[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 6, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 535-536]
[FR Doc No: 2015-33218]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76802; File No. SR-DTC-2015-012]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Add a Fee To Be Charged To Transfer Agents of DTC-Eligible Issues
Subject to a Corporate Action

December 30, 2015.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on December 24, 2015, The Depository Trust Company (``DTC'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed
rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have
been prepared by DTC. DTC filed the proposed rule change pursuant to
section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder.\4\
The proposed rule change was effective upon filing with the Commission.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The proposed rule change consists of a change to DTC's Fee Schedule
(``Fee Schedule'') \5\ to add a new fee that would be charged to the
transfer agent of any DTC-eligible issue when the transfer agent
notifies DTC of a corporate action event (``Corporate Action'') that
requires a new CUSIP to be made DTC-eligible,\6\ as more fully
described below.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Available at http://www.dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/
legal/fee-guides/dtcfeeguide.pdf?la=en.
    \6\ Corporate Actions processed by DTC include but are not
limited to the restructuring of DTC-eligible securities resulting
from mergers, acquisitions, and reverse splits. DTC performs
Corporate Actions processing primarily through its Mandatory and
Voluntary Reorganization Services by the DTC Reorganization
Department (``Reorganization''). Additionally, with respect to any
Corporate Action that requires DTC to make a new CUSIP(s) DTC-
eligible DTC's Underwriting Department (``Underwriting'') must also
process the eligibility component of the Corporate Action. DTC
processes the new CUSIP(s) for eligibility pursuant to the transfer
agent's notification to DTC of the Corporate Action and related
instructions and information detailing the issuance of the new
CUSIP(s) provided by the transfer agent. See generally, the DTC
Operational Arrangements (``OA''), available at http://www.dtcc.com/
~/media/Files/Downloads/legal/issue-eligibility/eligibility/
operational-arrangements.pdf.
    \7\ Each term not otherwise defined herein has its respective
meaning as set forth in the Rules, By-Laws and Organization
Certificate of DTC (the ``Rules''), available at http://www.dtcc.com/legal/rules-and-procedures.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The proposed rule change would add a fee to the Fee Schedule that
would be charged to the transfer agent of a DTC-eligible security when
DTC is notified by the transfer agent to process a Corporate Action
with respect to the security that requires DTC to make a new CUSIP
eligible for DTC services.
Background
    Securities may become eligible for deposit at DTC through initial
offerings,\8\ the Older Issue Eligibility Request process,\9\ and
Corporate Actions processing.\10\ Through ongoing efforts to evaluate
its fees and align them with operating costs, DTC has identified that
it is not recovering costs that it incurs in connection with making
securities eligible for DTC services through its Corporate Actions
process.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ An initial offering is made eligible for deposit at DTC
pursuant to an eligibility request to Underwriting from a sponsoring
Participant. See OA, supra note 6, pp. 1-2 (Submission of an
Eligibility Request to DTC).
    \9\ Older issues (i.e., issues on the secondary market) may be
made eligible for deposit pursuant to an Older Issue Eligibility
Request of a DTC Participant to Underwriting. See id [sic] at p. 2.
    \10\ See supra text accompanying note 6.
    \11\ Eligibility fees for initial offerings and older issues are
charged to the Participants that sponsor the issues for DTC
eligibility. DTC does not currently charge an eligibility fee with
respect to CUSIPS [sic] made eligible in connection with a Corporate
Action. See Fee Schedule, supra note 5, at pp. 25-26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal
    Pursuant to the proposed rule change, in order to align DTC's fees
with the costs it incurs in making securities eligible for DTC services
through its processing of Corporate Actions, DTC would implement a new
fee, to be known as the Corporate Actions Eligibility Fee (``New
Fee''), which would be charged to the transfer agent of any DTC-
eligible security when the transfer agent notifies DTC of a Corporate
Action that requires DTC to make a new CUSIP eligible for DTC services.
The amount of the New Fee would be $1,000 per new CUSIP for any
security that is made eligible at DTC in connection with a Corporate
Action.\12\

The New Fee takes into account the allocation of resources required and
more manually intensive processing performed by Reorganization and
Underwriting in order for DTC to provide the services necessary to make
new CUSIPs DTC-eligible when they are issued as a result of Corporate
Actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For example, in the case of an issue of DTC-eligible common
stock under CUSIP W which undergoes a reverse split, with the newly-
denominated common stock issued under CUSIP X, the transfer agent
for that security would incur a charge of $1,000 for the processing
of the reverse split. If the same issuer subsequently undergoes a
reorganization involving the exchange of the common stock under
CUSIP X for common and preferred stock under CUSIPs Y and Z,
respectively, the transfer agent would be charged $2,000 in
connection with the exchange reflecting the sum of a $1,000 fee
relating to the issuance of CUSIP Y and a $1,000 fee relating to the
issuance of CUSIP Z).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation Date
    The implementation date of the proposed rule change would be
January 1, 2016.
2. Statutory Basis
    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) \13\ of the Act requires that the rules of the
clearing agency be designed, inter alia, to promote the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions. DTC
believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with this
provision because the New Fee would offset costs incurred by DTC in its
allocation of resources necessary for making CUSIPs eligible in
connection with Corporate Actions. The New Fee is designed to
facilitate allocation of resources necessary for the continued offering
of this service, thus the proposed rule change would promote the prompt
and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    DTC does not believe that the proposed rule change would have any
impact or impose any burden on competition because the proposed rule
change equally applies (on a per CUSIP basis) to all issues made
eligible for DTC services as the result of a Corporate Action.

(C) Clearing Agency'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. DTC will notify the Commission of any written
comments received by DTC. DTC management has discussed its intent to
implement the New Fee with members of the Securities Transfer
Association at industry meetings.

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) of the Act \14\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\15\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend
such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-DTC-2015-012 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-DTC-2015-012. 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 DTC and on DTCC's
Web site (http://dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings.aspx). 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-DTC-2015-012 and should be
submitted on or before January 27, 2016.

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

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

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-33218 Filed 1-5-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 63 (Monday, April 5, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17545-17548]
[FR Doc No: 2021-06271]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0335; FRL-10019-55]

Pyriofenone; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
pyriofenone in or on fruit, small vine climbing subgroup 13-07E, except
grape; grape and grape, raisin. ISK BIOSCIENCES Corporation requested
these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective April 5, 2021. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before May 5, 2021, 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-2020-0335, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), 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 is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is closed to visitors with
limited exceptions. The staff continues to provide remote customer
service via email, phone, and webform. For the latest status
information on EPA/DC services and docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

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

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Publishing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl. To access the OCSPP
test guidelines referenced in this document electronically, please go
to http://www.epa.gov/ocspp and select ``Test Methods and Guidelines.''

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0335 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
June 4, 2021. 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-2020-0335, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about

dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of August 5, 2020 (85 FR 47330) (FRL-10012-
32), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
9F8808) by ISK BIOSCIENCES Corporation, 7470 Auburn Road, Suite A,
Concord, OH, 44077. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.660 be
amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the fungicide,
pyriofenone, (5-chloro-2-methoxy-4-methyl-3-pyridinyl)(2,3,4-
trimethoxy-6-methylphenyl) methanone, in or on fruit, small vine
climbing subgroup 13-07E, except grape at 1.5 parts per million (ppm);
grape at 0.8 ppm; and grape, raisin at 2.5 ppm. In addition, although
not mentioned in EPA's document, ISK's petition also requested that the
currently established tolerances for residues of pyriofenone in/on
fruit, small vine climbing subgroup 13-07D at 1.5 ppm be removed from
40 CFR 180.660, as establishment of the requested tolerances for
subgroup 13-07E and grape include all the crops in subgroup 13-07D.
That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by ISK
BIOSCIENCES Corporation, the registrant, which is available in the
docket, http://www.regulations.gov. No comment was received in response
to the notice of filing.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for pyriofenone including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with pyriofenone follows.
    In an effort to streamline its publications in the Federal
Register, EPA is not reprinting sections that repeat what has been
previously published for tolerance rulemakings of the same pesticide
chemical. Where scientific information concerning a particular chemical
remains unchanged, the content of those sections would not vary between
tolerance rulemakings, and republishing the same sections is
unnecessary; therefore, EPA considers referral back to those sections
as sufficient to provide an explanation of the information EPA
considered in making its safety determination for the new rulemaking.
    EPA has previously published a number of tolerance rulemakings for
pyriofenone, in which EPA concluded, based on the available
information, that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm would
result from aggregate exposure to pyriofenone and established
tolerances for residues of that chemical. EPA is incorporating
previously published sections from those rulemakings as described
further in this rulemaking, as they remain unchanged.
    Toxicological Profile. For a discussion of the Toxicological
Profile of pyriofenone, see Unit III.A. of the May 30, 2019 rulemaking
(84 FR 24983) (FRL-9993-11).
    Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern. For a summary
of the Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern used for the
safety assessment, see Unit III.B. of the May 30, 2019 rulemaking.
    Exposure Assessment. EPA's exposure assessment remains unchanged
from what was done in support of the May 30, 2019 rulemaking. EPA's
aggregate exposure assessments include exposures from food, drinking
water and residential sources, and there have been no changes since the
last assessment. For a discussion of EPA's assessment of aggregate
exposures, see Unit III.C. of the May 30, 2019 rulemaking.
    Safety Factor for Infants and Children. EPA continues to conclude
that there is reliable data showing that the safety of infants and
children would be adequately protected if the FQPA SF were reduced from
10X to 1X for all exposure scenarios. The reasons for that decision are
articulated in Unit III.D. of the May 30, 2019 rulemaking.
    Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety. EPA determines whether
acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing
aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD
(cPAD). Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by
comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure
to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists. For
linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of
acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure.
    Pyriofenone is not expected to pose an acute risk, due to the lack
of acute adverse effects in the database. Chronic dietary risks are
below the Agency's level of concern: 6.9% of the chronic population
adjusted dose (cPAD) for children 1 to 2 years old, the group with the
highest exposure. There are no residential uses for pyriofenone;
therefore, the chronic aggregate risk is limited to the chronic dietary
risk and is not of concern. Short- and intermediate-term aggregate
risks are addressed by the chronic aggregate risk estimates and are not
a concern.
    Therefore, based on the risk assessments and information described
above, EPA concludes there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will
result to the general populations, or to infants and children for
aggregate exposure to pyriofenone residues. More detailed information
on the subject action can be found at https://www.regulations.gov in
the document entitled, ``Pyriofenone. Human Health Risk Assessment for
the Section 3 Registration on Fruiting Vegetables (Crop Group 8-10)''
in the docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0335 and the document titled,
``Pyriofenone. Human Health Risk Assessment for the Section 3
Registration on Fruiting Vegetables (Crop Group 8-10)'' in docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0677.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    For a discussion of the available analytical enforcement method,
see Unit IV.A. of the May 30, 2019 rulemaking.

B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural

practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits
(MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as
required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint
United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health
Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an
international food safety standards-setting organization in trade
agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a
tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section
408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the
Codex level.
    The Codex has established MRLs for pyriofenone in or on grape at
0.8 ppm and grape, raisin at 2.5 ppm. The U.S. tolerances for these
commodities are harmonized with these MRLs.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    Under FFDCA section 408(d)(4)(A)(i), EPA may establish tolerances
that vary from those sought by the petition. The tolerance level has
been modified to be consistent with the Agency's rounding class
practices.

D. International Trade Considerations

    In this Final Rule, EPA is establishing an individual tolerance for
grape at 0.8 ppm, which is lower than the current allowed amount of
residue on grape, by virtue of its inclusion in the small vine climbing
fruit subgroup 13-07D at 1.5 ppm. The Agency is reducing this tolerance
to harmonize with the Codex MRL on grape, and available residue data
demonstrate that this tolerance is sufficient to cover residues on this
commodity.
    In accordance with the World Trade Organization's (WTO) Sanitary
and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) Agreement, EPA intends to notify the
WTO of this revision. In addition, the SPS Agreement requires that
Members provide a ``reasonable interval'' between the publication of a
regulation subject to the Agreement and its entry into force to allow
time for producers in exporting Member countries to adapt to the new
requirement. To accommodate this reasonable interval, EPA is
establishing an expiration date for the existing tolerance for small
vine climbing fruit subgroup 13-07D to allow those tolerances to remain
in effect for a period of 6 months after the effective date of this
rule. At the end of that 6-month period, the existing tolerances for
subgroup 13-07D will no longer be valid; residues on grape will need to
comply with the new grape tolerance and residues on other commodities
in that subgroup will need to comply with the new subgroup 13-07E
tolerance.
    This reduction in tolerance level is not discriminatory; the same
food safety standard contained in the FFDCA applies equally to
domestically produced and imported foods. The new tolerance level is
supported by available residue data.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of pyriofenone,
(5-chloro-2-methoxy-4-methyl-3-pyridinyl)(2,3,4-trimethoxy-6-
methylphenyl) methanone, in or on fruit, small vine climbing subgroup
13-07E, except grape at 1.5 ppm; grape at 0.8 ppm; and grape, raisin at
2.5 ppm. EPA is also establishing an expiration date for the existing
tolerance for fruit, small vine climbing subgroup 13-07D.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes and modifies tolerances under FFDCA section
408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this 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), nor is it considered a
regulatory action under Executive Order 13771, entitled ``Reducing
Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs'' (82 FR 9339, February 3,
2017). 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).

VII. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: March 8, 2021.
Marietta Echeverria,
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.  180.660, amend the table in paragraph (a) by:
0
a. Designating the table as Table 1;
0
b. Revising the entry for ``Fruit, small vine climbing, subgroup 13-
07D''; and
0
c. Adding in alphabetical order entries for ``Fruit, small vine
climbing, subgroup 13-07E, except grape''; ``Grape''; and ``Grape,
raisin''.
    The additions and revision read as follows:

Sec.  180.660   Pyriofenone; tolerances for residues.

* * * * *

                        Table 1 to Paragraph (a)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Parts
                           Commodity                               per
                                                                 million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
Fruit, small vine climbing subgroup 13-07D \1\................       1.5
Fruit, small vine climbing subgroup 13-07E, except grape......       1.5
Grape.........................................................       0.8
Grape, raisin.................................................       2.5

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This tolerance expires on October 6, 2021.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2021-06271 Filed 4-2-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 195 (Wednesday, October 13, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56929-56930]
[FR Doc No: 2021-22226]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 3472-024]

Aspinook Hydro, LLC; Notice of Application Ready for
Environmental Analysis and Soliciting Comments, Recommendations, Terms
and Conditions, and Prescriptions

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New Major License.
    b. Project No.: 3472-024.
    c. Date Filed: April 30, 2020.
    d. Applicant: Aspinook Hydro, LLC (Aspinook Hydro).
    e. Name of Project: Wyre Wynd Hydroelectric Project (Wyre Wynd
Project).
    f. Location: On the Quinebaug River in New London and Windham
Counties, Connecticut. No federal lands are occupied by the project
works or located within the project boundary.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mark Boumansour, Chief Operating Officer,
Gravity Renewables, Inc., 1401 Walnut Street, Boulder, CO 80302; Phone
at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email at [email protected].
    i. FERC Contact: Kristine Sillett at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
[email protected].
    j. Deadline for filing comments, recommendations, terms and
conditions, and prescriptions: 60 days from the issuance date of this
notice; reply comments are due 105 days from the issuance date of this
notice.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions
using the Commission's eFiling system at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/FERCOnline.aspx. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000
characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at
https://ferconline.ferc.gov/QuickComment.aspx. You must include your
name and contact information at the end of your comments. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, you may submit a paper copy.
Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via
any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville,
Maryland 20852. The first page of any filing should include docket
number P-3472-024.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.
    k. This application has been accepted and is ready for
environmental analysis at this time.
    The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued a final rule on
July 15, 2020, revising the regulations under 40 CFR parts 1500-1518
that federal agencies use to implement NEPA (see Update to the
Regulations Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act, 85 FR 43304). The Final Rule became effective
on and applies to any NEPA process begun after September 14, 2020. An
agency may also apply the regulations to ongoing activities and
environmental documents begun before September 14, 2020, which includes
the proposed Wyre Wynd Project. Commission staff intends to conduct its
NEPA review in accordance with CEQ's new regulations.
    l. The Wyre Wynd Project consists of the following existing
facilities: (1) A 538-foot-long dam that includes: (a) A 473-foot-long
central spillway with 2-foot-high flashboards, and one sluice gate; (b)
a 55-foot-long east abutment that includes a headgate structure with
five gates; and (c) a 10-foot-long west abutment; (2) a 333-acre
impoundment at a normal elevation of 97.3 feet NGVD 29; \1\ (3) a 170-
foot[hyphen]long forebay that includes: (a) An auxiliary spillway; and
(b) two outlet gates; (4) a powerhouse intake that includes: (a) A
trash rack structure with 2.6 inch bar spacing; and (b) a 16-foot-long
penstock that extends to the main, 2.7-megawatt (MW) turbine-generator
unit within the powerhouse; (5) a 450-foot-long tailrace that receives
discharges from the main unit; (6) a second intake structure branching
off the forebay that includes: (a) A 4-foot-diameter intake opening;
(b) a trash rack structure with 1.5-inch bar spacing; and (c) a 45-
foot-long penstock that extends to an in-line mini, 0.08-MW turbine-
generator unit; (7) a 350-foot-long tailrace that receives discharges
from the mini unit; (8) a 600-volt (V), 10-foot-long main generator
lead, and a 600-V, 200-foot-long mini lead; (9) an 80-foot-long, 600-V
transmission line; and (10) appurtenant facilities. The project
generates an average of 11,000 megawatt-hours annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Aspinook Hydro proposes to: (1) Operate the project in a run-of-
river mode with a 1-inch impoundment fluctuation band; (2) provide a
continuous minimum flow of 84-cubic feet per second to the bypassed
reach;

and (3) provide an Adaptive Management Plan for upstream and downstream
fish passage.
    m. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (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 (i.e., P-
3472). At this time, the Commission has suspended access to the
Commission's Public Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a
National Emergency concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19),
issued by the President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC
at [email protected] or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title
``COMMENTS,'' ``REPLY COMMENTS,'' ``RECOMMENDATIONS,'' ``TERMS AND
CONDITIONS,'' or ``PRESCRIPTIONS;'' (2) set forth in the heading the
name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person submitting the filing; and (4) otherwise comply
with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must
set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the
application directly from the applicant. Each filing must be
accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed on the service
list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with
18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    n. Aspinook Hydro must file no later than 60 days following the
date of issuance of this notice: (1) A copy of the water quality
certification (certification); (2) a copy of the request for
certification, including proof of the date on which the certifying
agency received the request; or (3) evidence of waiver of
certification. Please note that the certification request must comply
with 40 CFR 121.5(b), including documentation that a pre-filing meeting
request was submitted to the certifying authority at least 30 days
prior to submitting the certification request. Please also note that
the certification request must be sent to the certifying authority and
to the Commission concurrently.
    o. Procedural Schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following schedule. Revisions to the schedule will be made as
appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deadline for filing comments,            December 2021.
 recommendations, preliminary terms and
 conditions, and preliminary fishway
 prescriptions.
Deadline for filing reply comments.....  January 2022.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    p. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the
Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of this notice.

    Dated: October 6, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-22226 Filed 10-12-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 3, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20090-20092]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7914]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66668; File No. SR-Phlx-2012-35]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
the Equity Options Fees and Singly Listed Option Fee

March 28, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that, on March 16, 2012, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend: (i) Section II \3\ of the Fee
Schedule entitled ``Equity Options Fees'' to assess Professionals an
Options Surcharge in certain Multiply Listed Options; (ii) amend
Section III \4\ of the Fee Schedule entitled ``Singly Listed Options''
to specify certain options that would be subject to the fees in this
section; and (iii) amend the title of the Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Section II of the Fee Schedule includes options overlying
equities, ETFs, ETNs, indexes and HOLDRs which are Multiply Listed.
    \4\ Section III of the Fee Schedule includes options overlying
equities, ETFs, ETNs, indexes and HOLDRs which are not listed on
another exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While changes to the Fee Schedule pursuant to this proposal are
effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated these changes to be
operative on April 2, 2012.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqtrader.com/micro.aspx?id=PHLXRulefilings, at
the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Section II of the Fee Schedule to
assess Professionals an Options Surcharge for transactions in RUT,\5\
MNX,\6\ NDX \7\ and BKX.\8\ The Exchange believes that these surcharges
will assist the Exchange in remaining competitive in these options. The
Exchange also proposes to amend Section III of the Fee Schedule to
specify that the following options: PHLX Semiconductor Sector\SM\ (SOX
\SM\), PHLX Housing Sector\TM\ (HGX \SM\) and PHLX Oil Service
Sector\SM\ (OSX \SM\) are subject to the Singly Listed Options
Transaction Charge even though these options will no longer be Singly
Listed. These above-referenced options are proprietary indexes. These
options will be listed on the NASDAQ Options Market LLC (``NOM'')
commencing on April 2, 2012. The Exchange seeks to continue to recoup
fees associated with maintaining these proprietary indexes. The
Exchange is also proposing to amend the title of the Fee Schedule to
more specifically describe the document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ RUT represents the options on the Russell 2000[supreg] Index
(the ``Full Value Russell Index'' or ``RUT'').
    \6\ MNX represents options on the one-tenth value of the Nasdaq
100 Index traded under the symbol MNX (``MNX'').
    \7\ NDX represents options on the Nasdaq 100 Index1 traded under
the symbol NDX (``NDX'').
    \8\ BKX represents the KBW Bank Index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section II Amendments
    The Exchange currently assesses an Options Surcharge for
transactions in RUT, MNX and NDX of $.15 per

contract for Market Makers,\9\ Broker-Dealers and Firms.\10\ The
Exchange also currently assesses an Options Surcharge for transactions
in BKX of $.10 per contract for Market Makers, Broker-Dealers and
Firms.\11\ The Exchange is proposing to assess Professionals an Options
Surcharge for transactions in RUT, MNX and NDX of $.15 per contract and
an Options Surcharge for transactions in BKX of $.10 per contract.
Customers will continue not to be assessed an Options Surcharge in RUT,
MNX, NDX and BKX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The term ``Market Maker'' is utilized herein to describe
fees and rebates applicable to Specialists, Registered Options
Traders, Streaming Quote Traders and Remote Streaming Quote Traders.
    \10\ Currently, Professionals are not assessed an Options
Surcharge for transactions in RUT, MNX or NDX.
    \11\ Currently, Professionals are not assessed an Options
Surcharge for transactions in BKX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section III Amendments
    Currently, SOX, HGX and OSX are Singly Listed Options subject to
the following fees in Section III of the Fee Schedule:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Customer         Professional       Market maker           Firm          Broker-dealer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Options Transaction Charge...............................             $0.35              $0.45              $0.35              $0.45              $0.45
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 2, 2012, NOM will list SOX, HGX and OSX and therefore
these options will become Multiply Listed. The Exchange proposes to
continue to assess SOX, HGX and OSX the Singly Listed Options
Transaction Charges in Section III by specifying that these index
options will be subject to Section III fees, even though they will no
longer be Singly Listed. The Exchange also proposes to indicate in
Section II of the Fee Schedule that SOX, HGX and OSX would be subject
to the fees in Section III.
Other Amendments
    The Exchange is also proposing to amend the title of the ``Fee
Schedule'' to ``Pricing Schedule'' to more specifically describe this
document.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \12\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \13\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees
and other charges among Exchange members and other persons using its
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to assess Professionals a $.15 per contract
Options Surcharge for transactions in RUT, MNX and NDX and a $.10 per
contract Options Surcharge for transactions in BKX is reasonable
because Professionals would be assessed a fee that is less favorable
than a Customer but equivalent to all other market participants because
it has been established that Professionals have access to more
information than a Customer. It can be argued that Professionals have
the same technological and informational advantages as broker-dealers
trading for their own account. The Exchange believes that
Professionals, who are considered sophisticated algorithmic traders,
utilize the advantaged Customer pricing they receive to effectively
compete with Market Makers and Broker-Dealers \14\ without the
obligations of either. Also, the Exchange believes that unlike
Customers, Professionals are able to shoulder the burden of fees as
effectively as other market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Broker-dealers pay registration and membership fees in
self-regulatory organizations (``SRO'') and incur costs to comply
and assure that their associated persons comply with the Act and SRO
rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to assess Professionals a $.15 per contract
Options Surcharge for transactions in RUT, MNX and NDX and a $.10 per
contract Options Surcharge for transactions in BKX is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because all market participants, except for
Customers, would be uniformly assessed the Options Surcharge fees for
RUT, MNX, NDX and BKX, respectively. A lower Customer fee benefits all
market participants by incentivizing market participants to transact a
greater number of Customer orders, which results in increased
liquidity. Additionally, today Professionals are assessed a higher fee
as compared to Customers in both Penny Pilot Options \15\ and non-Penny
Pilot Options.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The Penny Pilot was established in January 2007; and in
October 2009, it was expanded and extended through June 30, 2012.
See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 55153 (January 23, 2007),
72 FR 4553 (January 31, 2007) (SR-Phlx-2006-74) (notice of filing
and approval order establishing Penny Pilot); 60873 (October 23,
2009), 74 FR 56675 (November 2, 2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-91) (notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness expanding and extending Penny
Pilot); 60966 (November 9, 2009), 74 FR 59331 (November 17, 2009)
(SR-Phlx-2009-94) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness
adding seventy-five classes to Penny Pilot); 61454 (February 1,
2010), 75 FR 6233 (February 8, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-12) (notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness adding seventy-five classes to
Penny Pilot); 62028 (May 4, 2010), 75 FR 25890 (May 10, 2010) (SR-
Phlx-2010-65) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness adding
seventy-five classes to Penny Pilot); 62616 (July 30, 2010), 75 FR
47664 (August 6, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-103) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness adding seventy-five classes to Penny Pilot);
63395 (November 30, 2010), 75 FR 76062 (December 7, 2010) (SR-Phlx-
2010-167) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness extending
the Penny Pilot); and 65976 (December 15, 2011), 76 FR 79247
(December 21, 2011) (SR-Phlx-2011-172) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness extending the Penny Pilot). See also
Exchange Rule 1034.
    \16\ Customers are not assessed an Options Transaction Charge
for either Penny Pilot Options or non-Penny Pilot Options while
Professionals are assessed $.20 per contract for both Penny and non-
Penny Pilot Options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to continue to assess SOX, HGX and OSX the
fees in Section III for Singly Listed Options is reasonable because the
Exchange is seeking to continue to recoup the operation and development
costs associated with these proprietary indexes.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The Exchange continues to incur costs for maintaining these
proprietary indexes including marketing expenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal to continue to assess SOX,
HGX and OSX the fees in Section III for Singly Listed Options is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all market
participants would be assessed the Singly Listed Options Transaction
Charges for transacting options on these indexes instead of the Options
Transaction Charges in Section II.\18\ Specifically, all market
participants would be assessed the higher fees in Section III, as
compared to the fees in Section II, with the exception of a Broker-
Dealer electronically transacting options on these indexes.\19\ The
Exchange has previously stated that it

incurs higher costs for Singly Listed Options as compared to Multiply
Listed Options.\20\ The Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'') noted in a comment letter dated June 21, 2010 that CBOE
relies upon fees to, among other things, generate returns on its
investments for its own popular proprietary products (such as The CBOE
Volatility Index[supreg] (``VIX[supreg]'') Options).\21\ In addition,
the Exchange believes that the proposed fees are reasonable, equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because the fees are consistent with
price differentiation that exists today at all option exchanges. For
example, CBOE assesses different rates for certain proprietary indexes
as compared to other index products transacted at CBOE. VIX options and
The S&P 500[supreg] Index options (``SPX\SM\'') are assessed different
fees than other indexes.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The Options Transaction Charges for non-Penny Multiply
Listed Options are as follows: Customers pays $.00 per contract, a
Professional pays $.20 per contract, a Market maker pays $.23 per
contract for electronic transactions and $.25 per contract for non-
electronic transactions, a Broker-Dealer pays $.50 per contract for
electronic transactions and $.25 per contract for non-electronic
transactions and a Firm pays $.40 per contract for electronic
transactions and $.25 per contract for non-electronic transactions.
See Section II of the Fee Schedule.
    \19\ The Broker-Dealer non-Penny options transaction charge for
a Multiply Listed Option is $.50 per contract as compared to the
Broker-Dealer fee of $0.45 per contract for Singly Listed Options.
    \20\ See Securities Exchange Release Act No. 64096 (March 18,
2011), 76 FR 16646 (March 24, 2011) (SR-Phlx-2011-34).
    \21\ See CBOE's Comment Letter dated June 21, 2010 to the
Proposed Amendments to Rule 610 of Regulation NMS, File No. S7-09-
10. CBOE further noted that options exchanges expend considerable
resources on research and development related to new product
offerings and options exchanges incur large licensing costs for many
products.
    \22\ See CBOE's Fees Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal to rename the ``Fee
Schedule'' as the ``Pricing Schedule'' is reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange believes that the changing
the title to ``Pricing Schedule'' more specifically describes the fees,
rebates and other charges reflected in the document termed ``Fee
Schedule.''
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market, comprised of
nine 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. Accordingly, the fees that are
assessed by the Exchange must remain competitive with fees charged 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.

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

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

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\23\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 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-2012-35 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2012-35. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of 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-Phlx-2012-35 and should be
submitted on or before April 24, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-7914 Filed 4-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: April 9, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 68)]
[Notices]
[Page 18246]
[DOCID:fr09ap10-133]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.
Extension:
    Form S-8, OMB Control No. 3235-0066, SEC File No. 270-66.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for approval.
    Form S-8 (17 CFR 239.16b) under the Securities Act of 1933 (15
U.S.C. 77a et seq.) is the primary registration statement used by
eligible registrants to register securities to be issued in connection
with employee benefit plans. We estimate that Form S-8 takes
approximately 24 hours per response to prepare and is filed by
approximately 2,680 respondents. In addition, we estimate that 50% of
the 24 hours per response (12 hours per response) is prepared by the
filer for a total annual reporting burden of 32,160 hours (12 hours per
response x 2,680 responses).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Charles Boucher, Director/
CIO, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson, 6432
General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an e-mail to: PRA_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: April 5, 2010.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-8157 Filed 4-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P