[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 210 (Wednesday, November 3, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60719-60721]
[FR Doc No: 2021-23922]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-93447; File No. SR-Phlx-2021-66]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Pilot
To Permit the Listing and Trading of Options on the Nasdaq 100 Micro
Index

October 28, 2021.
    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 October 20, 2021, Nasdaq PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to extend the pilot to permit the listing and
trading of options based on 1/100 the value of the Nasdaq-100 Index
(``Nasdaq-100'') currently set to expire on November 4, 2021.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/phlx/rules, 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
    Phlx filed a rule change to permit the listing and trading of index
options on the Nasdaq 100 Micro Index Options (``XND'') on a pilot
basis \3\ (``Program'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 91524 (April 9,
2021), 86 FR 19909 (April 15, 2021) (SR-Phlx-2021-07) (Approval
Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    XND options trade independently of and in addition to NDX options,
and the XND options are subject to the same rules that presently govern
the trading of index options based on the Nasdaq-100 Index, including
sales practice rules, margin requirements, trading rules, and position
and exercise limits. Similar to NDX, XND options are European-style and
cash-settled, and have a contract multiplier of 100. The contract
specifications for XND options mirror in all respects those of the NDX
options contract already listed on the Exchange, except that XND
options are based on 1/100th of the value of the Nasdaq-100 Index, and
are P.M.-settled

pursuant to Options 4A, Section 12(a)(5).
    The Exchange proposes to amend Phlx Options 4A, Section 12(a)(6) to
extend the current XND pilot period to May 4, 2022. The Exchange
continues to have sufficient capacity to handle additional quotations
and message traffic associated with the listing and trading of XND
options. In addition, index options are integrated into the Exchange's
existing surveillance system architecture and are thus subject to the
relevant surveillance processes. The Exchange also continues to have
adequate surveillance procedures to monitor trading in XND options
thereby aiding in the maintenance of a fair and orderly market.
Additionally, there is continued investor interest in these products
and this extension will provide additional time to collect data related
to the pilot.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed extension of the Program
will not have an adverse impact on capacity.
Pilot Report
    The Exchange currently makes public on its website the data and
analysis previously submitted to the Commission on the Program and will
continue to make public any data or analysis it submits under the
Program in the future. The Exchange will be submitting a rule change to
request that the Program become permanent. In lieu of submitting an
annual report for 2021, the Exchange would provide additional
information requested by the Commission in connection with the
permanency rule change for this Program. The Exchange would continue to
provide the Commission with ongoing data unless and until the Program
is made permanent or discontinued.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\4\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\5\ 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. In particular, the Exchange believes
that the Program has been successful to date. The Exchange has not
encountered any problems with the Program. By extending the pilot, the
Exchange believes it will attract order flow to the Exchange, increase
the variety of listed options, and provide a valuable hedge tool to
retail and other investors. Specifically, the Exchange believes that
the pilot will provide additional trading and hedging opportunities for
investors while providing the Commission with data to monitor for and
assess any potential for adverse market effects of allowing P.M.-
settlement for XND options, including on the underlying component
stocks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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. XND options would be
available for trading to all market participants and therefore would
not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will not impose
an undue burden on inter-market competition as this rule change will
continue to facilitate the listing and trading of a new option product
that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit
of investors and the marketplace. The continued listing of XND will
enhance competition by providing investors with an additional
investment vehicle, in a fully-electronic trading environment, through
which investors can gain and hedge exposure to the Nasdaq-100.
Furthermore, this product could offer a competitive alternative to
other existing investment products that seek to allow investors to gain
broad market exposure. Finally, it is possible for other exchanges to
develop or license the use of a new or different index to compete with
the Nasdaq-100 and seek Commission approval to list and trade options
on such an index.

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

    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 for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \6\ and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \8\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \9\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that it
may immediately extend the Program prior to the current expiration date
so that the pilot may continue uninterrupted. The Commission believes
that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest as it will allow the
Program to continue uninterrupted, thereby avoiding investor confusion
that could result from a temporary interruption in the Program.
Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the operative delay and
designates the proposed rule change operative upon filing.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \10\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission also has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 change should be approved or
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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2021-66 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2021-66. 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-Phlx-2021-66, and should be submitted on
or before November 24, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-23922 Filed 11-2-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Supplemental Materials Document Title:  Passenger Crowding Stability Criteria Study Appendix 1 4 pages


Page 1 of 1 Memorandum From: Tom Born USEPA/ OW/ OST ph: ( 202) 566 1001 born. tom@ epa. gov To: 304( m) Record ( EPA Docket Number OW 2003 0074)

Date: October 10, 2003 Re: 303( d) Impaired Waters Analysis: Draft Report and the WATERS Internet based Analysis Tool Prepared by the Indus Corporation The purpose of this memorandum is to record in the EPA Docket the 303( d) impaired waters report and the WATERS Internet based analytical tool prepared by the Indus Corporation. These materials were produced by Indus for the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Water, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds ( OWOW) under Contract Number 50CMAA900048.

The following report summarizes EAD's and OWOW's activities to assess the geographic relationship between PCS dischargers and impaired waters. This report is a draft  it summarizes ongoing analyses and findings.

Effluent Guidelines Ambient Analysis, Indus, July 2003.

Indus is continuing to develop an Internet based analysis tool known as the Watershed Assessment, Tracking, and Environmental Results System ( WATERS), which integrates and indexes PCS and 303( d) data to a digital map of waterbodies throughout the conterminous United States known as the National Hydrography Dataset ( NHD). The WATERS 303( d) database contains a combination of information from the 1998 and 2000 state reporting cycles. Most information, however, is from 1998.

WATERS was used to prepare the impaired waters analyses summarized in the above referenced report, as well as to produce all of the other impaired waters analyses entered into the 304( m) docket.

WATERS can be found online at http:// www. epa. gov/ waters/.


NOTE TO DOCKET EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0286:

Summary of discussions with stakeholders on final SNAP hydrocarbon rule

From Margaret Sheppard, EPA

November 18, 2011

Between January 1 and November 15, 2011, EPA had discussions with the
following stakeholders in which development of the final hydrocarbon
rule was discussed.

The conversations covered questions about the timing of the final rule
and in some cases, questions about how issues addressed in comments
would be addressed. EPA explained that we were not able to provide
information to answer either type of question.

The stakeholders did not provide additional information to inform the
rulemaking process.

1/7/11	Charlie Hon – True Manufacturing

1/12/11	Lasse (Lars) Lykke Espersen - Nestle  and Reinhold Resch – AHT
Cooling Systems

3/22/11	Christianna Papazahariou – Shecco

6/13/11	Andrea Asch, Fabio Roberti, and Leo Aquino – Ben & Jerry’s

6/17/11	Charlie Hon – True Manufacturing

7/12/11	Tom Catania and Sean Mackay - Whirlpool

7/22/11	Charlie Hon – True Manufacturing

On or about 9/8/11	Kelly Klein - GE

9/9/11	Charlie Hon – True Manufacturing

11/3/11	Buzz Schaefer, Jony Zengari, Ray Tooey - Hussman

11/4/11	Charlie Hon – True Manufacturing

11/4/11	Andrea Asch – Ben & Jerry’s

11/4/11	Kelly Klein - GE

11/8/11	Claudette Juska, Kert Davies, Amy Larkin – Greenpeace –
additional notes provided in another entry in the docket.

 PAGE

 PAGE   4

Internal/Deliberative – Do Not Quote or Cite		  DATE \@ "M/d/yyyy"
11/18/2011  draft


[Federal Register: October 31, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 212)]
[Notices]
[Page 65002-65003]
[DOCID:fr31oc08-123]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Request Revision From the Office of
Management and Budget of a Currently Approved Information Collection
Activity, Request for Comments; Final Rule Certification of Repair
Stations, Part 145 of Title 14, CFR

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA invites public comments about our intention to request
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve a current
information collection. Certain organizations may apply to perform
certification functions on behalf of the FAA. Information is collected
from applicants who wish to obtain repair station certification.

DATES: Please submit comments by December 30, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Mauney on<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

    Title: Final Rule Certification of Repair Stations, Part 145 of
Title 14, CFR.
    Type of Request: Revision of an approved collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0682.
    Form(s): FAA Form 8310-3.
    Affected Public: A total of 4,503 Respondents.
    Frequency: The information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: Approximately 219.7 hours
per response.
    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: An estimated 2,954,227 hours
annually.
    Abstract: Information is collected from applicants who wish to
obtain repair station certification. Applicants must submit FAA form
8310-3 to the appropriate FAA flight standards district office for
review.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ms. Carla
Mauney, Room 712, Federal Aviation Administration, IT Enterprises
Business Services Division, AES-200, 800 Independence Ave., SW.,
Washington, DC 20591.
    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimates of the burden of
the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 24, 2008.
Carla Mauney,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business
Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. E8-25943 Filed 10-30-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 82 (Thursday, April 28, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25455-25456]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09902]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77695; File No. SR-BOX-2016-20]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend the Fee Schedule on the BOX Market LLC (``BOX'') Options Facility

April 22, 2016.
    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 21, 2016, BOX Options Exchange LLC (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 Exchange. The Exchange filed the
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\3\
and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal
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)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change to amend the BOX Volume Rebate
(``BVR'') in Section I.B.2 of the Fee Schedule on the BOX Market LLC
(``BOX'') options facility. The text of the proposed rule change is
available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the
Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's Internet
Web site at http://boxexchange.com.

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 the Fee Schedule for trading on BOX.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend the BOX Volume Rebate
(``BVR'') in Section I.B.2 of the Fee Schedule.
    Under the current BVR, the Exchange offers a tiered per contract
rebate for all PIP Orders and COPIP Orders of 100 contracts and under
that do not trade solely with their contra order. These PIP and COPIP
executions are awarded a per contract rebate calculated on a monthly
basis by totaling the Participant's PIP and COPIP volume submitted to
BOX, relative to the total national Customer volume in multiply-listed
options classes.
    The current per contract rebate for Participants in PIP and COPIP
Transactions under the BVR is:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Percentage thresholds     Per contract rebate (all
                    of national customer          account types)
       Tier         volume in multiply-  -------------------------------
                       listed options
                     classes (monthly)          PIP            COPIP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................  0.000% to 0.159%.....         ($0.00)         ($0.00)
2................  0.160 to 0.339.......          (0.04)          (0.02)
3................  0.340 to 0.99........          (0.11)          (0.04)
4................  1.00 and Above.......          (0.14)          (0.06)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to introduce an additional rebate in the BVR.
Specifically, PIP Orders and COPIP Orders of 100 and under contracts
that trade solely with their contra order will receive a $0.05 per
contract rebate, regardless of tier.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and Section
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\5\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among BOX Participants and other persons using its facilities
and does not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers
or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes the proposed amendment to the BVR is
reasonable, equitable and non-discriminatory. The BVR was adopted to
attract Public Customer order flow to the Exchange by offering these
Participants incentives to submit their PIP and COPIP Orders to the
Exchange. The Exchange believes it is reasonable and appropriate to
adjust the BVR to provide additional incentives for Public Customers,
which will result in greater liquidity and ultimately benefit all
Participants trading on the Exchange.
    The Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable and non-
discriminatory to introduce a flat $0.05 rebate in the BVR for PIP
Orders and COPIP Orders of 100 and under contracts that trade solely
with their contra order. The Exchange recently amended the BVR to
restrict the tiered per contract rebates in the BVR to only those PIP
and COPIP Orders of 100 and under contracts that do not trade solely
with their contra order.\6\ The Exchange now believes it is reasonable
to instead give those orders a flat $0.05 rebate, regardless of tier.
The BVR is intended to incentivize Participants to direct Customer
order flow to the Exchange, and while the Exchange believes that the
potentially higher BVR rebate tiers are not necessary for internalized
PIP Orders that only trade against their contra order, a flat $0.05
rebate is the appropriate incentive for these orders. The Exchange also
believes that a flat $0.05 rebate for internalized COPIP Orders that
only trade against their contra order is a reasonable incentive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See SR-BOX-2106-17 [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange believes the proposed rebate is equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory because Participants are eligible to
receive a rebate provided they meet the order type requirements.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes the
proposed fee change is reasonably designed to enhance competition in
BOX transactions, particularly auction transactions.
    The proposed rule change amends the BVR to provide a flat rebate
for PIP or COPIP Order [sic] that trade solely with their contra order.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed change burdens
competition and will instead help promote competition by providing
additional incentives for market participants to submit customer order
flow to BOX and thus, create a greater opportunity for retail customers
to receive additional price improvement.

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 Exchange Act \7\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\8\ because it establishes or changes a due, or fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the rule
change if it appears to the Commission that the action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
would otherwise further 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.

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-BOX-2016-20 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-BOX-2016-20. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2016-20, and should be
submitted on or before May 19, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-09902 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


1 Amitraz Risk Assessment Overview Introduction This document summarizes EPA's human health and environmental fate risk findings for the pesticide amitraz. These findings are presented fully in the HED human health risk assessment document " Amitraz: Human Health Risk Assessment" dated April 29, 2004; and the EFED water assessment document " Revised Amitraz Drinking Water Assessment for Tolerance Reassessment Eligibility Decision ( TRED)", dated May 1, 2004.

In a recent letter to the Agency, Bayer CropScience ( BCS) requested cancellation for the wettable powder ( WP) registrations of Ovasyn Insecticide/ Miticide ( EPA Reg. No. 264 625) and Mitac W Insecticide ( EPA Reg. No. 264 636). The registrant also requested to revoke established tolerances for apples, beeswax, cotton ( US cotton registration is being voluntarily revoked), honey, and pears, but to maintain import tolerances for hops and cottonseed.

In response to the request by the registrant to voluntarily withdraw certain registrations and revoke tolerances of various commodities, the Agency published a 6( f) notice relative to their request. A 30 day public comment period was published and no comments were received. Therefore, a cancellation order will be issued in the near term effectively cancelling registrations ( EPA No. 264 625 and 264 636) and proposing tolerance revocation for apples, beeswax, cotton, honey, and pears. Herein, all references of risk associated with amitraz will be attributed to those registrations for use on beef and dairy cattle, swine and dogs.

The purpose of this overview is to assist the reader in understanding the conclusions reached in the risk assessments by identifying the key features and findings of each.

Use Profile $ Insecticide: Amitraz is an insecticide/ acaricide with registered food/ feed uses in the U. S. on beef and dairy cattle, and hogs. However, as previously noted, the registrant has requested to revoke all tolerances for Section 3 registrations except for beef and dairy cattle and hogs as well as import tolerances for hops and cottonseed. Amitraz is also registered for use on dogs. 2 $ Targeted Pest: Registered products containing amitraz are intended for application on beef cattle, dairy cattle and swine for mite, tick and lice management and for tick and flea control on dogs.

$ Formulations: Amitraz is formulated as an emulsifiable concentrate ( 12.5 percent active ingredient), 1.5 lb/ gal soluble concentrate ( SC), and impregnated collars ( 9 percent active ingredient). The emulsifiable concentrate ( EC) formulations are registered for use on cattle and swine as dermal treatments. The impregnated collars are registered for use on dogs. Amitraz was previously registered as a wettable powder ( 50 and 19.8 percent active ingredient) for use on pears and cotton, but has since been voluntarily cancelled.

$ Method of Application: For mite, tick and lice management on beef and dairy cattle, the EC formulation ( Taktic E. C.) may be applied twice as a 0.05% a. i. spray, with a 7 day retreatment interval and no pre slaughter interval ( PSI). For use on swine, Taktic E. C. is not to be applied within three days of slaughter, and swine are to be treated no more than four times per year. For amitraz use on beef cattle, dairy cattle and swine, the following application methods are suggested: 1) cattle applied via spraying or by a spray dip machine, 2) swine applied via spraying, and 3) piglets/ weaners applied by dipping.

For dogs, the tick and flea collars ( Preventic and Preventic Plus), can be applied every three months in dogs more than 12 weeks of age.

$ Use Summary: Based on Agency data, the total annual usage of amitraz on livestock is 10,000 pounds per year with 7,000 pounds accounted for by livestock ( includes hogs) whereby beef and dairy cattle account for the remaining 3,000 pounds of usage. The annual average of nonagricultural usage of amitraz is estimated at 4,000 pounds a. i. and is used solely for control of fleas and ticks on dogs.

$ Technical Registrant: Bayer CropScience. 3 Human Health Risk Assessment The toxicology database for Amitraz is inadequate, due to the presence of several major data gaps. The available studies are not of the most current quality; however, sufficient data may be collected from them for use in an assessment of risk to human health. The toxicity profile for Amitraz cannot be completely characterized for all effects, especially those relating to developmental, reproductive and neurotoxic effects.

Amitraz is not stable in the diet and the current toxicological endpoints for risk assessment are based on a capsule or bolus dose study. The dermal and inhalation endpoints are also based on the capsule study ( see Table 1 below). Humans are more likely to be exposed to the parent via the dermal and inhalation and non dietary oral routes associated with livestock and pet uses rather than dietary exposures.

Table 1: SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGY ENDPOINT SELECTION Summary of Toxicological Dose and Endpoints for Amitraz Exposure Scenario Dose Used in Risk Assessment, UF Special FQPA SF* and Level of Concern for Risk Assessment Study and Toxicological Effects Acute Dietary ( General population including infants and children) NOAEL = 0.25 mg/ kg/ day UF = 1000 Acute RfD = 0.00025 mg/ kg/ day FQPA SF = 1 aPAD = acute RfD FQPA SF = 0.00025 mg/ kg/ day Chronic oral study in the dog ( capsule) LOAEL = 1.0 mg/ kg/ day based on CNS depression during the first two days of dosing.

Chronic Dietary ( All populations) NOAEL= 0.25 mg/ kg/ day UF = 1000 Chronic RfD = 0.00025 mg/ kg/ day FQPA SF = 1 cPAD = chronic RfD FQPA SF = 0.00025 mg/ kg/ day Chronic oral study in the dog ( capsule) LOAEL = 1.0 mg/ kg/ day based on CNS depression during the first two days of dosing.

Short and Intermediate  Term Incidental Oral ( 1 30 days and 1 6 months) NOAEL= 0.25 mg/ kg/ day Residential LOC MOE = 1000 Occupational = NA Chronic oral study in the dog ( capsule) LOAEL = 1.0 mg/ kg/ day based on CNS depression during the first two days of dosing. Exposure Scenario Dose Used in Risk Assessment, UF Special FQPA SF* and Level of Concern for Risk Assessment Study and Toxicological Effects 4 Dermal ( All Durations) Oral NOAEL= 0.25 mg/ kg/ day ( dermal absorption rate 8%) Residential LOC MOE = 1000 Occupational LOC MOE = 100 Chronic oral study in the dog ( capsule) LOAEL = 1.0 mg/ kg/ day based on CNS depression during the first two days of dosing.

Inhalation ( All Durations) Oral NOAEL= 0.25 mg/ kg/ day ( inhalation absorption rate = 100%) Residential LOC MOE = 1000 Occupational LOC MOE = 100 Chronic oral study in the dog ( capsule) LOAEL = 1.0 mg/ kg/ day based on CNS depression during the first two days of dosing.

Cancer ( oral, dermal, inhalation) Q1* = 2.83 x 10 2 Group: C Combined hepatocellular adenomas and carcinomas in female mice.

UF = uncertainty factor, FQPA SF = Special FQPA safety factor, NOAEL = no observed adverse effect level, LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect level, PAD = population adjusted dose ( a = acute, c = chronic) RfD = reference dose, MOE = margin of exposure, LOC = level of concern, NA = Not Applicable NOTE: The Special FQPA Safety Factor recommended by the HIARC assumes that the exposure databases ( dietary food, drinking water, and residential) are complete and that the risk assessment for each potential exposure scenario includes all metabolites and/ or degradates of concern and does not underestimate the potential risk for infants and children.

The Hazard Identification Assessment Review Committee ( HIARC) determined that the special FQPA safety factor should be reduced to 1X; however, a 10X database uncertainty factor ( UF DB) is required due to an incomplete database ( i. e. lack of acceptable rabbit developmental toxicity and two generation reproduction studies). Based on the weight of evidence presented, there is concern for potential reproductive effects and neurotoxicity in developing fetuses. Therefore, the Agency is requiring a combined 2 generation reproduction study in the rat with components assessing for potential developmental and adult neurotoxicity.

The 10X UF DB is applied to dietary ( acute and chronic) and non dietary/ residential ( incidental oral, dermal and inhalation) risk assessments because the required studies may provide endpoints applicable for risk assessments. Therefore, a total UF of 1000 has been applied to all dietary and residential risk assessments.

Acute Dietary ( Food) Risk Acute dietary risk is calculated considering the toxicity of a chemical, what is eaten by individuals in one day and residue values for various foods. A risk estimate that is less than 100% of the acute Population Adjusted Dose ( aPAD) ( the dose at which an individual could be exposed on any given day and no adverse health effects would be expected) does not exceed the Agency's risk concern. 5 Refined probabilistic acute risk assessment was conducted using the Lifeline Model ( Version 2.0) which uses food consumption data from the United States Department of Agriculture's ( USDA's). Continuing Surveys of Food Intakes by Individuals ( CSFII) from 1994 1996 and 1998. Acute exposure estimates were based on data from dermal metabolism studies provided by the registrant and percent crop treated provided by the Biological and Economic Analysis Division ( BEAD).

° Acute dietary risks, using Lifeline   Model, are above HED's level of concern for children 1 2 yrs ( 186% of aPAD, 0.000465 mg/ kg/ day) and children 3 5 years old ( 170% of aPAD, 0.000425 mg/ kg/ day) at the 99.9th percentile of exposure. For all other populations, exposure was below 65% of the aPAD at the 99.9th percentile.

° Even though beef and pork provide relatively low exposure, milk continues to provide exposure at the 99.9th percentile even with the low percent crop treated due to the application of residues to the three milk components ( water, fat, non fat solids), and the relatively high percent of toddlers that consume milk.

Chronic and Cancer Dietary ( Food) Risk Chronic dietary risk is calculated by using the average consumption value for food and average residue values on those foods over a 70 year lifetime. A risk estimate that is less than 100% of the chronic RfD ( the dose at which an individual could be exposed over the course of a lifetime and no adverse health effects would be expected) does not exceed the Agency's risk concern. Estimated chronic dietary risk is below the Agency's level of concern for all populations (< 1% of cPAD). The estimated exposure to all populations to amitraz is < 0.000001 mg/ kg/ day for both dietary risk assessment models. Applying the Q 1* of 2.83 x 10 2 ( mg/ kg/ day) 1 to the exposure value results in a cancer risk estimate of 2.8 x 10 8. Therefore, estimated cancer dietary risk from food alone is below the Agency's level of concern.

Drinking Water Dietary Risk Drinking water exposure to pesticides can occur through groundwater and surface water contamination. EPA considers both acute ( one day) and chronic ( multiple year) drinking water risks, and uses either modeling or actual monitoring data, if available, to estimate those risks. Modeling is carried out in tiers of further refinement, but is designed to provide a high end estimate of exposure. To determine the maximum allowable contribution from water allowed in the diet, EPA first calculates the overall allowable risk and subtracts the amount contributed by food to determine a " drinking water level of comparison" ( DWLOC). This is then compared to estimated concentrations in water to ascertain whether modeled or monitoring levels in water exceed this level of risk. 6 Surface water EEC: Typical Estimate: Peak Concentration = 0.1 ppb; Annual Average Concentration = 0.0006 ppb Groundwater EEC: Typical = 0.000009 ppb The assessment assumed 30 percent of the U. S. production volume for use on swine is used in a single watershed in North Carolina. Based on the assumption that all amitraz would be used in this watershed, the " typical" scenario may represent the most probable use scenario and would likely exceed monitoring data on a annual average basis. This assumption is based on the short half life of the compound in the natural environment, the reactive nature of the compound in acidic environments typical of the Southeast, and a substantial portion of the product must remain on the target site in order to be effective.

Amitraz is classified as a Group C possible human carcinogen and it has a Q* of 2.83 x 10 2. Estimated cancer dietary risk from food and water is below HED's level of concern.

Residential Risk The Health Effects Division ( HED) considers the residential risk assessment to be based on highend estimates of exposure generated from screening level procedures outlined in the SOPs for Residential Exposure Assessment ( U. S. EPA, 1997, 1999). As such, the risk estimates associated with pet collars are conservative; thereby, largely driven by default assumptions and uncertainties in the toxicity database.

Although there is potential exposure risk for residential handler scenarios, EPA has decided to focus on post application scenarios.

Post Application Risk Estimates The most significant exposure of concern is for residential post application via current registered uses. These exposures are of longer duration and can potentially affect more sensitive residents such as infants and children. As such, risks were estimated for post application dermal exposures of adults, and dermal and incidental oral exposures of children for non cancer effects, and cancer effects from dermal exposures of adults, only.

The toxicological endpoints of concern ( for short and intermediate term dermal and inhalation 7 exposures, and incidental exposures) are a NOAEL of 0.25 mg/ kg/ day with a LOAEL of 1.0 mg/ kg/ day. These were selected from a chronic oral study based on CNS depression during the first two days of dosing. A dermal absorption factor of 8.0% is applied for dermal exposure for route to route extrapolation.

The unit risk, Q 1 * ( mg/ kg/ day) 1, of Amitraz based upon female mouse liver combined adenoma and carcinoma tumor rates is 2.83 x 10 2 in human equivalents. Intermediate term dermal and oral MOEs were calculated for the risk assessment. A target MOE of 1000 is considered adequate for intermediate term residential exposure via dermal and oral routes. HED also estimated dermal postapplication cancer risks for adults ( See Tables 2& 3 below).

All post application scenarios resulted in MOEs which exceed HED's level of concern ( See Table 2 below).

Table 2: Residential Post Application Intermediate Term Risk Estimates Resident Dog Related Activity EADD * ( mg/ kg/ day) MOE Toddler hugging 0.011 22 Toddler hand to mouth 0.0038 65 Adult hugging 0.007 35 * EADD = Estimated Absorbed Dermal Dose MOE = NOAEL ( 0.25 mg/ kg/ day)/ Estimated Absorbed Dermal Dose Table 3: Residential Post Application Carcinogenic Risk Assessment Over a Lifetime Estimated Lifetime of Treated Dog Estimated Absorbed Daily Dosea ( mg/ kg/ day) Amortization LADDb ( mg/ kg/ day) Carcinogenic Riskc ( mg/ kg/ day) # of Days Exposed / Year Years of lifetime ( 70 yrs)

10 years 0.007 365 10/ 70 0. 001 2.8 e  5 20 years 0.007 365 20/ 70 0.002 5.6 e  5 a. Estimated Absorbed Daily Dermal Dose is from Table 2. b. LADD ( lifetime average daily dose) = ( absorbed dermal dose) x ( number of days exposed/ 365days) x ( number of years of pet ownership/ 70 year lifetime) c. Carcinogenic Risk = ( LADD)*( Q 1 *), where the Q 1 *, is 2.83 x 10E 2 ( mg/ kg/ day) 1 8 Aggregate Risk Acute aggregate risk estimates will not be conducted since the dietary acute risk exceeds HEDs level of concern. Short and Intermediate Term and cancer aggregate risk estimates will not be conducted since the post application residential exposure scenarios exceed HED's level of concern.

Chronic aggregate risk estimates associated with exposure to amitraz residues in food and water do not exceed HED's level of concern. The chronic risk estimates are below the Agency's level of concern for the general U. S. population and all population subgroups Occupational Risk Short Term and Intermediate Term Handler Risks Although HED considers the residential handler scenario as having potential exposure risk, the most significant exposure of concern is for post application scenarios as these exposures are of longer duration and potentially affect more sensitive residents including infants and children. Therefore the risk assessment primarily focuses on residential post application exposures only, and does not address residential handlers.

Summary of Pending Data Toxicology 870.3700: Prenatal developmental toxicity study in rabbits 870.3800: A two generation reproduction study which should be MODIFIED to include:

° Due to the concern for the lack of stability of the test material in the diet, treatment should be via oral ( gavage) administration. ° The potential for neurotoxicity in the developing fetuses should be evaluated according to the OPPTS Guideline § 870.6300. ° The potential for neurotoxicity in adults should be evaluated according to the OPPTS Guideline § 870.6200.

Product Chemistry 830.7050: UV/ Visible absorption ° Data are required for the UV/ absorption of the PAI ( Bayer CropScience 97% T). 9 Residue Chemistry Provided that the registered uses on cotton and pears are cancelled, there are no residue chemistry deficiencies pertaining to amitraz reregistration. Additionally, the registrant has indicated that they would like to keep the cotton tolerance as an import tolerance.

The registrant will need to submit a formal request to the Agency for establishment of the cottonseed tolerance as an import tolerance, and information about the use pattern in foreign countries, and residue data from those countries in order to support the request.

Non Dietary Exposure 875.2400 Dermal Exposure Study Non Guideline Dog Fur Residue Study


Name:           NORMAN HARGREAVES
Title:
Organization:   TEREX
Date:           20030307
Address1:
Address2:
City:           CONWAY
State:          SC
Zip Code:       29526
Docket Number:  S030
Exhibit Number: 7-9
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Safety Standards for Cranes and Derricks

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is planning to establish a Crane and Derrick Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee (C-DAC) under the Negotiated Rulemaking Act (NRA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The Committee will include representatives of parties who would be significantly affected by the final rule.

On July 16, 2002, OSHA published a Federal Register notice of intent to establish a negotiated rulemaking committee (67 FR 46612) and requested nominations for membership. In the current Federal Register notice OSHA is asking for comments on the proposed list of fifty-five nominations.  The list can be found in the complete notice.

Please note that you may not attach materials such as studies or journal articles to your electronic comments. If you wish to include such materials, you must submit three copies to the OSHA Docket Office at the address listed above. When submitting such materials to the OSHA Docket Office, clearly identify your electronic comments by name, date, subject, and Docket Number, so that we can attach the materials to your electronic comments.

Online comments must be received by March 31, 2003 COB EST.  If you wish to commit online on the proposed list of Committee members, please enter your submission in the box below.  Thank you for your interest in worker safety and health.

This is not a well balanced committee. There is no Hydraulic Telescoping Boom Crane manufacturer on the committee. That is a major problem with the current standard, it does not cover these cranes. There is no independent crane training representitive. If the purpose of this committee is to protect the safety of workers I suggest that James Headley of Crane Institute of America be included. He,in my opinion, is truly committed to enhancing safety. You should read his book on crane operation.