[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 34 (Wednesday, February 20, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11760-11766]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03758]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0065; FRL-9378-1]

3-decen-2-one; Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of the biochemical pesticide, 3-decen-2-
one, in or on potatoes when applied as a postharvest potato sprout
inhibitor and used in accordance with label directions and good
agricultural practices. On behalf of AMVAC Chemical Corporation
(AMVAC), Technology Sciences Group, Inc. (TSG) submitted a petition to
EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting
an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation
eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for
residues of 3-decen-2-one under the FFDCA.

DATES: This regulation is effective February 20, 2013. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before April 22, 2013, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0065, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-
5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colin G. Walsh, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

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

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file
an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0065 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
April 22, 2013. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0065, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at  http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of March 10, 2010 (75 FR 11171) (FRL-8810-
8), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance
petition (PP 9F7670) by TSG, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 1000,
Washington, DC 20036, on behalf of AMVAC, 4695 MacArthur Court, Suite
1250, Newport Beach, CA 90660. The petition requested that 40 CFR part
180 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of 3-decen-2-one. This notice referenced a
summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner, TSG (on behalf of
AMVAC), which is available in the docket via http://www.regulations.gov. Comments were received on the notice of filing.
EPA's response to these comments is discussed in Unit VII.C.
    During the initial review of the petition, EPA determined that the
data and/or information submitted was insufficient to support the use
of the active ingredient, 3-decen-2-one, in or on all food commodities.
The petitioner submitted additional data and filed a revised petition
(PP 9F7670), proposing to establish an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of 3-decen-2-one in or on stored potatoes
only. A Notice of Filing, allowing for a 30-day comment period, was
published in the Federal Register of March 14, 2012 (77 FR 15012) (FRL-
9335-9). No comments were received following this publication.
    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and in residential settings but does not include
occupational exposure. Pursuant to FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), in
establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in
FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C), which require EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance exemption and to ``ensure
that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to
infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical
residue. * * *'' Additionally, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D) requires that
EPA consider ``available information concerning the cumulative effects
of [a particular pesticide's] * * * residues and other substances that
have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, EPA determines the
toxicity of pesticides. Second, EPA examines exposure to the pesticide
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings.

III. Toxicological Profile

    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability,
and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA also
considered available information concerning the variability of the
sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including
infants and children.

A. Overview

    3-decen-2-one is a naturally occurring biochemical substance, as
defined in 40 CFR 158.2000(a)(1), with a history of unremarkable human
exposure. 3-decen-2-one functions as a plant growth regulator,
affecting plant growth by increasing tuber respiration. Data on file
indicate that 3-decen-2-one interferes with membrane integrity, which
results in increased oxidative stress, desiccation, and rapid necrosis
of the meristems and surrounding sprout tissues. Thus, 3-decen-2-one
inhibits sprouting with no observed effects on the potato, potato
sweetening, or processing quality. Based on this information, EPA
considers the mode of action to be non-toxic (Ref. 1).
    3-decen-2-one is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) as a synthetic flavoring agent and adjuvant that may be directly
added to food (21 CFR 172.515). A report by an independent panel of
experts retained by the Flavor and Extract Manufacturer's Association
(FEMA) states 3-decen-2-one is considered safe for its intended use
when added at an average maximum level of 19 ppm in baked goods, 7.8
ppm in soft candy, 5.8 ppm in frozen dairy products, 4.8 ppm in
gelatins and puddings, 4.3 ppm in non-alcoholic beverages, and 4.0 ppm
in alcoholic beverages (Oser & Ford, 1978) (Ref. 2).
    3-decen-2-one has been well characterized and studied with respect
to its metabolism and, more importantly, its natural occurrence in many
foods that are common in the human diet including yogurt, skipjack
tuna, edible porcini mushrooms and Iberian ham (Ref. 2). Additionally,
the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) has
reported that 3-decen-2-one, a structural class II flavoring agent, is
one in a group of compounds that have been identified in fruits,
vegetables, spices, cocoa, coffee and tea. JECFA concluded that there
are no safety concerns at current intake levels when 3-decen-2-one is
used as a flavoring agent (Ref. 2).
    As stated previously in this unit, 3-decen-2-one is a substance
that exhibits a non-toxic mode of action. In humans, this substance
readily metabolizes into innocuous compounds (Ref. 1). Based on
information submitted in support of this petition (summarized in Unit
III.B.) and the comprehensive risk assessment conducted by the Agency,
EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm from
aggregate exposures to 3-decen-2-one, including the consumption of
potatoes treated with this active ingredient in accordance with label
directions and good agricultural practices. EPA has made this
determination for the following reasons:
    1. Available toxicology data and information indicate that the
active ingredient is of low acute toxicity (with the exception that it
is an eye and skin irritant) and is not a developmental toxicant, a
mutagen, or toxic via repeat oral exposure;
    2. Available information from the scientific literature indicate
humans are already exposed to 3-decen-2-one in the diet from foods that
naturally contain the chemical and from foods to which the chemical has
been added as a food additive at levels higher than what will occur
from pesticide use;
    3. Metabolism data and information on the chemical indicate that it
is metabolized into innocuous substances in humans that present no
toxicological or dietary concern; and
    4. Deterministic exposure analyses suggest that dietary exposure to
the chemical as a pesticide is likely to be less than dietary exposure
to the chemical as a food additive, thus as a natural constituent in
foods, the pesticidal use of 3-decen-2-one is not likely to result in a
significant increase in overall dietary exposure (Ref. 2).

B. Toxicity

    The following is a summary of EPA's review of the toxicity profile
of this biochemical.
    1. Acute toxicity (OCSPP Guideline Nos. 870.1100, 870.1200,
870.1300, 870.2400, 870.2500, and 870.2600; Master Record
Identification (MRID) Nos. 47942609, 47942610, 47942611, 47942612,
47942613, and 47942614). The petitioner submitted acute toxicity
studies conducted on the technical grade material to EPA. Results of
the acute toxicity testing indicate that 3-decen-2-one is of low acute
toxicity with the exception that the substance is an eye and skin
irritant. Acute oral toxicity (rat): LD50 > 5,000mg/kg;
Acute dermal toxicity (rat): LD50 > 5,000mg/kg; Acute
inhalation toxicity (rat): LC50 = 0.52-2.04 mg/L (male) and
LC50 > 2.04 mg/L (female); Primary eye irritation (rabbit):
moderately irritating; Primary dermal irritation (rabbit): Severely
irritating; Dermal sensitization (guinea pig): not a dermal sensitizer
(Ref. 3).
    2. 90-day oral toxicity (OCSPP Guideline No. 870.3100; MRID Nos.
47942617 and 48422301). A subchronic 90-day oral toxicity study on the
technical grade material was not conducted. In lieu of the study, EPA
used a weight-of-the-evidence (WOE) approach to estimate the likelihood
of potential of toxicity from repeat oral exposure to this substance
(Ref. 2). EPA considered the following evidence:
    i. Lack of toxicological endpoints;
    ii. Metabolic pathways;
    iii. Lack of incidents associated with naturally occurring levels
of 3-decen-2-one in foods; and
    iv. FDA's approval of this biochemical as a direct food additive.
    First, using an expert system computer program (DEREK Nexus), EPA
identified two potential toxicological endpoints for 3-decen-2-one
(potential dermal sensitization and in vitro chromosome damage);
however, follow-up studies did not support these as toxicological
endpoints. Second, the metabolic pathways of 3-decen-2-one have been
characterized and demonstrate that the biochemical is metabolized into
innocuous compounds that are either excreted or further metabolized in
the fatty acid pathway or citric acid cycle. Third, 3-decen-2-one
occurs naturally in some foods and has been used as a food additive
without specific reports of adverse effects. Finally, as noted in this
unit, FDA has approved the use of 3-decen-2-one as a synthetic
flavoring agent and adjuvant that may be directly added to food. Based
on this evidence, EPA concludes that 3-decen-2-one has relatively low
toxicity.
    3. Prenatal developmental toxicity (OCSPP Guideline No. 870.3700;
MRID No. 48970303). An acceptable prenatal developmental toxicity study
was submitted. In the study, Crl:CD Sprague-Dawley rats were
administered doses of AMV-1018 (99.81% purity 3-decen-2-one) by gavage
at 0, 100, 300 or 1,000 mg/kg/day from day 6 to day 19 of gestation.
Each treatment group consisted of 24 female rats:
    i. The control group which received corn oil and
    ii. The test substance vehicle group.
    No maternal deaths or clinical signs related to treatment were
observed in the study. Salivation was observed in all animals in the
intermediate- and high-dose groups during the treatment period. Chin
rubbing, which is associated with salivation, was observed in some
animals in the high-dose group. These observations were considered to
be attributable to the palatability of the test substance and not
toxicologically significant. Bodyweight gain in the low- and
intermediate-dose groups was not affected by treatment. When compared
to the control group, overall mean bodyweight gain in the high-dose
group was slightly low during gestation, which was associated with
slightly lower food consumption in the high-dose group. The bodyweight
gain effect is considered to be attributable to the palatability of the
test substance and not toxicologically significant. Food consumption in
the low- and intermediate-dose groups was unaffected by treatment.
Gravid uterine weights were not affected by treatment in any group.
There were no maternal treatment-related macroscopic effects. All
females in each test group were pregnant. Mean corpora lutea,
implantations, early, late and total resorption counts, live young, sex
ratio, pre- and post-implantation loss, litter weight, placental
weight, male and female fetal weight and overall fetal weight were all
considered to be unaffected by treatment at all doses. In all dose
groups, no relationship to treatment was observed in the incidence of
major and minor fetal abnormalities and skeletal variants. There was a
slight increase in the percentage of incidences of fetuses with 13/14
and 14/14 ribs in all dose groups when compared to the control group,
but the incidences were similar to historical control data, and in the
absence of other related findings in the study, the observations were
not considered to be treatment related. Based on the lack of systemic
maternal and fetal toxicity, the no-observed-adverse-effect-level
(NOAEL) for maternal and fetal (developmental) toxicity is 1,000 mg/kg/
day (Ref. 2).
    4. Mutagenicity (OCSPP Guideline Nos. 870.5100, 870.5300, and
870.5395; MRID Nos. 47942616, 47942615, and 48412402). Three
mutagenicity studies were submitted. In a reverse mutation assay, AMV-
1018, containing 98% of the active ingredient 3-decen-2-one, was
investigated for its potential to induce gene mutations via a plate
incorporation test and a pre-incubation test. Each experiment was
conducted with five tester strains of Salmonella typhimurium, six
different test substance concentrations (0.0316, 0.100, 0.316, 1.0, 2.5
and 5.0 [mu]L/plate, and control scenario), and with and without
metabolic activation. According to the results of this study, no
biologically relevant increases in revertant colony numbers of any of
the five tester strains were observed following treatment with AMV-1018
at any concentration level, neither in the presence or absence of
metabolic activation, in either experiment. In the pre-incubation
experiments, cytotoxicity was noted in all five tester strains at a
dose concentration of 5.0 [micro]L/plate without metabolic activation
and in tester strain TA 102 at a dose concentration of 5.0 [micro]L/
plate with metabolic activation. The reference mutagens employed in the
control scenarios induced a distinct increase in revertant colonies,
indicating the validity of the experiments. Therefore, the test
substance is considered to be non-mutagenic in this bacterial reverse
mutation assay (Ref. 3).
    In a mammalian cell gene mutation assay, mouse lymphoma cells
cultured in vitro were exposed to AMV-1018 (3-decen-2-one; 98.57%
active ingredient) in dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) at the various
concentrations for 4 and 24 hours with and without metabolic
activation. The S9 fraction (for metabolic activation) was derived from
the livers of male Wistar rats induced with phenobarbital (80 mg/kg bw)
and [beta]-Naphthoflavone (100 mg/kg bw). The solvent DMSO served as a
negative control in the presence and absence of S9.
Benzo([alpha])pyrene (BP) served as a positive control in the presence
of S9. Ethylmethanesulfonate (EMS) and methylmethanesulfonate (MMS)
served as positive controls in the absence of S9. Selection of test
substance concentrations were based on a pre-experiment for
cytotoxicity. No precipitation of the test substance was noted in the
experiments. Growth inhibition was noted in all experiments (+/- S9),
with marked cytotoxicity seen in several cases (one incident less than
10%, several less than 20%). The pH values for the highest
concentrations

tested were within the physiological range. The osmolality for the
solvent controls as well as for the highest test concentrations was
found to be 465 mosmol/kg. Thus, the osmolality was above the
physiological range. Test substance was positive for mutagenicity in
the 24 hour exposure without metabolic activation and equivocal results
with metabolic activation. The mouse lymphoma results are considered
equivocal because it is not clear whether the positive results would
translate into an in vivo system based on the increased osmotic
pressure and marked cytotoxicity noted during the experiment (Ref. 3).
    A Tier II in vivo mammalian erythrocyte micronucleus test guideline
study was submitted due to the equivocal results found in the mouse
lymphoma assay. The test substance for the study was AMV-1018,
containing 98.0% 3-decen-2-one. The test substance was prepared with
cottonseed oil and the volume administered intraperitoneal to the 5
male and 5 female mice was 10 mL/kg bw. A range finding study was
performed prior to the experiment to determine the maximum tolerable
dose (MTD). The MTD was determined to be 50%/kg bw, which is equivalent
to an application of 10 mL/kg bw of 5% v/v test item solution. The
three dose levels used in the experiment were 1 MTD, 0.5 MTD, and 0.2
MTD, which is equivalent to 50%/kg bw, 25%/kg bw, and 10%/kg bw,
respectively. The animals treated with a dose of 0.2 MTD showed no
signs of systemic toxicity after treatment, whereas the animals at 1
MTD and 0.5 MTD showed signs of toxicity including reduction of
spontaneous activity, prone position, clonic convulsion, ataxia,
constricted abdomen, piloerection, half eyelid closure, diarrhea,
cramps, and loss of weight. Peripheral blood samples were taken at 44
and 68 hours after a single application of the test item solution for
micronuclei analysis. All mean values of micronuclei were within range
or decreased compared to the corresponding negative control in all dose
groups. The positive control used cyclophosphamide (40 mg/kg bw), which
showed significant increase in micronucleus frequency and was used to
validate the assay. A nonparametric Mann-Whitney Test was performed and
showed no statistically significant increase (p<0.05) of micronuclei
cells in any dose group. The test material, AMV-1018 (98% 3-decen-2-
one), is considered non-mutagenic with respect to clastogenicity and
aneugenicity based on the test item material showing no signs of
induction of structural or numerical chromosomal damage in the immature
erythrocytes of the mice (Ref. 1).

IV. Aggregate Exposures

    In examining aggregate exposure, FFDCA section 408 directs EPA to
consider available information concerning exposures from the pesticide
residue in food and all other non-occupational exposures, including
drinking water from ground water or surface water and exposure through
pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or buildings (residential and other
indoor uses).

A. Dietary Exposure

    In addition to the natural presence and the deliberate addition of
3-decen-2-one in other foods, people will be exposed 3-decen-2-one
through the consumption of treated potatoes. A qualitative risk
assessment was conducted for the chemical to assess potential risks (if
any) from dietary exposure.
    1. Food. Dietary exposure to 3-decen-2-one is already occurring,
given that this substance is a component of and/or is used as a
flavoring agent in many foods that are commonly consumed by humans.
When 3-decen-2-one is applied as a potato sprout inhibitor and used in
accordance with good agricultural practices and label directions, the
aforementioned dietary exposure is not likely to be substantially
increased.
    A deterministic quantitative evaluation of potential dietary
exposure to children (1 to 2 years) from consumption of pesticide-
treated potatoes was conducted and compared to estimated dietary
exposure to 3-decen-2-one as a natural constituent of food and as a
food additive. Based on the results of the analysis, EPA has concluded
that dietary exposure to residues of 3-decen-2-one when used as a
pesticide will be considerably less than dietary exposure to the
chemical as a naturally occurring constituent in food and/or as a food
additive. This conclusion is supported by data obtained from the
residue study specifically on baked potatoes, which demonstrated that
residues of 3-decen-2-one decline over time and are reduced when
potatoes are cooked (Ref. 2).
    Based on the information in this unit, which includes an estimation
of potential dietary exposure to 3-decen-2-one from the consumption of
treated potatoes, the Agency concludes that there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result to the U.S. population, including
infants and children, from dietary exposure to the pesticidal residues
of 3-decen-2-one in food.
    2. Drinking water exposure. Based on the proposed use pattern of
the active ingredient as a potato sprout inhibitor used in indoor
settings, residues in drinking water are not anticipated if products
are used according to good agricultural practices and label
instructions. Products containing the active ingredient will be used in
indoor commercial settings only; therefore, 3-decen-2-one residues in
drinking water are highly unlikely. In the unlikely event that exposure
via drinking water does occur, the health risk would be expected to be
minimal based on the low acute oral toxicity of 3-decen-2-one.

B. Other Non-Occupational Exposure

    Non-occupational exposure is not expected from the postharvest use
of 3-decen-2-one on stored potatoes via a closed system. Any exposure
is expected to be occupational in nature.

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

    Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering
whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance exemption, EPA
consider ``available information concerning the cumulative effects of
[a particular pesticide's] * * * residues and other substances that
have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found 3-decen-2-one to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and 3-decen-2-one does not appear
to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that 3-
decen-2-one does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine
chemicals that have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at  http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

VI. Determination of Safety for U.S. Population, Infants and Children

    FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) provides that, in considering the
establishment of a tolerance or tolerance exemption for a pesticide
chemical residue, EPA shall assess the available information about
consumption patterns among infants and children, special susceptibility
of infants and children to pesticide chemical residues, and the
cumulative effects on infants and children of the residues and other
substances with a common mechanism of toxicity. In addition, FFDCA
section 408(b)(2)(C) provides that EPA shall apply an

additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in
the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal
toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure,
unless EPA determines that a different margin of safety will be safe
for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly
referred to as the Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. In
applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X,
or uses a different additional or no safety factor when reliable data
are available to support a different additional or no safety factor.
    Because there are no threshold effects associated with this
biochemical, an additional margin of safety for infants and children is
not necessary.
    EPA has determined that there are no foreseeable dietary risks to
the U.S. population, including infants and children, from the use of 3-
decen-2-one as a pesticide on stored potatoes when label instructions
and good agricultural practices are followed. The available data and
information indicate that the chemical:
    1. Is of low toxicity and is not a developmental toxicant;
    2. Naturally occurs in the human diet;
    3. Has been approved by FDA for use in foods as a food additive
without limitation; and
    4. Is metabolized into innocuous substances.
    Additionally, basic exposure analyses that were specifically
conducted for children aged 1-2 years suggest that dietary exposure
from ingestion of the chemical as a pesticide is likely to be less than
dietary exposure from ingestion of the chemical as a food additive and/
or as a constituent that naturally occurs in foods (Ref. 2). When
compared to the amount of 3-decen-2-one that is likely already consumed
in the human diet, dietary exposure from pesticidal use is not
anticipated to significantly increase overall dietary exposure of
infants and children.
    Therefore, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that
no harm will result to the U.S. population, including infants and
children, from aggregate exposure to the residues of 3-decen-2-one when
it is used as labeled and in accordance with good agricultural
practices. Such exposure includes all anticipated dietary exposures and
all other exposures for which there is reliable information. EPA has
arrived at this conclusion because the data and information available
on 3-decen-2-one do not demonstrate significant toxic potential to
mammals, including infants and children.

VII. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes for
the reasons stated in Unit VI. and because EPA is establishing an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical
limitation.

B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. In this
context, EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs)
established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required
by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United
Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization
food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food
safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the
United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is
different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires
that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has not established a MRL for 3-decen-2-one.

C. Response to Comments

    In response to a Notice of Filing that published in the Federal
Register of March 10, 2010, EPA received a comment from Michael J. Keim
(Keim Aerosol Technologies) in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0065.
Mr. Keim believes that EPA has not been adequately informed [by the
petitioner] with respect to the use of chemicals for the postharvest
treatment of stored potatoes and that such use poses a risk to humans
and the environment. His conclusion is based on his experience with the
use of chlorpropham (CIPC), a conventional chemical that is applied
(via thermal fog generator) in the same manner as the proposed product.
Mr. Keim states that half of CIPC applied to stored potatoes does not
deposit on the potatoes and, therefore, is expelled to the outside
environment. As a result of this application method, Mr. Keim contends
that EPA has not adequately assessed the risks to non-target organisms
and worker/handlers.
    EPA notes that the comment from Mr. Keim pertains mainly to the
application equipment used on the proposed label, which would be more
applicable to the Notice of Receipt (see the Federal Register of March
10, 2010 (75 FR 11175) (FRL-8811-6)) for 3-decen-2-one, and to the
conventional chemical, CIPC, which, from a toxicological perspective,
is quite different from 3-decen-2-one. Nonetheless, EPA will address
Mr. Keim's comment in this document.
    EPA would first direct the commenter to the documents in the docket
for the Registration Review of CIPC (docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-
0923) as the Agency's Health Effects Division (HED) and Environmental
Fate and Effects Division (EFED) have already responded to Mr. Keim's
comments regarding the application equipment used for CIPC products and
the potential for exposure based on the displacement and degradation of
CIPC.
    As stated in the EPA memoranda listed in Unit IX., the Agency
received and reviewed product chemistry, residue, mammalian toxicity,
and non-target organism data and/or information for this new active
ingredient, 3-decen-2-one, as outlined in 40 CFR 158.2030, 158.2040,
158.2050, and 158.2060. The data and information submitted to EPA
indicate that 3-decen-2-one is of low toxicity (with the exception that
it is an eye and dermal irritant), no developmental effects were found
at the highest dose tested (NOAEL = 1,000 mg/kg/day), and 3-decen-2-one
is not mutagenic. With regard to worker exposure, the thermal fogging
application method on the proposed product label used for stored
potatoes is an automated system and, as such, EPA considers this method
a closed-delivery system and does not expect occupational handler
exposure. The only occupational exposure expected is the handling of
the product prior to application, which is mitigated by appropriate
precautionary statements and personal protective equipment (PPE)
requirements listed on the label. EPA has not identified any toxic
endpoints for non-target mammals, birds, plants, aquatic, or soil
organisms and has no concerns for any non-target organisms exposed to
3-decen-2-one when used in accordance with approved label directions.
The petitioner did submit information that estimated the physical and
chemical properties for 3-decen-2-one by using QSAR modeling based on
the Estimation Programs Interface Model (EPI SuiteTM 4.0).
Using Henry's Law, which states that the solubility of a gas in a
liquid is directly proportional to the partial pressure of the gas
above the liquid, 3-decen-2-one is estimated to be 5.4 x
10-4 atm[middot]m\3\/mol and indicates that the active
ingredient has a potential for volatility from water or moist soil. In
soil, the estimated Koc of 165.2-860.9 L/kg

indicates that 3-decen-2-one would have medium to low mobility in soil.
In water, an estimated log Kow of 3.28 and an estimated
bioconcentration factor (BCF) of 67.41 L/kg wet-wt indicate that
bioaccumulation in aquatic organisms is unlikely. In the air,
atmospheric oxidation by hydroxyl radicals' reaction is expected to
occur with estimated half-lives of 1.9-2.2 hours. The probability of
biodegradation of 3-decen-2-one was evaluated using EPI
SuiteTM 4.0 in the BIOWIN module. Various models in the
BIOWIN module predicted rapid biodegradation of 3-decen-2-one. Based on
a total air volume in a potato warehouse of 1,910 m\3\ and the total
applied 3-decen-2-one of 122,475 g calculated by the petitioner, the
maximum air concentration of 3-decen-2-one in a potato warehouse was
estimated to be 64.14 mg/L of air. With an estimated ventilation rate
of 825 m\3\ of air/min, the air volume in a potato warehouse will be
exchanged within 2.5 minutes when the vents to the outdoors are opened.
Thus, the concentration emitted will be rapidly diluted in the outside
air, which further demonstrates insignificant exposure to non-target
organisms. In summary, given that 3-decen-2-one is applied indoors in a
closed system, has low toxicity, is naturally occurring in foods that
are common in the human diet, and presents little, if any, risk to non-
target organisms, EPA concludes that pesticide products containing this
new active ingredient, 3-decen-2-one, are not expected to cause
unreasonable adverse effects on the environment (includes consideration
of risks to workers/handlers and non-target organisms).

VIII. Conclusion

    EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result to the U.S. population, including infants and children,
from aggregate exposure to residues of 3-decen-2-one. Therefore, an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for
residues of the biochemical pesticide, 3-decen-2-one, in or on potatoes
when applied as a postharvest potato sprout inhibitor and used in
accordance with label directions and good agricultural practices.

IX. References

    The references used in this document are available as ``Supporting
& Related Material'' within docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0065 at
www.regulations.gov.

1. U.S. EPA. 2011. Memorandum from Colin G. Walsh thru Angela L.
Gonzales to Linda A. Hollis. Joint Science Review with Health Canada
Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) in Support of the
Registration of AMV-1018 Technical (EPA File Symbol No. 5481-LAI), a
Manufacturing-Use Product (MP), Containing 98.0% of 3-decen-2-one as
its Active Ingredient and Tolerance Exemption Petition Review in
Support of 3-decen-2-one. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Pesticide Programs. December 20, 2011.
2. U.S. EPA. 2013. Memorandum from Angela L. Gonzales thru Felecia
A. Fort to Colin G. Walsh. Joint Science Review with Health Canada
Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) in Support of the
Registration of AMV-1018 Technical Containing 98.0% of 3-decen-2-one
as its Active Ingredient. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Pesticide Programs. January 3, 2013.
3. U.S. EPA. 2010. Memorandum from Gina M. Casciano and Colin G.
Walsh thru Russell S. Jones to Driss Benmhend. Revised Hazard
Assessment for Tier I Human Health Toxicity in Support of the
Registration of AMV-1018 Technical, Containing 3-decen-2-one as its
Active Ingredient (Amends EPA Memorandum from Gina M. Casciano and
Colin G. Walsh through Russell S. Jones to Driss Benmhend dated June
16, 2010). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide
Programs. December 7, 2010.

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a tolerance exemption under FFDCA
section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to EPA. The Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has
been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule
is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain
any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). Since
tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a
petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance exemption in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes. As a result, this
action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, EPA has determined that this
action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal
governments, on the relationship between the national government and
the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, EPA has determined that
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999), and Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000), do not apply to this final rule. In addition, this final rule
does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as
described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require EPA consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to
section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
of 1995 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

XI. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: February 5, 2013.
Steven Bradbury,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. In subpart D, add Sec.  180.1318 to read as follows:

Sec.  180.1318  3-decen-2-one; exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance.

    An exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for
residues of the biochemical pesticide, 3-decen-2-one, in or on potatoes
when applied as a potato sprout inhibitor and used in accordance with
label directions and good agricultural practices.

[FR Doc. 2013-03758 Filed 2-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


MEMORANDUM

DATE:		September 4, 2014

TO:		Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR - 2013-0602

FROM:	Region 7, EPA

SUBJECT:	August 27, 2014, Conference Call Regarding Proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY

      A conference call was held between EPA and the attendees listed below on August 27, 2014 to discuss the proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants. The purpose of the call was to answer questions regarding the Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants.  The Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014.        ATTENDEES

EPA Region 7: Mark A. Smith Toni Gargas John Smith Josh Tapp Becky Weber

Iowa Department of Natural Resources Catherine Fitzsimmons Christine Paulson Jason Marcel Marnie Stein

Kansas Department of Health and Environment Melissa Weide Miles Stotts Lynn Deahl Tom Gross

Missouri Department of Natural Resources  Mark Leath Emily Wilbur Paul Meyers Julia Katich

Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality Adam Yarina Shelley Schneider Katie Gutierrez Brian Kozisek


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 192 (Tuesday, October 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61351-61352]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25439]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4008-001.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Mexico.
    Description: Public Service Company of New Mexico submits tariff
filing per 35: ANPP HVS Part. Agreement Rate Schedule 117 to be
effective 9/7/2011.
    Filed Date: 09/23/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110923-5002.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 14, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2224-010.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: New York Independent System Operator, Inc. submits
tariff filing per 35: NYISO Compliance Filing Regarding ICAP Demand
Curves to be effective 9/15/2011.
    Filed Date: 09/22/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110922-5121.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, October 3, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4606-000.
    Applicants: Dragon Energy, LLC.
    Description: Dragon Energy, LLC submits tariff filing per 35.1:
FERC Electric MBR Baseline Tariff Filing to be effective 9/22/2011.
    Filed Date: 09/22/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110922-5107.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, October 13, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4607-000.
    Applicants: Energy Cooperative of New York, Inc.
    Description: Energy Cooperative of New York, Inc submits tariff
filing per 35.1: ECNY MBR Re-File to be effective 9/22/2011.
    Filed Date: 09/22/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110922-5113.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, October 13, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4608-000.
    Applicants: New York Industrial Energy Buyers, LLC.
    Description: New York Industrial Energy Buyers, LLC submits tariff
filing per 35.1: NYIEB MBR Re-File to be effective 9/22/2011.
    Filed Date: 09/22/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110922-5117.

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, October 13, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4609-000.
    Applicants: Triton Power Michigan LLC.
    Description: Triton Power Michigan LLC submits tariff filing per
35.1: Baseline eTariff Filing Pursuant to Order No. 714 to be effective
9/22/2011.
    Filed Date: 09/22/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110922-5118.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, October 13, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4610-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, LLC.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii): Queue Position V3-036; Original Service Agreement
Nos. 3059 & 3060 to be effective 8/23/2011.
    Filed Date: 09/22/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110922-5120.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, October 13, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4611-000.
    Applicants: Idaho Power Company.
    Description: Idaho Power Company submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii): BPA NITSA Oct 2011 to be effective 10/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 09/22/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110922-5122.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, October 13, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4612-000.
    Applicants: Barrick Goldstrike Mines Inc.
    Description: BARRICK GOLDSTRIKE MINES INC. Notice of Cancellation
of Market-Based Rate Tariff Issued.
    Filed Date: 09/23/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110923-5015.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 14, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4613-000.
    Applicants: DB Energy Trading LLC.
    Description: DB Energy Trading LLC submits tariff filing per 35.1:
DB Energy Trading LLC Rate Schedule FERC No. 1 Baseline Filing to be
effective 9/23/2011.
    Filed Date: 09/23/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110923-5036.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 14, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4614-000.
    Applicants: Discount Energy Group, LLC.
    Description: Discount Energy Group, LLC submits tariff filing per
35.1: Discount Energy FERC Electric Tariff, Volume No. 1 Baseline to be
effective 9/23/2011.
    Filed Date: 09/23/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110923-5049.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 14, 2011.

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

    Dated: September 23, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-25439 Filed 10-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 23, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77075-77077]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29970]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73858; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2014-14]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Order Approving a
Proposed Rule Change Amending Exchange Rule 967NY To Enhance the
Functionality of the Trade Collar Protection Mechanism

December 17, 2014.

I. Introduction

    On October 24, 2014, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
MKT'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend Exchange Rule 967NY relating to the
Exchange's ``Trade Collar Protection'' mechanism for options. The

proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on November 13, 2014.\3\ The Commission received no comments on the
proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S. C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73544 (November 6,
2014), 79 FR 67485 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange applies Trade Collar Protection to prevent the
immediate execution of certain orders at prices outside of a specified
parameter (referred to as a ``Trading Collar'').\4\ This Trade Collar
Protection mechanism is set forth in Exchange Rule 967NY(a), but the
Exchange has proposed to amend Exchange Rule 967NY(a) so that the rule
accurately reflects how the mechanism operates.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See id. Trading Collars are determined by the Exchange on a
class-by-class basis and, unless announced otherwise via Trader
Update, are the same value as the bid-ask differential guidelines
established pursuant to Exchange Rule 925NY(b)(4). See id. The
Exchange also notes that that the Trade Collar Protection mechanism
is not available for quotes or for orders with execution conditions
immediate-or-cancel (``IOC''), all-or-none (``AON''), fill-or-kill
(``FOK'') and NOW. See id.; see also Exchange Rule 967NY(a)(3).
    \5\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Trade Collar Protection mechanism applies in two scenarios: (1)
The mechanism prevents the execution of certain orders when the
difference between the National Best Offer (``NBO'') and the National
Best Bid (``NBB'') is greater than one Trading Collar; \6\ and (2) the
mechanism prevents the execution of the balance of a buy order if it
were to execute at a price that is the NBO plus a Trading Collar (or a
price that is the NBB minus a Trading Collar for an eligible sell
order).\7\ In the first scenario, the Exchange will display the order
at a price equal to the NBO minus one Trading Collar for sell orders or
the NBB plus one Trading Collar for buy orders (the ``collared
order'').\8\ The Exchange will then attempt to execute or route the
collared order to buy (sell) against any contra interest priced within
one Trading Collar above (below) the displayed price of the collared
order.\9\ After a period of one second, if the collared order has not
been executed or its price has not been recalculated due to changes in
the market, the Trade Collar Protection mechanism will improve the
collared order's displayed price by an amount equal to an additional
Trading Collar.\10\ The Exchange notes that the collared order will re-
price before the expiration of one second as a result of certain
changes in the market; specifically, an update to the NBBO that
improves the same side of the market as the collared order will cause
the collared order to be redisplayed at the same price as the updated
NBBO.\11\ A Limit Order (which is not an IOC Order, AON Order, FOK
Order or NOW Order) on the same side of the market priced better than
one Trading Collar from the collared order will also become subject to
Trade Collar Protection and will cause the collared order to improve by
one Trading Collar (which will redisplay at the new price and
additional size of the new Limit Order).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Exchange Rule 967NY(a)(1)(i).
    \7\ See Exchange Rule 967NY(a)(1)(ii).
    \8\ See Exchange Rule 967NY(a)(4)(A).
    \9\ See Exchange Rule 967NY(a)(4)(B).
    \10\ See Exchange Rule 967NY(a)(4)(C)(iii).
    \11\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 67485.
    \12\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second scenario arises when the difference between the NBB and
NBO is within the bid-ask differential guidelines and an incoming
market order or marketable limit order is partially executed upon entry
but execution of the balance of the order would be at a price that is
more than a Trading Collar away from the NBBO at entry.\13\ Pursuant to
Exchange Rule 967NY(a)(5), the balance of the partially executed order
will be subject to Trade Collar Protection and displayed at the last
sale price,\14\ and thereafter handled the same way as an order
collared in the first scenario.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 67486.
    \14\ See id.; see also Exchange Rule 967NY(a)(5). However, if
there is an opportunity for trading within one Trading Collar of the
last sale price, the buy (sell) order will be displayed at the NBB
(NBO) established at the time of the initial execution. See id.
    \15\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has proposed to amend Exchange Rule 967NY(a) so that
the description of the Trade Collar Protection mechanism conforms to
its function. First, Exchange Rule 967NY(a)(1)(i) provides that the
Exchange will prevent the immediate execution of market orders and
marketable limit orders if the width of the bid-ask differential of the
NBBO is greater than one Trading Collar. However, the Exchange states
that it only prevents the immediate execution of market orders (and not
marketable limit orders) when the width of the bid-ask differential of
the NBBO is greater than one Trading Collar.\16\ According to the
Exchange, marketable limit orders (i.e., orders with limit prices that
are executable against the NBB or NBO), execute immediately regardless
of the width of the bid-ask differential of the NBBO.\17\ Accordingly,
the Exchange proposes to delete the reference to marketable limit
orders in Exchange Rule 967NY(a)(1)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 67486.
    \17\ The Exchange states that it believes that an order with a
limit price evidences specific interest at which the submitting
market participant is willing to trade and, therefore, does not need
the protection of the Trade Collar Protection mechanism. See id. The
Exchange notes that marketable limit orders remain subject to the
protections of the Exchange's ``Limit Order Filter'' as provided in
in Exchange 967NY(b). See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the Exchange proposes to delete Exchange Rule
967NY(a)(4)(C)(iv), which provides that a market order that arrives on
the same side of the market as a collared order will also be subject to
Trade Collar Protection and will be displayed at the same price as the
collared order. The Exchange has not yet deployed this functionality
and, as such, Exchange Rule 967NY(a)(4)(C)(iv) is not an accurate
reflection of the Trade Collar Protection mechanism's current operation
in this regard.\18\ Instead of joining the resting collared order at
its displayed price, an incoming market order to buy (sell) on the same
side of the market as a resting collared order actually results in both
orders being displayed at a price equal to one Trading Collar above
(below) the resting collared order's displayed price.\19\ The Exchange
notes that this is what occurs when a marketable limit order to buy
(sell) is received on the same side of the market as a resting collared
order and priced more than one Trading Collar above (below) the resting
collared order's displayed price.\20\ This handling of later-arriving
marketable limit orders is currently set forth in Exchange Rule
967NY(a)(4)(C)(ii). Since market orders are actually handled the same
way, in connection with the proposed deletion of Exchange Rule
967NY(a)(4)(C)(iv), the Exchange also proposes to amend Exchange Rule
967NY(a)(4)(C)(ii) to broaden its applicability to all marketable
orders, which include both marketable limit orders and market
orders.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See id. The Exchange states that it intends to incorporate
this functionality in the near future as it believes that the
functionality would be beneficial to the market. See id.
    \19\ See id.
    \20\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 67486.
    \21\ See proposed Exchange Rule 967NY(a)(4)(C)(ii); see also
Notice, supra note 3, at 67486.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, the Exchange proposes to delete a cross reference to
Exchange Rule 967NY(b)(1) in Exchange Rule 967NY(a)(2), which provides
the bid-ask differentials used to determine the applicable value of the
Trading Collar. Exchange Rule 925NY(b)(4) provides that the bid price
for an option contract be used as the reference price for the bid-ask
differential applicable to both buy and sell orders, but the Trade
Collar

Protection mechanism instead uses the NBO as the reference price for
the value of the Trade Collar applicable to sell orders (and uses the
NBB as the reference price for the Trade Collar applicable to buy
orders).\22\ Accordingly, in place of the current cross reference to
Exchange Rule 925NY(b)(4) in Exchange Rule 967NY(a)(2), the Exchange
proposes to adopt new subparagraphs (a)(2)(A) and (a)(2)(B), which
codify the same numerical values as provided currently in Exchange Rule
925NY(b)(4) but make clear that the reference price for the applicable
Trading Collar is the NBB for buy orders and the NBO for sell orders
(rather than both values being keyed off of the NBB as Exchange Rule
925NY(b)(4) provides).\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 67486. The Exchange states
that it bases the value of the Trade Collar on the NBB for buy
orders because it believes that a market participant that is looking
to buy would derive its price off of what other market participants
are willing to pay (i.e., the prevailing bid), and similarly bases
the value of the Trade Collar on the NBO for sell orders because it
believes that a market participant that is looking to sell would
derive its price off of what other market participants are willing
to sell (i.e., the prevailing offer). See id.
    \23\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes some additional clarifying changes. The
Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 967NY(a) to delete the terms
``inbound'' and ``incoming'' where currently used in the rule because
Trade Collar Protection applies to resting orders as well as inbound or
incoming orders.\24\ The Exchange also proposes to delete the reference
in Exchange Rule 967NY(a)(3) to the cancellation of IOC Orders, AON
Orders, FOK Orders and NOW Orders if not immediately executed, as AON
orders do not cancel if they are not immediately executed.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See id.; see also proposed Exchange Rule 967NY(a).
    \25\ See proposed Exchange Rule 967NY(a)(3); see also Notice,
supra note 3, at 67486. The Exchange also proposes to capitalize the
term ``limit order'' as used in Exchange Rule 967NY(a)(4)(D) to
conform with the use of that term in the rest of the rule. See id.
at 67487.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\26\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\27\ which
requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities
exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered
the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that the Exchange believes that the proposal
assists with the maintenance of fair and orderly markets and protects
investors by correcting inaccurate language in Exchange Rule 967NY(a)
and clarifying the existing Trade Collar Protection functionality so
that market participants can better understand how the Exchange handles
certain orders in times of market dislocation. In addition, the
Commission notes that the Exchange believes that the proposed
functionality of the Trade Collar Protection components is consistent
with the Act. In particular, the Exchange believes that its proposal to
base Trading Collar values on the NBB for buy orders and the NBO for
sell orders could remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market by using a benchmark from which a market
participant would most likely derive its price.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 67487; see also supra note 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the operation of the Trade Collar
Protection mechanism set forth in the proposal is consistent with the
Act. In addition, the Commission believes that the revised description
of this mechanism should increase transparency with respect to how the
mechanism operates and enhance investors' understanding of how the
mechanism may affect their orders in certain market conditions.
Accordingly, the Commission believes that the proposal is reasonably
designed to help prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, protect investors and the
public interest.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\29\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEMKT-2014-14) be, and it
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-29970 Filed 12-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: January 4, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 2)]
[Notices]
[Page 339-340]
[DOCID:fr04ja06-52]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-ORD-2005-0562; FRL-8018-4]

Board of Scientific Counselors, Science to Achieve Results
(STAR)/Greater Research Opportunities (GRO) Fellowship Subcommittee
Meetings--Winter/Spring 2006

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-
463, the Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development (ORD), gives notice of two meetings of the Board of
Scientific Counselors (BOSC) Science to Achieve Results (STAR)/Greater
Research Opportunities (GRO) Fellowship Subcommittee.

DATES: Two public conference calls will be held on: (1) Thursday,
January 26, 2006 from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m., and (2) Thursday, February 16,
2006 from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. All times noted are eastern time. The
meetings may adjourn early if all business is finished. Requests for
the draft agenda or for making oral presentations at the conference
calls will be accepted up to 1 business day before each conference
call.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
ORD-2005-0562, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line

instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail: Send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2005-0562.

     Fax: Fax comments to:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Attention Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2005-0562.
     Mail: Send comments by mail to: Board of Scientific
Counselors, Science to Achieve Results (STAR)/Greater Research
Opportunities (GRO) Fellowship Subcommittee--Winter/Spring 2006 Docket,
Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460,
Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2005-0562.
     Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver comments to: EPA Docket
Center (EPA/DC), Room B102, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2005-
0562. Note: This is not a mailing address. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-
2005-0562. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov website

is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm
.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov
 index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Board of

Scientific Counselors, Science to Achieve Results (STAR)/Greater
Research Opportunities (GRO) Fellowship Subcommittee--Winter/Spring
2006 Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone
number for the ORD Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Designated Federal Officer via
mail at: Lorelei Kowalski, Mail Code 8104-R, Office of Science Policy,
Office of Research and Development, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; via phone/voice
mail at:<PHONE_NUMBER>; via fax at:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or via e-mail at:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

General Information

    Participation in the conference calls will be by teleconference
only--meeting rooms will not be used. Members of the public who wish to
obtain the call-in number and access code to participate in the
conference calls may contact Lorelei Kowalski, the Designated Federal
Officer, via any of the contact methods listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section above, by 4 working days prior to each
conference call.
    Proposed agenda items for the conference calls include, but are not
limited to: (1) First conference call: charge questions, objective of
the program review, overview of the Office of Research and Development,
writing assignments, and future meetings; (2) second conference call:
overview of STAR/GRO fellowship programs, and preparation for a face-
to-face meeting in March 2006. The conference calls are open to the
public.
    Information on Services for Individuals with Disabilities: For
information on access or services for

individuals with disabilities, please contact Lorelei Kowalski at (202)
564-3408 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To request accommodation of a
disability, please contact Lorelei Kowalski, preferably at least 10
days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to
process your request.

    Dated: December 27, 2005.
Kevin Y. Teichman,
Director, Office of Science Policy.
[FR Doc. E5-8271 Filed 1-3-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 28, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12100-12102]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4685]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66438; File No. SR-Phlx-2012-16]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Modify
Certain External and Inter-Cabinet Connectivity Fees

February 22, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on February 14, 2012, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``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 Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to modify certain external and inter-cabinet
connectivity fees. The text of the proposed rule change is available at
http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/micro.aspx?id=PHLXRulefilings, at the
Exchange's principal office, 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
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Phlx Fee Schedule, Section X(b),
to reduce fees for low latency connectivity to Toronto and Chicago
venues; and to increase certain fees for other forms of connectivity.
Low Latency Connectivity
    On December 20, 2011, the Commission approved the Exchange's
offering of low latency point-to-point telecommunications connectivity
from the Exchange's co-location facility to select financial trading
and co-location venues in the metropolitan New York/New Jersey area,
Toronto, and Chicago.\3\ The enhanced point-to-point connectivity
provides the Exchange's co-location customers the opportunity to obtain
low latency network connectivity with greater ease and at a competitive
price.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66011 (December 20,
2011), 76 FR 80999 (December 27, 2011)(SR-Phlx-2011-142).
    \4\ Id. at 80999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes a pass-through reduction in the fees for
connectivity to Toronto and Chicago venues as follows: (1) For 100MB
connectivity to the Toronto area, a reduction of the installation fee
from $5,150 to $4,850, and a reduction of the per-month connectivity
fee from $4,350 to $4,100; (2) for 1G connectivity to the Toronto area,
a reduction of the installation fee from $8,200 to $7,700, and a
reduction of the per-month connectivity fee from $10,450 to $9,850; (3)
for 10G connectivity to the Toronto area, a reduction of the
installation fee from $15,150 to $14,200, and a reduction of the per-
month connectivity fee from $32,400 to $28,400; (4) for 100MB
connectivity to the Chicago area, a reduction of the installation fee
from $4,850 to $3,500, and a reduction of the per-month connectivity
fee from $8,350 to $7,350; (5) for 1G connectivity to the Chicago area,
a reduction of the installation fee from $5,900 to $4,900, and a
reduction of the per-month connectivity fee from $16,400 to $12,800;
(6) for 10G connectivity to the Chicago area, a reduction of the
installation fee from of [sic] $12,050 to $10,650, and a reduction of
the per-month connectivity fee from $39,750 to $26,900.
    The reductions in fees are the result of the Exchange obtaining a
reduction in the fees charged to the Exchange by the Toronto and
Chicago low latency telecommunication carriers. The Exchange is passing
along the entire savings of the reduction in fees to the subscribers of
the Toronto and Chicago low latency connectivity service.
Increasing the 1Gb Connectivity Fees
    The Exchange further proposes to raise the 1Gb connectivity fees to
The

NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'').\5\ More specifically, the
Exchange proposes to raise the per-month fiber connectivity fee to
NASDAQ from $500 to $1,000. The Exchange also proposes to raise the
one-time installation fee for the 1Gb copper connectivity to NASDAQ
from $100 to $1,000, and the per-month connectivity fee from $250 to
$1,000. Due to the Exchange's continued efforts to upgrade its
networks, the cost to maintain the 1G network connections and
infrastructure continues to grow. The increased fees serve to cover the
increased costs associated with maintaining the 1Gb connections and the
related infrastructure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ All co-location services are provided by NASDAQ Technology
Services LLC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\6\ in general, and with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\7\ in particular, in that it provides for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and issuers and other persons using any facility or
system which the Exchange operates or controls. The Exchange believes
the proposed fees are reasonable and equitable for the reasons below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Low Latency Connectivity
    In SR-Phlx-2011-142,\8\ the Commission determined that the original
fees established for low latency connectivity were reasonable,
equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory because the connectivity
options are uniformly available to all members that opt to pay for
them, because they enable the Exchange to cover its costs, because they
are comparable to fees charged by other trading venues for comparable
services, and because they are designed to promote competition by
offering members additional service options. These determinations apply
with equal weight to the reduced fees, which enhance the reasonableness
and competitiveness of the service by passing on the reduction in low
latency connectivity fees to the Toronto and Chicago venues to the
members that opt to receive the connectivity options in question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66011 (December 20,
2011), 76 FR 80999 (December 27, 2011) (SR-Phlx-2011-142).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Increasing the 1Gb Connectivity Fee
    The Exchange believes the proposal to increase the 1Gb connectivity
to NASDAQ is reasonable because the costs are associated with the
Exchange's continued efforts to upgrade its networks by maintaining the
1Gb network connections and infrastructure as the need for such
connections continues to grow. The costs associated with operating a
co-location facility, like the costs of operating the electronic
trading facility with which the co-location facility is associated, are
primarily fixed costs, and in the case of co-location are primarily the
costs of renting or owning data center space and retaining a staff of
technical personnel. Accordingly, the Exchange establishes a range of
co-location fees with the goal of covering these fixed costs, covering
less significant marginal costs, such as the cost of electricity, and
providing the Exchange a profit to the extent the costs are covered. In
this instance, the current fees charged for the 1Gb network connections
does [sic] not cover the costs of maintaining the connections,
resulting in a loss for the Exchange on this service. The Exchange is
proposing to raise the fees for the 1Gb network connections to cover
its costs, and to the extent the costs are covered, allow the Exchange
to earn a profit.
    More specifically, the Exchange proposes to raise the per-month 1Gb
fiber connectivity fee to NASDAQ from $500 to $1,000 to cover the
increasing cost to continually improve this lower bandwidth network,
which includes continuous improvements in reducing latency, upgrading
equipment, and adding functionality to this network. The cost to
maintain this lower bandwidth network also continues to rise as the
network gets older, equipment must be replaced and resources must be
dedicated to monitor and ensure any issues are dealt with quickly and
do not cause any client outages or connectivity issues. Due to the
continuous growth of the size of consolidated and proprietary market
data feeds that can be provided over these 1G network connections, as
per client request, additional NASDAQ network resources are required to
monitor and interface with clients when data spikes and data gapping
issues occur. The Exchange has not increased the fees for these
services in over six years, while the costs have continued to rise.
    The Exchange also proposes to raise the one-time installation fee
[sic] the 1Gb copper connectivity to NASDAQ from $100 to $1,000 to
cover the increasing costs to install connections to this lower
bandwidth network. The copper installation requires the same amount of
resources, tools, and time to install, enable data and test
connectivity as the fiber installation which is already priced at
$1,000. While the costs have increased, the Exchange has not adjusted
the price on this connection for more than six years.
    Additionally, the Exchange proposes to raise the per-month 1Gb
copper connectivity to NASDAQ from $250 to $1,000 to cover the
increasing costs to improve and maintain this lower bandwidth network,
which includes continuous improvements in reducing latency, upgrading
equipment, and adding functionality to this network. The cost to
maintain this lower bandwidth network also continues to rise as the
network gets older, equipment must be replaced and resources must be
dedicated to monitor and ensure any issues are dealt with quickly and
do not cause any client outages or connectivity issues. Due to the
continuous growth of the size of consolidated and proprietary market
data feeds that can be provided over these 1G network connections, as
per client request, additional NASDAQ network resources are required to
monitor and interface with clients when data spikes and data gapping
issues occur. The Exchange has not increased the fees for these
services in over six years, while the costs have continued to rise. In
addition, the copper connections provide the same services and latency
as the fiber connections. The Exchange proposes to standardize the fees
for these connections as it does with the inter-cabinet connectivity
fees of this section of the Fee Schedule.
    The Exchange further believes that the proposed fees are reasonable
in that the Exchange's proposed fees are less than those charged by
other trading venues for comparable services.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63275 (November 8,
2010), 75 FR 70048 (November 16, 2010)(SR-NYSEArca-2010-100) at page
70049. The Exchange's proposed monthly fee of $1,000 for a 1Gb is
less than NYSE's fee of $5,000 for the same bandwidth connection to
the data center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes the proposed increase in the fees for
the 1Gb connectivity to NASDAQ, both fiber and copper, is equitably
allocated and non-discriminatory in that all Exchange members have the
option of selecting the 1Gb connections to NASDAQ and there is no
differentiation among members with regard to the fees charged for such
costs.

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

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

Moreover, the Exchange believes that its changes with respect to fees
for the 1Gb connectivity will not burden competition because the
applicable fees remain competitive with those charged by other venues.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\10\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(ii) [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2012-16 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2012-16. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used.
    To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the
hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of 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-
Phlx-2012-16, and should be submitted on or before March 20, 2012.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-4685 Filed 2-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P