
decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-
the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested
proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of
the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any
oral communication.
    Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional
file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the
proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited
communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the
decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not
be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a
proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or
contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may
request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and
responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant
such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any
person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record
communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the
official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with
Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
    Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional
record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a
cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR
385.2201(e)(1)(v).
    The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently
received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed
are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are
available for electronic review at the Commission in the Public
Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected] or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Presenter or
            Docket No.                File date          requester
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prohibited:
    1. CP16-10-000...............       10-3-2017  Phyllis Duncan.
    2. CP15-558-000..............       10-3-2017  World Business
                                                    Academy.
    3. P-2305-076................       10-3-2017  Niblett's Bluff Park
                                                    Commission.
    4. CP15-88-000...............       10-5-2017  Citizens from Boyle
                                                    County, Kentucky.\1\
    5. PF15-3-000, CP16-10-000,         10-6-2017  Pat Curran Leonard.
     CP16-13-000.
    6. CP15-558-000..............      10-10-2017  The Chamber of
                                                    Commerce for Greater
                                                    Philadelphia.
Exempt:
    1. P-2660-028, P-2660-029....       9-28-2017  Government of Canada.
    2. CP17-101-000..............       10-3-2017  U.S. Senator Cory A.
                                                    Booker.
    3. CP17-41-000...............       10-4-2017  FERC Staff.\2\
    4. EL17-15-001...............       10-4-2017  U.S. House
                                                    Representative Brett
                                                    Guthrie.

    5. CP16-38-000...............      10-12-2017  U.S. Senator Shelley
                                                    Moore Capito.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sarah Vahlkamp, Tena Messer, Jim and Linda Porter, Truly and Eric
  Mount, Mark Morgan, Jane and JP Brantley, Anne and Charles Ferguson,
  Susan and Walter Nimocks, Preston Miles, and Julie Pease.
\2\ Telephone Call Summary for call on 9/28/2017 with Eagle LNG.

    Dated: October 17, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-22978 Filed 10-23-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 220 (Thursday, November 16, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78747-78748]
[FR Doc No: 2023-25273]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OEJECR-2023-0326; FRL 10605-01-OA]

Release of Achieving Health and Environmental Protection Through
EPA's Meaningful Involvement Policy

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Draft policy; notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing the
availability of and soliciting comment on a draft policy that updates
the EPA's 2003 Public Involvement Policy. The revised draft policy
promotes an EPA-wide approach to meaningful involvement that can be
tailored for program and regional needs and outlines practices that EPA
staff can use as they design and provide opportunities for meaningful
involvement.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 16, 2024.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OEJECR-2023-0326, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Agency Website: https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/epas-meaningful-involvement-policy. Follow the online instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email: [email protected].
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights
Docket, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC
20460.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this draft policy. Comments received may be posted without
change to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information provided.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stacey Lobatos, Office of
Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights (Mail Code 2201A),
Environmental Protection Agency, William Jefferson Clinton Building,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; phone number: 202-
564-8579, email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. How can I get copies of the Draft Policy document and other related
information?

    You may access this document electronically at https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/epas-meaningful-involvement-policy or at https://www.federalregister.gov. EPA established an official public docket
under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OEJECR-2023-0326 which is accessible
electronically at https://www.regulations.gov that will also contain
copies of this Federal Register notice. The public docket does not
include CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute.

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

    1. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see Tips for Effective Comments at https://www.epa.gov/dockets. Please note that once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
removed from the docket. The EPA may publish any comment received to
its public docket. Please also consider the following questions while
drafting comments:
     How can the EPA's Meaningful Involvement Approach support
meaningful involvement without putting an extra burden on the public,
and communities with environmental justice concerns specifically?
     How could the adapted Public Participation Spectrum be
enhanced?
     Are there other examples of meaningful public involvement
that the EPA should consider in this policy?
    2. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI information to the EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. In addition to one complete
version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy
of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI
must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so
marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set
forth in 40 CFR part 2.

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2023-25273 Filed 11-15-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P