[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 33 (Tuesday, February 21, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11290-11293]
[FR Doc No: 2017-03302]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80037; File No. SR-CBOE-2017-014]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Related to
Rule 24.9(e)

February 14, 2017.
    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 February 13, 2017, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange seeks to amend Rule 24.9(e). The text of the proposed
rule change is provided below (additions are italicized; deletions are
[bracketed]).
* * * * *

Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated Rules

* * * * *

Rule 24.9. Terms of Index Option Contracts

    (a)-(d) No change.
    (e) Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Program
    (1) Weekly Expirations. The Exchange may open for trading Weekly
Expirations on any broad-based index eligible for standard options
trading to expire on any Monday, Wednesday, or Friday (other than the
third Friday-of-the-month or days that coincide with an EOM
expiration). Weekly Expirations shall be subject to all provisions of
this Rule and treated the same as options on the same underlying index
that expire on the third Friday of the expiration month; provided,
however, that Weekly Expirations shall be P.M.-settled and new series
in Weekly Expirations may be added up to and including on the
expiration date for an expiring Weekly Expiration.
    The maximum number of expirations that may be listed for each
Weekly Expiration (i.e., a Monday expiration, Wednesday expiration, or
Friday expiration, as applicable) in a given class is the same as the
maximum number of expirations permitted in Rule 24.9 (a)(2) for
standard options on the same broad-based index. [Other than expirations
that are third Friday-of-the-month or that coincide with an EOM
expiration,] Weekly Expirations [shall] need not be for consecutive
Monday, Wednesday, or Friday expirations as applicable; however, the
expiration date of a non-consecutive expiration may not be beyond what
would be considered the last expiration date if the maximum number of
expirations were listed consecutively. Weekly Expirations that are
first listed in a given class may expire up to four weeks from the
actual listing date. If the last trading day of a month is a Monday,
Wednesday, or Friday and the Exchange lists EOMs and Weekly Expirations
as applicable in a given class, the Exchange will list an EOM instead
of a Weekly Expiration in the given class. Other expirations in the
same class are not counted as part of the maximum number of Weekly
Expirations for a broad-based index class. If the Exchange is not open
for business on a respective Monday, the normally Monday expiring
Weekly Expirations will expire on the following business day. If the
Exchange is not open for business on a respective Wednesday or Friday,
the normally Wednesday or Friday expiring Weekly Expirations will
expire on the previous business day.
    (2) End of Month (``EOM'') Expirations. The Exchange may open for
trading EOMs on any broad-based index eligible for standard options
trading to expire on last trading day of the month. EOMs shall be
subject to all provisions of this Rule and treated the same as options
on the same underlying index that expire on the third Friday of the
expiration month; provided, however, that EOMs shall be P.M.-settled
and new series in EOMs may be added up to and including on the
expiration date for an expiring EOM.
    The maximum number of expirations that may be listed for EOMs in a
given class is the same as the maximum number of expirations permitted
in Rule 24.9 (a)(2) for standard options on the same broad-based index.
EOM expirations [shall] need not be for consecutive end of month
expirations; however, the expiration date of a non-consecutive
expiration may not be beyond what would be considered the last
expiration date if the maximum number of expirations were listed
consecutively. EOMs that are first listed in a given class may expire
up to four weeks from the actual listing date. Other expirations in the
same class are not counted as part of the maximum numbers of EOM
expirations for a broad-based index class.
    (3) Duration of Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Program. The
Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Program shall be through May 3, 2017.
    (4) Weekly Expirations and EOM Trading Hours on the Last Trading
Day. On the last trading day, transactions in expiring Weekly
Expirations and EOMs may be effected on the Exchange between the hours
of 8:30 a.m. (Chicago time) and 3:00 p.m. (Chicago time).
* * * * *
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    On September 14, 2010, the Commission approved a CBOE proposal to
establish a pilot program under which the Exchange is permitted to list
P.M.-settled options on broad-based indexes to expire on (a) any Friday
of the month, other than the third Friday-of-the-month (``EOWs''), and
(b) the last trading day of the month (``EOM'').\3\ On January 14,
2016, the Commission approved a CBOE proposal to expand the pilot
program to list P.M.-settled options on broad-based indexes that expire
on any Wednesday of the month (``WEDs'') and to rename the End of Week/
End of Month Expirations Pilot Program to the Nonstandard Expirations

Pilot Program.\4\ On August 10, 2016, the Commission approved a CBOE
proposal to expand the pilot program to list P.M.-settled options on
broad-based indexes that expire on any Monday of the month
(``MONs'').\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62911 (September 14,
2010), 75 FR 57539 (September 21, 2010) (order approving SR-CBOE-
2009-075).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76909 (January 14,
2016), 81 FR 3512 (January 21, 2016) (order approving SR-CBOE-2015-
106).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78531 (August 10,
2016), 81 FR 54643 (August 16, 2016) (order approving SR-CBOE-2016-
046).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, other than expirations that are third Friday-of-the-
month or that coincide with an EOM expiration, Weekly Expirations
(i.e., MONs, WEDs, and EOWs) must be for consecutive Monday, Wednesday,
or Friday expirations as applicable.\6\ Similarly, EOM expirations must
be for consecutive end of months.\7\ The purpose of this filing is to
eliminate the consecutive expiration restriction for the listing of
Weekly Expirations and EOMs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Rule 24.9(e)(1).
    \7\ See Rule 24.9(e)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The maximum number of expirations that may be listed for each
Weekly Expiration (i.e., a Monday expiration, Wednesday expiration, or
Friday expiration, as applicable) and EOM in a given class is the same
as the maximum number of expirations permitted in Rule 24.9(a)(2) for
standard options on the same broad-based index.\8\ Thus, for Weekly
Expirations and EOM expirations in the SPX options class (which trade
under the symbol SPXW), the MONs, WEDs, EOWs, and EOMs each may have 12
expirations (i.e. a total of 48 expirations in all four programs).\9\
However, the Exchange does not currently exercise its discretion to
list all 12 expirations in each Weekly Expiration and EOM program--
opting instead to introduce additional expirations as customer demand
dictates. Typically, the Exchange lists four MONs, six WEDs, and seven
EOWs in SPXW options.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Rules 24.9(e)(1) and (2).
    \9\ See Rule 24.9(a)(2) (specifying that the Exchange may list
up to 12 standard monthly expirations at any one time for any class
that the Exchange (as the Reporting Authority) uses to calculate a
volatility index). The Exchange uses the SPX class to calculate a
volatility index; thus, pursuant to Rules 24.9(e)(1) and (2), the
MONs, WEDs, EOWs, and EOMs each may have 12 expirations.
    \10\ See CBOE Regulatory Circulars RG16-053 (extending SPXW WEDs
to four expirations and reducing SPXW EOWs to seven expirations) and
RG16-157 (expanding SPXW WEDs to six expirations and SPXW MONs to
four expirations). Although RG16-157 indicates that there are five
SPXW Monday Expirations, the October 31, 2016 expiration with a
listing date of May 2, 2016 is technically an EOM expiration listed
pursuant to the EOM program and should not have been identified as
being listed pursuant to the Weekly Expirations program. See Rule
24.9(e)(1) and (2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has received repeated customer interest to list Weekly
Expirations and EOMs that expire in the mid-term (as opposed to long-
term expirations contemplated by Long-Term Index Option Series
(``LEAPS'') \11\ and short-term expirations that are encompassed by the
Exchange's current listing schedule to include four MONs, six WEDs, and
seven EOWs in SPXW) in order to utilize SPXW options to provide a
financial hedge for impactful economic events, such as domestic and
international elections. In order to meet customer demand and continue
to effectively manage the listing process, the Exchange is seeking the
ability to list Weekly Expirations and EOMs non-consecutively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Rule 24.9(e). LEAPS expire from 12 to 180 months from
the date of issuance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the Exchange is able to add additional expirations (up
to 12 expirations as noted above) in one or more of the Weekly
Expirations; however, customer demand for SPXW listings exceeds the
Exchange's current listing practices of maintaining four MONs, six
WEDs, and seven EOWs in SPXW and often beyond 12 expirations. More
importantly, the customer demand is for expirations near a certain
future economically impactful event (e.g., a national election)--not
every expiration between the current date and that particular event.
Thus, instead of listing all 12 EOWs, for example, to reach a certain
event, the Exchange believes the marketplace would be better served by
allowing the Exchange to list EOWs (or the other Weekly Expirations or
EOMs) non-consecutively because listing expirations non-consecutively
allows the Exchange to list fewer expirations (particularly those with
less customer demand), limiting potential burdens on liquidity
providers to quote in the relevant option classes. Listing expirations
non-consecutively also allows the Exchange to use its considerable
experience to list expirations that will offer all market participants
the ability to use SPXW options, for example, to hedge a future
economic event. Simply put, as with the expansion of the Pilot to MONs
and WEDs, non-consecutive expirations will expand hedging tools
available to market participants and allow market participants to
tailor their investment or hedging needs more effectively.
    Although this proposal gives the Exchange the ability to list
expirations non-consecutively, the proposal is narrowly tailored as it
only applies to the Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Program (i.e., Weekly
Expirations and EOMs), which may only include broad-based index options
eligible for standard options trading. In fact, the Exchange currently
only lists Nonstandard Expirations in three classes: S&P 500 Index
options under symbol SPXW, CBOE Mini S&P 500 Index options under symbol
XSP, and Russell 2000 Index options under symbol RUTW. Furthermore, the
Exchange only lists MONs and WEDs in SPXW; EOWs in SPXW, RUTW, and XSP;
and EOMs in SPXW and RUTW. Thus, nearly every options class will remain
unaffected by this proposal. Even within the Nonstandard Expirations
program, the Exchange believes the vast majority of expirations will
continue to be listed consecutively because the majority of trading
interest is in the nearer term weeks. More importantly, however, as an
expiration that was originally listed non-consecutively gets closer to
expiration, the particular expiration falls in line with the exchange's
regular listing schedule. For example, if the Exchange regularly has
seven EOWs listed consecutively, with each passing week one of the
listings expires and another expiration is added. In this way, as the
weeks pass, any expiration that is added non-consecutively (in this
case the eighth expiration) will eventually become the seventh
expiration and thus become a consecutive expiration.
    Additionally, the Exchange notes that the proposal will not affect
the total expirations for MONs, WEDs, EOWs, or EOMs. The maximum number
of expirations that may be listed for each Weekly Expiration (i.e., a
Monday expiration, Wednesday expiration, or Friday expiration, as
applicable) and EOMs in a given class will continue to be the same as
the maximum number of expirations permitted in Rule 24.9(a)(2) for
standard options on the same broad-based index.\12\ As previously
noted, in SPXW, the maximum number of expirations is 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See e.g., Rules 24.9(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also notes that the proposal will not affect the
maximum duration (i.e., the maximum time from listing to expiration) of
Weekly Expirations or EOMs. For example, under the current rule, if the
exchange were to list all 12 WEDs in SPXW, the 12th WED expiration
would expire 11 weeks from the nearest term expiration (assuming, for
example, there are no EOMs that coincide with the WEDs in SPXW).\13\ To
further illustrate the

current rule, assume that on Monday February 6, 2017, the nearest term
WED expiration in SPXW expires on February 8, 2017. Also assume the
Exchange lists all 12 WEDs in SPXW. In this example, the 12th
expiration would expire on April 26, 2017. In order to ensure that this
proposal does not affect the maximum duration of the expirations, the
Exchange proposes to specify in Rule 24.9(e)(1) and (2) that the
expiration date of a non-consecutive expiration may not be beyond what
would be considered the last expiration date if the maximum number of
expirations were listed consecutively. Under the proposed rule (as with
the current rule), the April 26th expiration in the above example is
the farthest expiration that could be listed. The only difference
between the current rule and this proposal is that under the current
rule the exchange would have to list all 12 expirations in order to
list the April 26th expiration in the above example, and under the
proposed rule the Exchange would be able to list the April 26th
expiration without the requirement to, for example, list the April 19th
expiration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ As stated in Rule 24.9(e)(1) if the last trading day of a
month is a Monday, Wednesday, or Friday and the Exchange lists EOMs
and Weekly Expirations as applicable in a given class, the Exchange
will list an EOM instead of a Weekly Expiration in the given class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The annual Pilot report provided to the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') will include any Weekly Expirations and
EOMs, regardless of whether the expirations are listed consecutively or
non-consecutively.
    In sum, the proposal will allow market participants to better plan
for future economic events; will allow market participants to tailor
their investment or hedging needs more effectively; will allow the
Exchange to list expirations in a way that limits potential burdens on
liquidity providers quoting in the affected classes; does not increase
the allowable number of total expirations for Nonstandard Expirations;
and is narrowly tailored to apply only to the Nonstandard Expiration
Pilot Program (in which only three classes currently participate).
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\14\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \15\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, 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. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \16\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes the Nonstandard Expirations
Pilot has been successful to date and that allowing non-consecutive
expirations will simply expand the ability of investors to hedge risks
against market movements stemming from future economic events, which in
general, helps to protect investors and the public interest. Similarly,
the Exchange believes non-consecutive expirations will create greater
trading and hedging opportunities and flexibility, and provide
customers with the ability to more closely tailor their investment
objectives. The Exchange also believe that the proposal will allow the
Exchange to list expirations in a way that limits potential burdens on
liquidity providers quoting in the affected classes, which helps remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system.

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

    CBOE 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. Specifically, the Exchange does
not believe the proposal will impose any burden on intramarket
competition as all market participants will be treated in the same
manner. Any perceived burden on Market-Makers is unfounded as the
proposal does not increase the total number of expirations that can be
listed under the Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Program. In fact, the
proposal may alleviate potential burdens on Market-Makers quoting in
the affected classes as listing non-consecutively allows the Exchange
to avoid listing expirations that are in less demand. Additionally, the
Exchange does not believe the proposal will impose any burden on
intermarket competition because the proposed rule change relates solely
to the listing of series pursuant to a CBOE pilot program, and market
participants on other exchanges are welcome to become Trading Permit
Holders and trade at CBOE if they determine that this proposed rule
change has made CBOE more attractive or favorable. Finally, although
the majority of the Exchange's broad-based index options are
exclusively-listed at CBOE, all options exchanges are free to compete
by listing and trading their own broad-based index options with Weekly
Expirations and EOM expirations.

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

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

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2017-014 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-CBOE-2017-014. This file
number should be included on the

subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and
review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The
Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site
(http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all
subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the
proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all
written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-CBOE-2017-014, and should be submitted on or before
March 14, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-03302 Filed 2-17-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


 -Nominating Party: The United States of America

FILE NAME: USA CUN13 Soil ORCHARD rEPLANT Open Field

Brief descriptive Title of Nomination:

Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nomination for Preplant Soil Use for Orchard
Replant in Open Fields (Submitted in 2011 for the 2013 Use Season)

Crop name (open field or protected): Orchard Replant Open Field

Quantity of methyl bromide Nominated:

Year	Nomination Amount

2013	6,230 kg

NOMINATING PARTY CONTACT DETAILS:

Contact Person:	John Thompson

Title:	Division Director

Address:	Office of Environmental Policy

	U.S. Department of State

	2201 C Street, N.W. Room 2658

	Washington, D.C. 20520

	U.S.A.

Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

E-mail:	  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Following the requirements of Decision IX/6 paragraph (a)(1) The United
States of America has determined that the specific use detailed in this
Critical Use Nomination is critical because the lack of availability of
methyl bromide for this use would result in a significant market
disruption.     . ( Yes       ( No

Signature			       	Name					Date

Title:

(Details on this page are requested under Decision Ex. I/4(7), for
posting on the Ozone Secretariat website under Decision Ex. I/4(8).)

This form is to be used by holders of single-year exemptions to reapply
for a subsequent year’s exemption (for example, a Party holding a
single-year exemption for 2005 and/or 2006 seeking further exemptions
for 2007).  It does not replace the format for requesting a critical-use
exemption for the first time.

In assessing nominations submitted in this format, TEAP and MBTOC will
also refer to the original nomination on which the Party’s first-year
exemption was approved, as well as any supplementary information
provided by the Party in relation to that original nomination.  As this
earlier information is retained by MBTOC, a Party need not re-submit
that earlier information.

CONTACT OR EXPERT(S) FOR FURTHER TECHNICAL DETAILS:

Contact/Expert Person:	Jack Housenger

Title:	Director

Address:	Biological and Economic Analysis Division

	Office of Pesticide Programs

	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

	1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Mailcode 7503P

	Washington, D.C. 20460

	U.S.A.

Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

LIST OF DOCUMENTS SENT TO THE OZONE SECRETARIAT IN OFFICIAL NOMINATION
PACKAGE:

1.  PAPER DOCUMENTS:

Title of paper documents and appendices	No. of pages	Date sent to Ozone
Secretariat

2.  ELECTRONIC COPIES OF ALL PAPER DOCUMENTS:

*Title of each electronic file (for naming convention see notes above)
No. of kilobytes 	Date sent to Ozone Secretariat

USA CUN13 Soil orchard replant Open Field

* Identical to paper documents

METHYL BROMIDE CRITICAL USE RENOMINATION FOR Preplant Soil Use (OPEN
FIELD OR PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT)

ORCHARD REPLANT

SUMMARY OF THE NEED FOR METHYL BROMIDE AS A CRITICAL USE

The U.S. nomination for critical use of methyl bromide for orchard
replant in 2013 is for a portion of replant sites in California where
alternatives are not suitable, either because of regulatory restrictions
or physical characteristics, such as unacceptable soil type or moisture
or topography.  For 2013, five requests for critical use exemptions were
received—stone fruit, table & raisin grapes, wine grapes, almonds, and
walnuts.  These areas represent a small portion of the entire orchard
replant in California.

The USG has reviewed all factors affecting transition rates in this
sector.  Based on this assessment the transition rate has been greatly
increased for most portions of this sector.  For the area covered in
this nomination, the USG believes that the narrative discussion included
in this document is technically valid.  The USG has nominated amounts of
methyl bromide based only on those sub-sectors that cannot transition
away from methyl bromide at the accelerated rate.

Methyl bromide continues to be a critical tool for sites that are not
amenable to other treatments due to features such as soil type or soil
moisture, or regulatory restrictions, or activity against certain pests,
such as Armillaria root rot (e.g., Zasada et al., 2010; UC Pest
Management Guidelines, 2008).  In addition, new regulations to reduce
volatile organic compound emissions may cause a delay of fumigation
beyond October into November and December in some locations (e.g. San
Joaquin Valley) when soils are colder.  This may result in reduced
efficacy of the primary alternative 1,3-D.  Township caps also limit the
use of 1,3-D.  Iodomethane registration is pending in California.  DMDS
is not currently registered in California and does not have a label for
orchard replant.

2.	summarize why key alternatives are not feasible

Alternatives are considered not feasible where 1) they have not been
sufficiently tested or protocols have not been sufficiently developed
for their use, 2) costs are excessive, 3) application difficulties exist
due to such factors as hilly terrain or equipment requirements, 4) areas
of environmental sensitivity or characteristics reduce their efficacy,
5) regulatory restrictions prevent their use, 6) pest pressure is to
such an extent that alternatives are not effective.

There is a critical need for methyl bromide where there are legally
mandated township caps for 1,3-D, or because surface moisture
requirements cannot be met (e.g., soils cannot be adequately dried prior
to use of 1,3-D).  New regulations to reduce volatile organic compound
emissions may reduce the efficacy of 1,3-D by requiring a delay in
fumigation to November or December when soils are colder.  The best
alternatives currently registered for orchard replant are 1,3-D or 1,3-D
with chloropicrin, and/or metam-sodium, especially in coarse-textured
soils (e.g., Browne et al., 2010; Wang et al., 2010; Beede et al.,
2010).  Under certain soil and moisture conditions (less than 12% to 1.5
meters) 1,3-D is an effective management tool for replant disease and is
currently used to replant the majority of orchard and vineyard sites.
Preliminary results with steam to disinfest soils for replant (e.g.,
Browne et al., 2010; Fennimore and Goodhue, 2009) and other non-chemical
treatments are undergoing multi-year trials to assess efficacy and
costs.  Iodomethane, which may be an effective alternative, was
registered in December 2010in  California but at lower use rates than
the rest of the U.S. and with buffer distances up to 10 fold greater
(e.g., Browne et al., 2010; Cabrera et al., 2010).  DMDS is not
registered in California and the federal label does not include orchard
replant at this time.

3.	is the use of methyl bromide covered by A certification STANDARD?

Methyl bromide is not covered by a certification standard for orchard
replant.

4.	If part of the crop area is treated with methyl bromide, indicate the
reason why methyl bromide is not used in the other area, and identify
what alternative strategies are used to control the target pathogens and
weeds without methyl bromide there.

The current best alternatives for orchard replant are formulations of
1,3-D or 1,3-D with chloropicrin, and/or metam-sodium, especially in
light soils (e.g., Browne et al., 2010; Wang et al., 2010; Beede et al.,
2010; B Caprile and McKenry, 2006; Wang et al., 2009).  These
alternatives are used effectively under optimal soil temperature and
moisture conditions (high moisture at surface and less than 12% at
depths to 1.5 meters) and methyl bromide is not critical.  There is a
critical need for methyl bromide in orchards in California where
alternatives cannot be used, either because of township caps for 1,3-D,
local permit requirements for chloropicrin, buffer zone limitations, or
surface moisture requirements cannot be met.  If rain does not occur,
growers without sprinkler systems have difficulty applying water for
1,3-D application.

5.	Would it be feasible to expand the use of these methods to cover at
least part of the crop that has requested use of methyl bromide? What
changes would be necessary to enable this?

According to Browne et al. (2010) orchardists have shifted heavily
towards use of 1,3-dichloropropene instead of methyl bromide, but this
transition does not apply to orchards with high clay content and
orchards with township cap restrictions.  Previously, McKenry et al.
(2007, 2006) and Caprile and McKenry (2006) have reported on methods
that can help to replant many orchard sites without methyl bromide.  One
requirement is the use of nematode-tolerant rootstocks, which are
currently being tested (e.g., Zasada et al., 2010; Beede et al., 2010;
McKenry and Buzo, 2009).

Regulations to meet air quality standards for ground level ozone are
likely to change fumigation practices.  Pesticides that have been
identified as volatile organic compounds (VOC) react with nitrous oxides
(NOx) to form ozone.  In California, the most at-risk period for
fumigation has been identified as May 1 through October 31.

Several areas in California, including the San Joaquin Valley and some
areas of Ventura County, will be subject to new regulations.  The San
Joaquin Valley contains about two-thirds of the almond and stone fruit
land, and about one-half of the walnut land.  All sources of NOx and
VOCs are being evaluated by the California Department of Pesticide
Regulation (CDPR), which has the authority to regulate the use of soil
fumigants.  CDPR has issued a rule to reduce the emissions, including
restrictions on timing and methods of fumigation.  For example, for
orchard replant, the only method of application allowed for methyl
bromide or chloropicrin is HDPE-tarped, deep-shank, broadcast
fumigation.  Strip applications are not allowed in the May-October
period.  In the past, most orchard replant fumigations occurred during
this period.  Use of 1,3 D, however, may not be impacted as much as
other soil treatments.

6.	SUMMARY OF RECENT RESEARCH

Research in California continues to highlight methods for orchard
replant to improve tree survival and orchard health.  Future nematode
control (one of the most important pests in replant situations) without
methyl bromide will depend on integrating various techniques including
cultural practices, genetic resistance, and alternative pesticides
(Zasada et al., 2010). Recent research results for this sector were
outlined in presentations to the 2010 Annual International Research
Conferences on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions
(Browne et al., 2010; Klonsky et al., 2010; Wang et al., 2010; Cabrera
et al., 2010; Beede et al., 2010).  In addition, presentations to the
2009 research conferences provided results in ongoing projects (Beede et
al., 2009; Browne et al., 2009; McKenry and Buzo, 2009; Klonsky et al.,
2009; Fennimore and Goodhue, 2009; Wang et al., 2009).

Almonds and Stone Fruit: Research including USDA Pacific Area-wide Pest
Management Program for Integrated Alternatives to Methyl Bromide has
been ongoing for stone fruit and almond (Browne et al., 2010; Browne et
al., 2009; Browne et al., 2008; Fennimore and Goodhue, 2009; Klonsky et
al., 2009; McKenry and Buzo, 2009).  Objectives of the area-wide
research are 1) To develop and demonstrate optimized integrated pest
management (IPM) strategies for control of almond and stone fruit
replant disease without MB; 2) To provide comprehensive economic
assessments of alternatives replant management strategies; 3) Conduct
educational outreach facilitation adoption of effective methyl bromide
alternatives in almond and stone fruit industries.  Stone fruit and
almond replant trials continue since their establishment in 2006.

Research in 2010 included two new almond replant trials and continued
monitoring of tree growth, yield, and pest data from six almond and
peach trials (Browne et al., 2010).  Among the results of the research
were: 1) Prunus replant disease (PRD) was prevented by soil treatments
of chloropicrin with 1,3-D, PicClor 60, or iodomethane; 2) These
treatments were more effective than methyl bromide or 1,3-D without
chloropicrin; 3) Adequate to optimal PRD management was achieved with
spot treatments requiring treating only 10-17% of the orchard area; 4)
GPS-controlled spot fumigation is available for commercial use; 5) Drip
spot treatments have shown promise, but may require different
formulations to incorporate into current irrigation systems; 6) Crop
rotations with sudan grass can improve replanted orchard growth, but
this may not be an economical strategy; 7) There is a great need for
improved rootstocks that will help reduce or eliminate the need for
pre-plant fumigation; 8) Alternatives that resulted in at least
comparable yield to methyl bromide generally cost less (Klonsky et al.,
2010).

Fennimore and Goodhue (2009) estimated costs of steam disinfestation of
soils for almond replant with a commercial steam applicator from Italy
and steam injection.  The machine can disinfest an 8 x 1.5 m plot per
heating, which could treat up to 0.66 ha per day.  In addition,
researchers are planning to test a tractor-pulled augur and a system to
inject steam into soils.  If research supports acceptable efficacy,
costs of the sterilizing machine are estimated to be $2196 per acre
($5425 per ha) compared to $2500 per acre ($6175 per ha) for methyl
bromide treatment.  The steam augur system was estimated to cost $341
per acre ($842 per ha) for planting 90 trees.  Experiments to measure
efficacy of steam disinfestation are planned.

McKenry and Buzo (2009) studied the possibilities of a “starve and
switch” approach to almond replant and management of Prunus replant
disease.  Herbicides are used to kill remnant roots of previous
plantings to destroy nematode nutrients and switch to a tolerant or
resistant rootstock.  While costs appear to be acceptable, the
availability of acceptable rootstocks for almond replant is lacking.

Grapes: Multi-season field trials, as part of the USDA Pacific Area-wide
Pest Management Program, continue to identify methods to manage vineyard
pests (Wang et al., 2010; Wang et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2008; Wang et
al., 2007).  Trials conducted to identify effective fumigation for
nematode control revealed that various treatments with 1,3-D +
chloropicrin were at least comparable to methyl bromide-treated soil
(Wang et al., 2010).  No nematodes were found in any of the fumigated
plots over a year after fumigation.  Unfumigated plots had populations
of ring, pin, stubby-root and dagger nematodes.

Trials targeting citrus nematode were conducted 1) to determine nematode
sensitivity to DMDS, 2) to evaluate the effect of time of exposure, soil
moisture, and temperature on DMDS efficacy, and 3) to compare the
effectiveness of DMDS in two different soil types (Cabrera et al.,
2010).  Results of experiments suggest that at higher doses soil type
and soil temperature were not important factors for DMDS efficacy.  At
higher doses nematodes were killed after short exposure.  The
experiments did not appear to combine DMDS with chloropicrin, which will
be the commercially available formulation.

Recent treatments were mustard cover crop, methyl bromide shanked at 448
kg/ha under HDPE, 1,3-D + 35% chloropicrin shanked with no tarp at 610
and at 305 kg/ha with no tarp or with VIF, and InLine drip at 305 kg/ha
with no tarp or VIF.  Preliminary results indicated that control of
total Pythium spp. was successful in all fumigated plots except InLine
without tarps.  Total Fusarium was significantly reduced on by methyl
bromide.  Live citrus nematodes were only found in the untreated plots.
No other species of nematodes were found alive in any fumigated plot.
Pruning weight (a measure of plant health) was highest in the soils
treated with methyl bromide, 1,3-D + 35% chloropicrin (high rate), 1,3-D
+ 35% chloropicrin (low rate with VIF), and InLine with VIF.  In
addition, VIF significantly reduced fumigant emissions.

Walnuts: According to the request from the California Walnut Commission,
“walnut growers appear to be shifting to tree site or strip
applications, a short-sighted change driven by economic pressure.”

Results of research on walnut was recently reported (Beede et al., 2010;
Beede et al., 2009; Beede et al., 2008) and is an ongoing attempt to: 1)
identify cost-effective commercial fumigant alternatives to methyl
bromide including nematode control, 2) test new application
technologies, and 3) initiate outreach to growers for walnut production,
and 4) test clonal vs. seedling plant material.  Soils treated with
1,3-D with and without chloropicrin gave effective nematode control.
Clonal rootstocks were larger than the Paradox trees (Beede et al.,
2010).

Research continues to indicate that the continued use of the common
rootstock Paradox is not advisable.  Research continues to search for
resistance to ring and lesion nematode pests.  Various treatments
(different rates and application methods) with 1,3-D, chloropicrin, and
methyl bromide were evaluated.  Conclusions from recent research (Beede
et al., 2010; Beede et al., 2009) confirm previous findings that 1,3-D
and chloropicrin show comparable pathogenic nematode management
potential to methyl bromide.

New trials were set-up in 2010 to compare rootstocks against the
rejection and nematode components of the replant disease.  Research
toward a better rootstock is annually summarized in Annual Walnut
Research Reports (available at   HYPERLINK
"http://walnutresearch.ucdavis.edu/"  http://walnutresearch.ucdavis.edu/
).

7.  ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY OF ALTERNATIVES

In this study net revenue is calculated as gross revenue minus operating
costs.  This is a measure of the direct losses of income that may be
suffered by the users.  It should be noted that net revenue does not
represent net income to the users.  Net income, which indicates
profitability of an operation of an enterprise, is gross revenue minus
the sum of operating and fixed costs.  Net income should be smaller than
the net revenue measured in this study.  Fixed costs were not included
because it is often difficult to measure and verify.

The economic analysis of the orchard replant application compares data
on yields, crop prices, revenues and costs using methyl bromide and
using alternative pest control regimens in order to estimate the costs
from the loss of methyl bromide availability.  The alternatives
identified as technically feasible - in cases of low pest infestation
– are different combinations of chloropicrin, metam sodium and 1,3- D.

The critical use nomination (CUN) for this sector does not include areas
where soil conditions are ideal and township caps do not restrict the
use of 1,3-D.  This CUN only applies to areas where township caps or
certain soil types do not permit the use or effective use of 1,3-D.
Where 1,3-D is not permitted there are no effective nematicide
alternatives to methyl bromide.  Trees that survive are not likely to be
as healthy and could suffer yield losses.  If a nematode infestation
causes the death of trees, then replacement trees would also suffer the
same infestation unless there use of an effective nematicide, or
possibly several years of fallow.

Without effective fumigation growers who replant orchards can face
losses from:

•	Delayed planting

•	Fallow

•	Additional use of herbicides

•	Tree loss

•	Replant costs to replace tree losses

•	Loss of trees replanted

•	Yield loss of fruit or nuts

•	Delayed achievement of full yield potential

•	Earlier loss of productivity of whole orchard

If the alternatives do not work as effectively as methyl bromide, then
it is possible that other losses could occur, such as additional
replanting, higher yield losses, and shorter lifespan of the whole
orchard or vineyard reducing the ability to amortize the initial
investment costs.

The benefits of fumigation for orchard or vineyard replant can be
measured by future yields (orchard crops require several years to begin
bearing) when production may be adversely affected by poor tree growth
and high pest populations.  In addition, fumigant treatments result in
healthier young plants.  Other fumigants besides methyl bromide are used
for fumigation, but in some cases, such as where there are heavy soils
or township caps on 1,3-D, these alternatives may not be available.

The effects of orchard replant disease and nematode damage to young
seedlings are experienced within the first three years of orchard
establishment, and are commonly observed within the first year.  Costs
associated with individual tree replacement include delayed production
as newly replanted trees lag behind previously planted ones.  In more
severe cases, when replant disorder or high nematode populations are not
properly managed at the time of orchard establishment, the entire
orchard or vineyard might be lost.  Because of the long life of these
perennial crops, optimal soil preparation, along with appropriate
rootstocks, is a priority for successful production.

Typically, the alternatives to methyl bromide would be evaluated using a
partial budget analysis to estimate the impacts of changes in production
practices.  That is, the consequences on a typical hectare of the crop
grown are evaluated, rather than attempt to assess the impacts in the
context of a whole enterprise, which could include multiple crops under
cultivation.  This approach allows the Agency to compare estimated
losses to net operating revenue, which is defined as the difference
between gross revenue and variable operating costs, on a per-hectare
basis.  The analysis ignores fixed costs, which are highly dependent on
land ownership and the size and diversity of the grower’s operation,
and therefore difficult to define on a per-hectare basis.  As such, this
analysis may understate the impacts as a percentage of the grower’s
income.

An analysis of a single year, however, does not capture the full benefit
of fumigation.  Establishing an orchard involves considerable costs,
including the maintenance of the orchard during the non-bearing years.
The returns to this investment occur in the future.  Therefore, another
approach to evaluating the benefits fumigation is to calculate the net
present value of the orchard under different streams of costs and
returns.  Net present value (NPV) is a way of comparing different
investments by summing the discounted costs and returns over time to
calculate the value of the investment.  The formula for NPV is:

where t is the time period (year), T is the last year the orchard is in
production and r is the discount rate.  This analysis uses a rate of 7%
to represent a private discount rate or an individual’s trade-off of
money between time periods.  Since revenues and costs are not adjusted
for future inflation, all measures are in real terms.

Since the choice of discount rate is somewhat arbitrary, BEAD also
presents the internal rate of return (IRR), which is the discount rate
that makes NPV = 0.  One interpretation of this value is that it
represents the maximum rate of return on an investment that an
individual must be willing to accept before the investment would be
considered.  That is, if the IRR is 5%, only individuals willing to
accept a rate of return less than 5% would find the investment
worthwhile.

California Walnuts and Almonds

The current practice for walnut replant is to fumigate with methyl
bromide and chloropicrin.  An alternative is to use 1,3-D with
chloropicrin, but 1,3-D does not penetrate heavier soils as well as
methyl bromide and may not provide as effective control of nematodes and
soil pathogens.  Some growers may not be able to obtain permission to
use 1,3-D under California township caps, but in this case that
possibility is not considered.  Comparing methyl bromide and 1,3-D, both
with chloropicrin, for establishing an orchard will be the basis for
evaluating the benefits of methyl bromide.

Replacing methyl bromide with 1,3-D, is estimated to result in a 4%
decrease in yields during production (Carpenter et al., 2000).  Yield
losses are due to soil pathogens that infect the trees at an early age,
stunting their growth.  Table 1 presents the expected differences in
production and revenue for California walnut, where operating costs are
taken from Buchner et al. (2002).  Elements of harvest costs are assumed
to be directly proportional to yield and we adjust costs accordingly.

Table 1.  Gross revenue, operating costs, and net operating revenues,
California walnuts orchard at full production.

	Methyl bromide + Chloropicrin	1,3-D + Chloropicrin

(% change) 1

Yield (kg/hectare)	1,505	1,445

(-4.0%)

Price  ($/kg)	1.43	1.43

Gross Revenue  ($/hectare)	5,315	5,101

(-4.0%)

Operating Costs  ($/hectare)	1,403	1,403

Harvest Costs  ($/hectare)	895	867

(-2.8%)

Net Operating Revenue  ($/hectare)	3,018	2,660

(-11.9%)

Sources: USDA NASS (2002-2006), Buchner et al. (2002), BEAD
calculations.  Figures may not sum due to rounding.

1 Percent change in comparison to methyl bromide with chloropicrin.

The analysis from Table 1 indicates that even relatively minor changes
in yield can have large effects on net operating revenue.  A 4% change
in yield results in a 12% change in net operating revenue.  The analysis
suggests that methyl bromide is worth about $150/hectare each year in
terms of improved yield during the lifespan of the walnut orchard. If
growers did not have access to methyl bromide or 1,3-D (because of
township caps, for example), the consequences would be far more dire.

The analysis in Table 1 does not consider the investment producers must
make in establishing an orchard and maintaining it through several
non-bearing years.  Table 2 presents the information on the net
operating revenues, NPV and IRR for a walnut orchard under the four
treatment options.  Field preparation costs are similar for any type of
fumigation, but fumigation costs differ according to the mix of
chemicals and the cost of application.  Chemical costs are average
per-hectare cost of products, which incorporates typical application
rates.  Tree planting costs are identical regardless of fumigant.  BEAD
assumes that some trees must be replanted the following year.  We assume
that 4%, or two trees, are replanted following fumigation with methyl
bromide and chloropicrin (Buchner et al., 2002) but 6% are replanted
with 1,3-D and chloropicrin.  The higher replant rates represent the
lower survival rate if nematodes are controlled but orchard replant
disorder or pathogens are not.  Trees begin to produce in the fourth
year, initially at 10% of production, climbing to full production in the
eighth year (Buchner et al., 2002).  Returns during full production are
shown in Table 2.

Table 2.  Net operating revenue, net present value (NPV), and internal
rate of return (IRR) of a walnut orchard.

Year	Stage	Methyl bromide + chloropicrin	1,3-D + chloropicrin

1	Field Preparation	-585	-585

	Fumigation 1	-3,127	-1,855

	Establishment	-3,789	-3,789

2	Non-bearing 2	-978	-1,018

3	Non-bearing	-897	-897

4	Initial production 3	-637	-657

5	Partial production 5	-417	-457

6	Partial production 6	-106	-165

7	Partial production 6	1,331	1,213

8	Full production 7	3,018	2,660

9-25	Full production 7	3,018	2,660

NPV (7% discount rate)	9,495	9,495

Internal Rate of Return	13.8%	13.9%

Sources:  Buchner et al. (2002), and BEAD calculations.  Net operating
revenues are not discounted; negative numbers represent costs greater
than income.  Net present value is calculated assuming 7% discount rate.

1 Fumigation costs include chemical costs and application costs.

2 In addition to operating costs, non-bearing costs include replanting
trees.

3 Initial production is 10% of full production.

4 Production in the fifth year is 20% of full for combination
treatments.

5 Production in the sixth year is 30% of full for combination
treatments.

6 Production in the seventh year is 60% of full production for
combination treatments.

Assuming a 7% discount rate, establishing a walnut orchard, fumigating
with methyl bromide and chloropicrin, yields future returns valued at
almost $9,500/hectare today.  This is about $530 more per hectare than
an hectare treated with 1,3-D and chloropicrin, although the lower
initial cost of fumigating with 1,3-D and chloropicrin means that the
internal rate of return on the two investments are approximately equal.
The IRR for an orchards treated with methyl bromide or 1,3-D are
similar, and close to 14%.

These results would also apply almonds grown on heavier soils. Where
almonds are replanted after an existing almond orchard, poor vegetative
growth has been observed and tree mortality has been estimated as high
as 50% (Browne et al., 2006).  This would be the case where no fumigant
is used on replant sites.  With a one year fallow, but no fumigant
treatment, a 25-40% yield loss might be experienced (depending on
rootstock) with a 24-35% reduction compared to methyl bromide treatment
(Carpenter et al., 2000).

BEAD estimates that nearly 43% of almond hectares planted and 86% of
walnut plantings are currently treated with methyl bromide.  The
benefits of methyl bromide would eventually accrue to almost 97,000
bearing hectares of almonds and 74,000 hectares of walnut.  At full
production, additional yield is valued at about $370/hectare, therefore
methyl bromide adds about $63.3 million annually to the value of
California nut production.  Currently, metam sodium provides little
benefit to producers on heavy soils.  However, if chloropicrin and
methyl bromide were not available, control of soil pathogens would
depend on metam sodium.  Without these fumigations, some orchards would
probably not be established at all; thus these figures may understate
the full value of the methyl bromide.

California Stone Fruit

Planting orchards with stone fruit trees requires a large investment of
resources as well as numerous choices to establish a long-bearing and
productive orchard.  Many of the pests associated with these crops and
fumigation requirements are similar from crop to crop and location to
location.  However, management of these pests differs depending on
particular crop, soil type, climatic region, availability and cost of
orchard land, availability of resistant rootstock to specific key pests,
and local regulatory restrictions of some fumigants.  In general, when
fumigation is deemed necessary, few choices are available to the orchard
manager.

We assess the benefits of fumigation with methyl bromide by comparing
production under alternative approaches for controlling orchard replant
disease.  In this case, we focus on prune production in California that
is broadly representative of stone fruit production with high fumigant
use.  This represents a heavy soil environment where methyl bromide and
chloropicrin are used.  We compare this use to fumigation with 1,3-D and
chloropicrin, 1,3-D and metam sodium, and 1,3-D alone to evaluate the
benefits of methyl bromide and chloropicrin.  This result would also
apply to cherry, peach and nectarine, and plum grown on heavier soils.
We assume in this analysis that 1,3-D is available for use as a
fumigant, which will not necessarily be the case, due to township caps
in California.  If neither methyl bromide or 1,3-D are available, the
consequences are expected to be more dire.

Replacing methyl bromide with 1,3-D, while maintaining the use of
chloropicrin, is estimated to result in a 4% decrease in prune yields
during production (Carpenter et al., 2000).  Yield losses are due to
soil pathogens that infect the trees at an early age, stunting their
growth.  Table 3 presents the expected differences in production and
revenue for California prune, where operating costs are taken from
Buchner et al. (2001).  Harvest costs are assumed to be directly
proportional to yield.  Differences in net operating revenue for even
small changes in yield can be substantial.  This analysis suggests that
the benefits of methyl bromide alone are approximately $125/hectare.

Table 3.  Gross revenue, operating costs, and net operating revenues,
California prune orchard at full production.

	Methyl bromide + chloropicrin	1,3-D + chloropicrin

(% change) 1

Yield (dried ton/hectare)	4.4	4.2

(-4.0%)

Price  ($/ton)	1,125	1,125

Gross Revenue  ($/hectare)	5,002	4,802

(-4.0%)

Operating Costs  ($/hectare)	2,080	2,080

Harvest Costs  ($/hectare)	1,894	1,818

(-4.0%)

Net Operating Revenue  ($/hectare)	1,028	904

(-12.1%)

Sources: USDA NASS (2002-2006), Buchner et al. (2001), BEAD
calculations.  Figures may not sum due to rounding.

1 Percent change in comparison to methyl bromide with chloropicrin.

The analysis in Table 3 does not consider the investment producers must
make in establishing an orchard and maintaining it through several
non-bearing years.  Table 4 presents the information on net operating
revenue, NPV, and IRR for a prune orchard under the treatment options.
Field preparation costs are similar for any type of fumigation, but
fumigation costs differ according to the mix of chemicals and the cost
of application.  Chemical costs are average per-hectare cost of
products, which incorporates typical application rates.  Trees are
planted the following spring and costs are identical regardless of
fumigant.  BEAD assumes that some trees must be replanted the following
year.  We assume that 2% are replanted following fumigation with methyl
bromide an chloropicrin (Buchner et al., 2001); 3% are replanted with
1,3-D and chloropicrin; The higher replant rate represents the lower
survival rate if nematodes are controlled but soil pathogens are not and
amount to two or four trees.  Trees begin to produce in the fourth year,
initially at 20% of production, climbing to full production in the
seventh year (Buchner et al., 2001).  Returns during full production are
shown in Table 4.

Table 4.  Net operating revenue, net present value (NPV), and internal
rate of return (IRR) of a prune orchard.

Year	Stage	Methyl bromide + chloropicrin	1,3-D + chloropicrin

0	Field Preparation	-618	-618

	Fumigation 1	-2,519	-2,025

1	Establishment	-3,137	-3,137

2	Non-bearing 2	-995	-1,018

3	Non-bearing	-1,294	-1,294

4	Initial production 3	-1,336	-1,361

5	Partial production 5	-1,023	-1,072

6	Partial production	2	-82

7	Full production	1,028	904

8-40	Full production	1,028	904

NPV (7% discount rate)	-874	-1,529

Internal Rate of Return	6.3%	5.7%

Sources: Buchner et al. (2001), and BEAD calculations.  Net operating
revenues are not discounted; negative numbers represent costs greater
than income.  Net present value is calculated assuming 7% discount rate.

1 Fumigation costs include chemical costs and application costs.

2 In addition to operating costs, non-bearing costs include replanting
trees.

3 Initial production is 20% of full production.  On-set of production is
delayed one year if 1,3-D is used alone.

4 Production in the fifth year is 40% of full for combination
treatments.

5 Production in the sixth year is 67% of full for combination
treatments.

Assuming a 7% rate of interest, prune production does not appear to be a
good investment using any of the fumigation options.  It may be that the
information we have on production costs are somewhat high.  Relatively
speaking, however, methyl bromide provides substantial benefits over
1,3-D.  Failure to adequately control soil pathogens substantially
reduces the return to investing in a prune orchard.  This result would
also apply to cherry, peach and nectarine, and plum grown on heavier
soils.

8.  RESULTANT CHANGES TO REQUESTED EXEMPTION QUANTITIES

Table 5. Nomination Amount:

CITATIONS

Beede, R. H., Kluepfel, D. A., McKenry, M. 2010. Update on a preplant
methyl bromide alternatives trial in a walnut replant site. Annual
International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives (2010).
  HYPERLINK "http://mbao.org/2010/Proceedings/025BeedeB.pdf"
http://mbao.org/2010/Proceedings/025BeedeB.pdf

Beede, R. H., Kluepfel, D. A., McKenry, M. 2009. Update on a preplant
methyl bromide alternatives trial in a walnut replant site. Annual
International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives (2009).
  HYPERLINK
"http://www.mbao.org/2009/Proceedings/034BeedeBMBAOabstr2009.pdf"
http://www.mbao.org/2009/Proceedings/034BeedeBMBAOabstr2009.pdf

Beede, R. H., Kluepfel, D. A., McKenry, M., Yakabe, L. Garcia, T. 2008.
Examination of preplant methyl bromide alternatives in a walnut tree
replant site. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide
Alternatives (2008).   HYPERLINK
"http://www.mbao.org/2008/Proceedings/016KluepfelDMBAOabstr2008.pdf"
http://www.mbao.org/2008/Proceedings/016KluepfelDMBAOabstr2008.pdf

Browne, G., Lampinen, B., Doll, D., Holtz, B., Upadhyaya, S., Schmidt,
L., Wang, D., Fennimore, S., Hanson, B., Gao, S., Klonsky, K, and
Johnson, S. 2010. Integrated pre-plant alternatives to methyl bromide
for almonds and other stone fruits. Annual International Research
Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives (2010).   HYPERLINK
"http://mbao.org/2010/Proceedings/028BrowneG.pdf"
http://mbao.org/2010/Proceedings/028BrowneG.pdf

Browne, G., Holtz, B., Upadhyaya, S., Lampinen, B., Doll, D., Schmidt,
L., Edstrom, J., Shafii, M., Hanson, B., Wang, D., Gao, S., and Klonsky,
K. 2009. Integrated pre-plant alternatives to methyl bromide for almonds
and other stone fruits. Annual International Research Conference on
Methyl Bromide Alternatives (2009).   HYPERLINK
"http://www.mbao.org/2009/Proceedings/033BrowneGmbao2009fin.pdf"
http://www.mbao.org/2009/Proceedings/033BrowneGmbao2009fin.pdf

Browne, G., Lampinen, B., Holtz, B., Doll, D., Edstrom, J., Schmidt, L.,
Upadhyaya, S., Shafii, M., Hanson, B., Wang, D., Gao, S., Goodell, N.,
and Klonsky, K. 2008. Integrated pre-plant alternatives to methyl
bromide for almonds and other stone fruits. Annual International
Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives (2008).   HYPERLINK
"http://www.mbao.org/2008/Proceedings/012BrowneGmbao2008fin.pdf"
http://www.mbao.org/2008/Proceedings/012BrowneGmbao2008fin.pdf

Browne, G. T., Connell, J. H., Schneider, S. M. 2006. Almond replant
disease and its management with alternative pre-plant soil fumigation
treatments and rootstocks. Plant Disease 90:869-876.

Buchner, R. P., Edstrom, J. P., Hasey, J.K, Krueger, W. H., Olson, W.
H., Reil, W. O., Klonsky, K. M., and DeMoura, R. L. 2002. Sample costs
to establish a walnut orchard and produce walnuts. University of
California Cooperative Extension, WN-SV-02.   HYPERLINK
"http://cetehama.ucdavis.edu/files/47479.pdf"
http://cetehama.ucdavis.edu/files/47479.pdf

Buchner, R. P., Edstrom, J. P., Krueger, W. H., Olson, W. H., Reil, W.
O., Klonsy, K. M., and DeMoura, R. L. 2001. Sample costs to establish a
prune orchard and produce prunes. University of California Cooperative
Extension, WN-SV-02.   HYPERLINK
"http://coststudies.ucdavis.edu/files/prunesac2001.pdf"
http://coststudies.ucdavis.edu/files/prunesac2001.pdf

Cabrera, J. A., Gan, J., Hanson, B. D., Wang, D. 2010. Factors affecting
the nematicidal activity of dimethyl disulfide. Annual International
Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives (2010).   HYPERLINK
"http://mbao.org/2010/Proceedings/005CabreraA.pdf"
http://mbao.org/2010/Proceedings/005CabreraA.pdf

Caprile, J. and McKenry, M. 2006. Orchard replant considerations.
University of California Extension, Contra Costa County Crop Currents,
Fall 2006, attached in University of California Extension Tree Topics
Oct. 30, 2006, vol 31, issue 8.   HYPERLINK
"http://cecontracosta.ucdavis.edu/newsletterfiles/Crop_Currents10064.pdf
"
http://cecontracosta.ucdavis.edu/newsletterfiles/Crop_Currents10064.pdf

Fennimore, S. and Goodhue, R. 2009. Estimated costs to disinfest soil
with steam. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide
Alternatives (2009).   HYPERLINK
"http://www.mbao.org/2009/Proceedings/003FennimoreSMBAOAbstractSteambusi
ness.pdf"
http://www.mbao.org/2009/Proceedings/003FennimoreSMBAOAbstractSteambusin
ess.pdf

Klonsky, K., Lampinen, B., and Browne, G. 2010. Economic performance of
alternative preplant fumigation treatments for almonds. Annual
International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives (2010).
  HYPERLINK "http://mbao.org/2010/Proceedings/024KlonskyK.pdf"
http://mbao.org/2010/Proceedings/024KlonskyK.pdf

Klonsky, K., Lampinen, B., and Browne, G. 2009. Economic performance of
alternative preplant fumigation treatments for almonds. Annual
International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives (2009).
  HYPERLINK
"http://www.mbao.org/2009/Proceedings/007KlonskyKMBAOsubmissoin.pdf"
http://www.mbao.org/2009/Proceedings/007KlonskyKMBAOsubmissoin.pdf

McKenry, M. and Buzo, T. 2009. Evaluation of ‘starve and switch’
approach to replanting trees. Annual International Research Conference
on Methyl Bromide Alternatives (2009).   HYPERLINK
"http://www.mbao.org/2009/Proceedings/048McKenryMMBAO09.pdf"
http://www.mbao.org/2009/Proceedings/048McKenryMMBAO09.pdf

McKenry, M., Buzo, T., and Kaku, S. 2007. Replanting vineyards without
soil fumigation. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl
Bromide Alternatives (2007).   HYPERLINK
"http://www.mbao.org/2007/Proceedings/050McKenryMReplantVineyardsw-outso
ifumigMBAO2007.pdf"
http://www.mbao.org/2007/Proceedings/050McKenryMReplantVineyardsw-outsoi
fumigMBAO2007.pdf

McKenry, M., Buzo, T., and Kaku, S. 2006. Replanting stone fruit
orchards without soil fumigation. Annual International Research
Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives.   HYPERLINK
"http://www.mbao.org/2006/06Proceedings/028McKenrySummary2006.pdf"
http://www.mbao.org/2006/06Proceedings/028McKenrySummary2006.pdf .

NASS-USDA. 2006. Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts, Summary. National
Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
HYPERLINK
"http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/NoncFruiNu//2000s/2006/NoncFr
uiNu-07-06-2006_final.pdf"
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/NoncFruiNu//2000s/2006/NoncFru
iNu-07-06-2006_final.pdf

UC (University of California) Pest Management Guidelines. 2008.
Armillaria root rot (oak root fungus)—Grapes.    HYPERLINK
"http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/r302100811.html"
http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/r302100811.html

Wang, D., Cabrera, J. A., Gerik, J., Gao, S., Hanson, B., Browne, G.,
Klonsky, K., and Vasquez, S. 2010. Vineyard replant update—Pacific
area-wide program for methyl bromide alternatives. Annual International
Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives (2010).   HYPERLINK
"http://mbao.org/2010/Proceedings/031WangDareawide.pdf"
http://mbao.org/2010/Proceedings/031WangDareawide.pdf

Wang, D., Gerik, J., Gao, S., Hanson, B., Qin, R., Browne, and Vasquez,
S. 2009. Alternatives to methyl bromide soil fumigation for vineyard
replant. Methyl bromide alternatives for vineyard replant. Annual
International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives (2009).
  HYPERLINK
"http://www.mbao.org/2009/Proceedings/035WangDMBAO2009areawidegraperepla
nt.pdf"
http://www.mbao.org/2009/Proceedings/035WangDMBAO2009areawidegrapereplan
t.pdf

Wang, D., Gao, S., Gerik, J., Hanson, B., Tharayil, N., Qin, R., Browne,
G., Smith, C., Klonsky, K., Westerdahl, B., Vasquez, S., and Yates, S.
2008. Methyl bromide alternatives for vineyard replant. Annual
International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives (2008).
  HYPERLINK
"http://www.mbao.org/2008/Proceedings/014WangDMBAO2008areawide.pdf"
http://www.mbao.org/2008/Proceedings/014WangDMBAO2008areawide.pdf

Wang, D., Gao, S., Gerik, J., Hanson, B., Smith, C., Klonsky, K.,
Westerdahl, B., Vasquez, S., Browne, G., and Yates, S. 2007. Methyl
bromide alternatives for vineyard replant—assessment of control
efficacy, fumigant movement, and crop response. Annual International
Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives (2007).   HYPERLINK
"http://www.mbao.org/2007/Proceedings/011WangDMBAO2007areawide.pdf"
http://www.mbao.org/2007/Proceedings/011WangDMBAO2007areawide.pdf

Zasada, I. A., Halbrendt, J. M., Kokalis-Burelle, N., LaMondia, J.,
McKenry, M. V., and Noling, J. W. 2010. Managing nematodes without
methyl bromide. Annual Review of Phytopathology 48:311-328.

 The USG does not request methyl bromide for use in areas of low to
moderate pest pressure.  Only cases where key pests are present at
moderate to high levels require methyl bromide for pest pressure.

 The United States Office of Management and Budget suggests using a 3%
and 7% rate when evaluating the cost and benefits of government
regulation, where 7% is an estimate of the before-tax rate of return to
private capital (OMB, 2003).

USA CUN13 Soil Orchard Replant Open Field		Page   PAGE  1  of   NUMPAGES
 17


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 10 (Wednesday, January 15, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2422-2423]
[FR Doc No: 2020-00548]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0978; FRL-10004-17-OECA]

Access by United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Subcontractor to Information Claimed as Confidential Business
Information (CBI) Submitted Under Clean Air Act (CAA), Title I,
Programs and Activities Air, and Title II Emission Standards for Moving
Sources, and Act To Prevent Pollution From Ships (APPS)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's)
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) plans to
authorize a subcontractor to access information that will be submitted
to EPA under the Clean Air Act (CAA) Titles I and II and the Act to
Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS) that may be claimed as, or may be
determined to be, confidential business information (CBI).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 21, 2020. The
subcontractors' access to information collected under the CAA Titles I
and II, and the APPS, will begin on January 21, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA HQ-
OECA-2012-0978, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OECA-2012-0978 in the subject line of the message.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information
provided.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Kimes, Air Enforcement
Division, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (Mail Code
8MSU), Environmental Protection Agency, 1595 Wynkoop St., Denver, CO
80202; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Does this notice apply to me?

    This action is directed to the general public. However, this action
may be of particular interest to certain parties, including: Motor
vehicle manufacturers and importers; engine manufacturers and
importers; motor vehicle fuel and fuel additive producers and
importers; manufacturers, importers and distributors of motor vehicle
and engine emission control equipment and parts; and any other parties
subject to the regulations found in 40 CFR parts 79, 80, 85, 86, 89-92,
94, 1033, 1036, 1037, 1039, 1042, 1043, 1045, 1048, 1051, 1054, 1060,
1065, and 1068.
    This Federal Register document may be of particular relevance to
parties that have submitted data to EPA under the above-listed
regulations. Because other parties may also be interested, EPA has not
attempted to describe all the specific parties that may be affected by
this action. If you have further questions regarding the applicability
of this action to a particular party, please contact the person listed
in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

II. How can I get copies of this document and other related
information?

A. Electronically

    EPA has established a public docket for this Federal Register
document

under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0978.
    All documents in the docket are identified in the docket index
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, such as CBI or other
information for which disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
materials, such as copyrighted material, will only be available in hard
copy at the EPA Docket Center.

B. EPA Docket Center

    Materials listed under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0978 will be
available for public viewing at the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460. The
EPA Docket Center 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 Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number
for the Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

III. Description of Programs and Potential Disclosure of Information
Claimed as CBI to Contractors.

    EPA's OECA has responsibility for protecting public health and the
environment by regulating air pollution from motor vehicles, engines,
and the fuels used to operate them, and by encouraging travel choices
that minimize emissions. In order to implement various Clean Air Act
programs, and to give regulated entities flexibility in meeting
regulatory requirements (e.g., compliance on average), OECA collects
compliance reports and other information from the regulated industry.
Occasionally, the information submitted to, or obtained by, EPA, is
claimed to be CBI by persons submitting data to EPA. Information
submitted under such a claim is handled in accordance with EPA's
regulations at 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, and in accordance with EPA
procedures that are consistent with those regulations. When EPA has
determined that disclosure of information claimed as CBI to EPA
contractors or subcontractors is necessary, the corresponding contract
must address the appropriate use and handling of the information by the
EPA contractor and subcontractor and the EPA contractor and
subcontractor must require its personnel who require access to
information claimed as CBI to sign written non-disclosure agreements
before they are granted access to data.
    On May 29, 2019, EPA provided notice in the Federal Register of,
and an opportunity to comment on, EPA's determination that
subcontractors to EPA contractor Eastern Research Group, Incorporated,
(ERG) 14555 Avion Parkway, Suite 200, Chantilly, VA 20151, required
access to CBI submitted to EPA under section 114 of the CAA, section
208 of the CAA, and the APPS for the work ERG subcontractors would be
conducting under Contract Number 68HERH19C0004. See Access by United
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Subcontractors to
Information Claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI)
Submitted under Clean Air Act (CAA), Title I, Programs and Activities
Air, and Title II Emission Standards for Moving Sources, and Act To
Prevent Pollution From Ships (APPS), 84 Federal Register 103 (May 29,
2019). In accordance with 40 CFR 2.301(h), EPA has now determined that
the subcontractor Blum, Shapiro and Company, P.C. (Blum Shapiro) also
requires access to CBI submitted to EPA under section 114 of the CAA,
section 208 of the CAA, and the APPS, and we are providing notice and
an opportunity to comment on Blum Shapiro's access to information
claimed as CBI. OECA collects this data in order to monitor compliance
with regulations promulgated under the CAA Title II Emission Standards
for Moving Sources, the APPS, and the International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), Annex VI. We are issuing
this Federal Register document to inform all affected submitters of
information that we plan to grant access to material that may be
claimed as CBI to the subcontractor Blum Shapiro on a need-to-know
basis.
    Under Contract Number 68HERH19C0004, ERG provides enforcement
support for EPA's CAA mobile source regulatory and enforcement
activities, including field inspections, investigations, audits, and
other CAA regulatory and enforcement support that involve access to
information claimed as CBI. ERG also employs subcontractors, who
support these activities, under the above-listed contract. The
subcontractor Blum Shapiro requires access to information claimed as
CBI to support EPA enforcement activities described above. Access to
data, including information claimed as CBI, will commence six days
after the date of publication of this document in the Federal Register,
and will continue until March 1, 2024. If the contract and associated
subcontracts are extended, this access will continue for the remainder
of the ERG contract without further notice. If the contract expires
prior to March 1, 2024, the access will cease at that time. If ERG
employs additional subcontractors to support EPA on a regular basis or
on a limited or one-time basis under the above-listed contract, and
those subcontractors require access to CBI, EPA will notify affected
companies of the contemplated disclosure and provide them with an
opportunity to comment by either sending them a letter or by publishing
an additional document in the Federal Register.
    Parties who wish to obtain further information about this Federal
Register document, or about OECA's disclosure of information claimed as
CBI to subcontractors, may contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Dated: December 20, 2019.
Phillip A. Brooks,
Director, Air Enforcement Division.
[FR Doc. 2020-00548 Filed 1-14-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 10, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27580-27581]
[FR Doc No: E9-13569]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60038; File No. SR-CBOE-2009-032]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, Modifying the CBOE
Stock Exchange Rule Regarding Processing of Round-Lot Orders

June 3, 2009.
    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 May 21, 2009, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE''
or the ``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. On June 2,
2009, CBOE filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. The
Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as constituting a rule
change under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act,\3\ which renders the
proposal, as amended, effective upon filing with the Commission. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to reduce the allowable timeframe for
marketable order exposure pursuant to CBOE Stock Exchange (``CBSX'')
Rule 52.6 (Processing of Round-Lot Orders) to 500 milliseconds. The
text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web
site (http://www.cboe.org/Legal), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule filing is to amend CBSX Rule 52.6.
Pursuant to that Rule, when CBSX receives a marketable order when CBSX
is not the NBBO and execution of the order would result in an
impermissible trade-through, CBSX flashes the order to CBSX
participants to ascertain if any participants are willing to execute
the order at the NBBO price (i.e. provide price improvement) before
CBSX attempts to access the NBBO on other markets on behalf of the
marketable order. Rule 52.6 currently provides that the flash period
shall not exceed 3 seconds, however these flashes have never exceeded
one second. The filing proposes to reduce the maximum allowable flash
time to 500 milliseconds (half a second). The filing also eliminates
obsolete references to the Intermarket Trading System Plan (ITS Plan)
and uses the term ``flash'' in the Rule instead of ``display''. Lastly,
the filing adds an interpretation and policy that makes clear that CBSX
will provide an electronic method for CBSX traders to distinguish
flashed orders from the CBSX disseminated best bid/offer during the
flash period.
2. Statutory Basis
    CBOE believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act
\4\ and the rules and regulations under the Act

applicable to a national securities exchange and, in particular, the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\5\ Specifically, the Exchange
believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section
6(b)(5) \6\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78(f)(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78(f)(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE 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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposal.

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

    Because the foregoing 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 \7\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file 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 Commission has determined to waive the five-day pre-filing
period in this case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \9\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \10\ permits the Commission to
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. CBOE requests that the
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay because the acceleration of
the operative date is consistent with the protection of investors and
the public interest. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day
operative delay \11\ is consistent with the protection of investors and
the public interest and designates the proposal operative upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \11\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission 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 may summarily abrogate 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.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For purposes of calculating the 60-day period within which
the Commission may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change under
Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, the Commission considers the period
to commence on June 2, 2009, the date on which CBOE submitted
Amendment No. 1. See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2009-032 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-CBOE-2009-032. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 inspection and
copying 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 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 publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2009-032 and should be
submitted on or before July 1, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-13569 Filed 6-9-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P