<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">

<META name="generator" content="PDFCreactiveX HTML Export">
<META name="creation-date" content="24/05/2008 11:05:52 ">
<TITLE></TITLE>


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 19 (Monday, January 30, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 5952]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01741]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-187, OMB Control No. 3235-0211]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Extension: Rule 18f-1
and Form N-18f-1

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 350l-3520), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget a request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information discussed below.
    Rule 18f-1 (17 CFR 270.18f-1) enables a registered open-end
management investment company (``fund'') that may redeem its securities
in-kind, by making a one-time election, to commit to make cash
redemptions pursuant to certain requirements without violating section
18(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-18(f)). A
fund relying on the rule must file Form N-18F-1 (17 CFR 274.51) to
notify the Commission of this election. The Commission staff estimates
that 12 funds file Form N-18F-1 annually, and that each response takes
one hour. Based on these estimates, the total annual burden hours
associated with the rule is estimated to be 12 hours. The estimated
burden hours associated with rule 18f-1 and Form 18F-1 have decreased
by 10 hours from the current allocation of 22 hours. This decrease is
due to a decrease in the estimated number of investment companies
filing Form N-18F-1 annually. There is no external cost associated with
this collection of information.
    The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and is not derived from a
comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of
Commission rules. The collection of information required by rule 18f-1
is necessary to obtain the benefits of the rule. Responses to the
collection of information will not be kept confidential. An agency may
not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control
number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following website: www.reginfo.gov. Find this
particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day
Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice
by March 1, 2023 to (i) [email protected] and
(ii) David Bottom, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and
Exchange Commission, c/o John Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, or by sending an email to: [email protected].

    Dated: January 24, 2023.
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-01741 Filed 1-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: September 22, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 184)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 55313-55319]
[DOCID:fr22se06-9]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0299; FRL-8093-8]

Trifloxystrobin; Pesticide Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for combined residues
of Trifoxystrobin (Benzeneacetic acid, (E,E)-[alpha]-(methoxyimino)-2-
[[[[1-[3-(trifluoromethyl) phenyl]ethylidene]amino]oxy]methyl]-, methyl
ester and the free form of its acid metabolite CGA-321113 ((E,E)-
methoxyimino-(2-[1-(3-trifluoromethylphenyl) ethylideneaminooxymethyl]
phenyl)acetic acid)) in or on soybean, forage at 10.0 parts per million
(ppm), soybean, hay at 25.0 ppm, and soybean, seed at 0.08 ppm. Bayer
CropScience requested this tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of
1996 (FQPA).

DATES: This regulation is effective September 22, 2006. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before November 21, 2006,
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: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0299. All documents in the
docket are listed in the index for the docket. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly

available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available in the electronic docket at
http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard copy, at the

OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. The Docket Facility is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janet Whitehurst, Registration
Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail 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.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS 111), e.g., agricultural workers;
greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; farmers.
     Animal production (NAICS 112), e.g., cattle ranchers and
farmers, dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers.
     Food manufacturing (NAICS 311), e.g., agricultural
workers; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers;
ranchers; pesticide applicators.
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 32532), e.g., agricultural
workers; commercial applicators; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and
floriculture workers; residential users.
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document?

    In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this Federal
Register document through the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov
, you may access this Federal Register document

electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may also access a

frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the
Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.
 To access the OPPTS Harmonized Guidelines

referenced in this document, go directly to the guidelines at http://www.epa.gpo/opptsfrs/home/guidelin.htm

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, any
person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may
also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural
regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for
hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. 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-2005-0299 in the
subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be
in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or
before November 21, 2006.
    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 that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit your copies, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0299, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of January 4, 2006 (71 FR 340) (FRL-7750-
6), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
5F6956) by Bayer CropScience, P.O. Box 12014, 2 T.W. Alexander Drive,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. The petition requested that 40 CFR
180.555 be amended by establishing tolerances for combined residues of
the fungicide trifloxystrobin, (Benzeneacetic acid, (E,E)-[alpha]-
(methoxyimino)-2-[[[[1-[3-(trifluoromethyl)
phenyl]ethylidene]amino]oxy]methyl]-, methyl ester and the free form of
its acid metabolite CGA-321113 ((E,E)-methoxyimino-(2-[1-(3-
trifluoromethylphenyl) ethylideneaminooxymethyl)phenyl)acetic acid)) in
or on soybean, forage at 8.0 ppm, soybean, hay at 20.0 ppm, and
soybean, seed at 0.08 ppm. That notice included a summary of the
petition prepared by BayerCropScience, the registrant. The petition
also proposed a 4.2 ppm tolerance for aspirated grain fractions (AGF)
derived from soybean seed. However, this tolerance is not necessary as
residues in/on soybean AGF are covered by the existing 5.0 ppm
tolerance or AGF, which was established in conjunction with the use of
trifloxystrobin on wheat. There were no comments received in response
to the notice of filing.
    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from

aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .''
    EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. For further discussion of the
regulatory requirements of section 408 of the FFDCA and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see:
    http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/1997/November/Day-26/p30948.htm
    http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/trac/science

    http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/ riskassess.htm    http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/trac/science/ aggregate.pdf.
egate.pdf.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to
make a determination on aggregate exposure, consistent with section
408(b)(2) of FFDCA, for a tolerance for combined residues of
trifloxystrobin and CGA 321113 on soybean, forage at 10.0 ppm, soybean,
hay at 25.0 ppm, and soybean, seed at 0.08 ppm. EPA's assessment of
exposures and risks associated with establishing the tolerance follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature
of the toxic effects caused by trifloxystrobin as well as the no-
observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-
effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found in the
Federal Register of March 29, 2006 (71 FR 15597) (FRL-7759-9).

B. Toxicological Endpoints

    For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the dose at which the NOAEL from the toxicology study
identified as appropriate for use in risk assessment is used to
estimate the toxicological level of concern (LOC). However, the LOAEL
of concern identified is sometimes used for risk assessment if no NOAEL
was achieved in the toxicology study selected. An uncertainty factor
(UF) is applied to reflect uncertainties inherent in the extrapolation
from laboratory animal data to humans and in the variations in
sensitivity among members of the human population as well as other
unknowns.
    The linear default risk methodology (Q*) is the primary method
currently used by the Agency to quantify non-threshold hazards such as
cancer. The Q* approach assumes that any amount of exposure will lead
to some degree of cancer risk, estimates risk in terms of the
probability of occurrence of additional cancer cases. More information
can be found on the general principles EPA uses in risk
characterization at either of the following websites:
    http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess htm;    http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/trac/science.

risk assessment is shown in the following Table 1:

           Table 1.--Summary of Toxicological Dose and Endpoints for for Use in Human Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  FQPA SF and Level of
          Exposure Scenario               Dose Used in Risk         Concern for Risk     Study and Toxicological
                                            Assessment, UF             Assessment                Effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (female 13-49 only)      NOAEL = 250 mg/kg/day    FQPA SF = 1X             Developmental toxicity
                                       UF = 100...............  aPAD = aRfD............    rat
                                       Acute RfD = 2.5 mg/kg/   FQPA SF= 2.5 mg/kg/day.  LOAEL = 500 mg/kg/day,
                                        day.                                              based upon increased
                                                                                fetal skeletal
                                                                                anomalies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary                               General Population including infants and children. There were no
                                           appropriate toxicological effects attributable to a single exposure
                                         (dose) observed in oral toxicity studies including maternal effects in
                                            developmental studies in rats and rabbits. Therefore, a dose and
                                                 endpoint were not identified for this risk assessment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic dietary (all populations)      Parental NOAEL= 3.8 mg/  FQPA SF = 1X             Two-generation
                                        kg/day                  cPAD = cRfD............   reproduction study -
                                       UF = 100...............  FQPA SF= 0.038 mg/kg/     rat
                                       Chronic RfD = 0.038 mg/   day.                    LOAEL = 55.3 mg/kg/day,
                                        kg/day.                                           based upon decreases
                                                                                in body weight, body
                                                                                weight gains, reduced
                                                                                food consumption and
                                                                                histopathological
                                                                                lesions in the liver,
                                                                                kidneys and spleen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Short-term (1-30 days) and intermed-   Offspring NOAEL= 3.8 mg/ LOC for MOE = 100        Two-Generation
 term (1-6 months) oral                 kg/day                   (residential, includes   reproduction study -
                                                                 the FQPA SF)             rat
                                                                                LOAEL = 55.3 mg/kg/day,
                                                                                based upon reduced pup
                                                                                body weights during
                                                                                lactation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Short-term (1-30 days) and intermed-   Dermal study NOAEL =     LOC for MOE = 100        28-Day dermal toxicity
 term (1-6 months) dermal               100 mg/kg/day            (occupational)           study - rat
                                                                LOC for MOE = 100        LOAEL = 1,000 mg/kg/
                                                                 (residential, includes   day, based upon
                                                                 the FQPA SF).            increases in mean
                                                                                absolute and relative
                                                                                liver and kidney
                                                                                weights
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Long-term dermal (>6 months)           Oral study NOAEL= 3.8    LOC for MOE = 100        Two-generation
                                        mg/kg/day (dermal        (occupational)           reproduction study -
                                        absorption rate = 33%)  LOC for MOE = 100         rat
                                                                 (residential, includes  LOAEL = 55.3 mg/kg/day,
                                                                 the FQPA SF).            based upon decreases
                                                                                in body weight, body
                                                                                weight gains, reduced
                                                                                food consumption and
                                                                                histopathological
                                                                                lesions in the liver,
                                                                                kidneys and spleen
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Short-term (1-30 days), intermed-term  Oral study NOAEL= 3.8    LOC for MOE = 100        Two-generation
 (1-6 months) and long-term >6          mg/kg/day                (occupational)           reproduction study -
 months) inhalation                    (Inhalation absorption   LOC for MOE = 100         rat
                                        rate = 100%).            (residential, includes  LOAEL = 55.3 mg/kg/day,
                                                                 the FQPA SF).            based upon decreases
                                                                                in body weight, body
                                                                                weight gains, reduced
                                                                                food consumption and
                                                                                histopathological
                                                                                lesions in the liver,
                                                                                kidneys and spleen
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (oral, dermal, inhalation)      Trifloxystrobin is classified as ``Not Likely Human Carcinogen'' based on
                                         the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in mouse and rat cancer studies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 UF = uncertainty factor, FQPA SF = Special FQPA SF, NOAEL = no observed adverse effect level, LOAEL = lowest
  observed adverse effect level, PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic) RfD = reference dose,
  MOE = margin of exposure, LOC = level of concern

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. Tolerances have been
established (40 CFR 180.555) for the combined residues of
trifloxystrobin and CGA 321113 in or on a variety of raw agricultural
commodities. Risk assessments were conducted by EPA to assess dietary
exposures from trifloxystrobin in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.
    In conducting the acute dietary exposure assessment EPA used the
Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity
Intake Database (DEEM-FCID\TM\), which incorporates food consumption
data as reported by respondents in the USDA 1994-1996 and 1998
Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII),
and accumulated exposure to the chemical for each commodity. The
following assumptions were made for the acute exposure assessments: The
acute dietary exposure analysis for trifloxystrobin is a Tier 1
assessment (assuming 100 percent crop treated (%CT) and tolerance level
residues). The acute dietary endpoint was found to be applicable only
to the population subgroup females 13-49 years old. An acute dietary
endpoint for the general population including infants and children was
not identified.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the DEEM-FCID\TM\, which incorporates food
consumption data as reported by respondents in the USDA 1994-1996 and
1998 Nationwide CSFII, and accumulated exposure to the chemical for
each commodity. The following assumptions were made for the chronic
exposure assessments: A conservative chronic dietary analysis for
trifloxystrobin was conducted using tolerance-level residues for all
commodities with existing and proposed tolerances except for meat
byproducts of cattle, goats, horses, and sheep because the metabolite
L7a (the taurine conjugate of trifloxystrobin) is included in the risk
assessment for liver. For all commodities, 100% CT was used.
    iii. Cancer. Trifloxystrobin is classified as a ``Not Likely Human
Carcinogen.'' Due to the classification, no cancer risk assessment was
performed.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency lacks
sufficient monitoring exposure data to complete a comprehensive dietary
exposure analysis and risk assessment for trifloxystrobin in drinking
water. Because the Agency does not have comprehensive monitoring data,
drinking water concentration estimates are made by reliance on
simulation or modeling taking into account data on the physical
characteristics of trifloxystrobin. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm. EPA

determined estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of
trifloxystrobin using the PRZM/EXAMS, FIRST and SCI-GROW models. The
highest EDWCs for surface water and ground water acute exposure (92
parts per billion (ppb)) and surface water and ground water chronic
exposure (140 ppb) were used in the dietary analysis. The chronic
exposure value is higher than the acute exposure value due to some very
conservative assumptions in the chronic assessment. These estimates of
residues in drinking water were incorporated directly into the DEEM-
FCID model of the dietary risk assessment.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).
    Trifloxystrobin is currently registered for use on the following
residential non-dietary sites: Turfgrass and ornamentals. The risk
assessment was conducted using the following residential exposure
assumptions: Trifloxystrobin is currently registered for residential
uses including disease control in turfgrass and ornamentals. Up to
three applications may be made in a season, with the shortest interval
between applications being 5-7 days. Because FQPA requires
consideration of aggregate exposure to all likely non-occupational
uses, this assessment uses non-occupational post-application contact
with trifloxystrobin following use on turfgrass as the most common and
worst case contributor to such exposures.There is potential for dermal
(adults and children) and incidental oral exposure (children only)
during post-application activities. The following post-application
exposure scenarios resulting from lawn treatment were assessed: i.
Dermal exposure from pesticide residues on lawns, ii. incidental non-
dietary ingestion of pesticide residues on lawns from hand-to-mouth
transfer, iii. incidental non-dietary ingestion of residues from
object-to-mouth activities (pesticide-treated turfgrass), and iv.
incidental non-dietary ingestion of soil from pesticide-treated
residential areas. Post-application exposures from various activities
following lawn treatment are considered to be the most common and
significant in residential settings. The exposure via incidental non-
dietary ingestion involving other plant material may occur but is
considered negligible. Intermediate and chronic, or long-term exposures
are not expected.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity.

Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of the FFDCA requires that, when considering
whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency
consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative effects of
a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances that have a
common mechanism of toxicity.''
    Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative
risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made
a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to trifloxystrobin and any
other substances and trifloxystrobin does not appear to produce a toxic
metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that trifloxystrobin
has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For
information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a
common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of
such chemicals, see the policy statements released by EPA's Office of
Pesticide Programs concerning common mechanism determinations and
procedures for cumulating effects from substances found to have a
common mechanism on EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative
.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408 of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply
an additional tenfold 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 data base on toxicity and exposure
unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of
safety will be safe for infants and children. Margins of safety are
incorporated into EPA risk assessments either directly through use of a
margin of exposure (MOE) analysis or through using uncertainty (safety)
factors in calculating a dose level that poses no appreciable risk to
humans. In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X when reliable data do not support the choice of a
different factor, or, if reliable data are available, EPA uses a
different additional safety factor value based on the use of
traditional UFs and/or special FQPA safety factors, as appropriate.
    2. Conclusion. The Agency found that because the toxicology
database are complete for FQPA purposes and that there are no residual
uncertainties for prenatal/postnatal toxicity, the 10X FQPA Safety
Factor (SF) can be reduced to 1x. The FQPA SF is reduced to 1X because:
     There is no indication of increased susceptibility of rat
or rabbits to trifloxystrobin. In the developmental and reproduction
toxicity studies, effects in the fetuses/offspring were observed only
at or above treatment levels which resulted in evidence of parental
toxicity;
     The EPA determined that a developmental neurotoxicity
study in rats is not required;
     The acute and chronic dietary food exposure assessments
utilize existing and proposed tolerance level residues and 100% CT
information for all commodities. By using these screening-level
assessments, actual exposures/risks will not be underestimated;
     The exposure assessments will not underestimate the
potential dietary (food and drinking water) or non-dietary exposures
for infants and children from the use of trifloxystrobin;
     The dietary drinking water assessment utilizes water
concentration values generated by model and associated modeling
parameters, which are designed to provide conservative, health
protective, high-end estimates of water concentrations, which are not
likely to be exceeded; and
     The residential postapplication assessment is based upon
using residential standard operating procedures (SOPs). The assessment
is based upon surrogate study data. These data are reliable and are not
expected to underestimate risk to adults or children. The residential
SOPs are based upon reasonable ``worst-case'' assumptions and are not
expected to underestimate risk.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    1. Acute risk. The aggregate acute risk estimates include exposure
to residues of trifloxystrobin in food and drinking water, and does not
include dermal, inhalation or incidental oral exposure. Since the
dietary exposure assessment already includes the highest acute exposure
from the drinking water modeling data, no further calculations are
necessary. The food and drinking water exposure estimates for females
13-49 years old is < 1% acute population adjusted dose (aPAD). The acute
risk estimate for females 13-49 years, resulting from aggregate
exposure to trifloxystrobin in food and drinking water is below EPA's
level of concern.
    2. Chronic risk. The aggregate chronic risk assessment takes into
account average exposure estimates from dietary consumption of
trifloxystrobin (food and drinking water) and residential uses. Since
the exposure from turf is considered short-term, the aggregate chronic
assessment included food and drinking water only. Since the dietary
exposure assessment already includes the highest chronic exposure from
the drinking water modeling data, no further calculations are
necessary. The general U.S. population and all population subgroups
have exposure and risk estimates which are below EPA's level of concern
(i.e., the percentages of the (cPADs are all below 100%). The exposure
to the U.S. population was 21% of the cPAD and the most highly exposed
subgroup, cildren 1-2 years old, was at 62% of the cPAD. Therefore,
chronic risk estimates resulting from aggregate exposure to
trifloxystrobin in food and drinking water are below EPA's level of
concern from all population subgroups.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background exposure level). The short-term
aggregate risk assessment estimates risks likely to result from 1-30
day exposure to trifloxystrobin residues from food, drinking water, and
residential pesticide uses. High-end estimates of residential exposure
are used in the short-term assessment, while average values are used
for food and drinking water exposure (i.e. chronic exposures).
    Different endpoints were identified by EPA for short-term
incidental oral and dermal risk assessment (the basis for the oral
endpoint is reduced pup body weights and the dermal endpoint is based
on increases in liver and kidney weights). Therefore, it is not
reasonable, as a toxicological matter, to combine dietary/incidental
oral exposure with dermal exposure. A short-term aggregate risk
assessment for dietary plus incidental oral exposure is needed for
toddlers because there are residential postapplication incidental oral
exposure scenarios. Toddlers' incidental oral exposure is assumed to
include hand-to-mouth exposure, object-to-mouth exposure and exposure
through incidental ingestion of soil. Because toddlers also have post-
application dermal exposure as a result of the residential use and
because it is not scientifically appropriate to combine oral and dermal
exposures for trifloxystrobin, a separate short-term aggregate risk
assessment is needed for toddlers to assess the risk of dermal
exposure. This separate risk assessment only takes into account dermal
exposure and compares this exposure to the dermal endpoint. The short-
term aggregate oral exposure to all other

population groups is from dietary exposure alone (i.e. from food and
drinking water) because these population groups do not have incidental
oral exposures. As with toddlers, a separate short-term aggregate risk
assessment has been conducted for dermal exposure. Table 2 summarizes
short-term aggregate risks. All short-term aggregate risk estimates
result is MOEs greater than 100. Therefore, EPA does not consider
short-term aggregate risk to be a concern.

                                   Table 2.--Short-Term Aggregate Risk (Food, Drinking Water and Residential Exposure)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Short-Term Scenario
                                                                -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Average
                           Population                                                         Food +        Oral        Dermal
                                                                 NOAEL mg/kg/   LOC MOE1      Water     Residential  Residential   Aggregate
                                                                     day                   Exposure mg/  Exposure2   Exposure mg/     MOE3
                                                                                kg/day     mg/kg/day      kg/day
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. population/adults oral                                              3.8          100     0.008145           NA           NA          470
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. population/adults dermal                                            100          100           NA           NA        0.079         1300
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Youth (13-19 years old)                                                  3.8          100     0.005969           NA           NA          640
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Children (1-2 years old) oral                                            3.8          100     0.023704      0.00642           NA          130
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Children (1-2 years old) dermal                                          100          100           NA           NA        0.130          770
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Females (13-49 years old)                                                3.8          100     0.006396           NA           NA          590
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 The LOC MOE is 100, based on inter-species and intra-species safety factors totaling 100.
2 Oral Residential Exposure = Incidental Oral exposure from all possible sources.
3 Aggregate MOE = NOAEL / (All exposures appropriate to the assessment).

    4. Intermediate-term risk. An intermediate-term aggregate risk
assessment (1 to 6 months of exposure to trifloxystrobin residues from
food, drinking water, and residential pesticide uses) is not expected
to occur based on the short soil half-life (about 2 days). Therefore,
an intermediate-term aggregate risk assessment was not performed.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. EPA determined that
trifloxystrobin should be classified as a ``Not Likely Human
Carcinogen.'' EPA does not expect trifloxystrobin to pose a cancer
risk.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, and to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to trifloxystrobin residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An adequate Gas Liquid Chromatography/Nitrogen Phosphorous (GC/NPD)
method, Method AG-659A, is available for enforcing tolerances for the
combined residues of trifloxystrobin and the free form of its acid
metabolite (CGA-321113) in plant and livestock commodities. This method
was validated by the and forwarded to FDA for inclusion in PAM Vol. II.
    In the current soybean field trials and processing study, residues
of trifloxystrobin and CGA-321113 were determined using a LC/MS/MS
method (Bayer Report No. 200177), which was previously developed for
the analysis of residues in tomatoes and peppers. This method uses the
same extraction procedures as the current tolerance enforcement method,
but uses different clean up procedures and detection by LC/MS/MS. This
method is adequate for collecting residue data on trifloxystrobin and
CGA-321113 in soybean commodities.

B. International Residue Limits

    There are currently no Codex, Canadian, or Mexican MRL's or
tolerances for trifloxystrobin on soybeans. Therefore, international
harmonization is not an issue for this petition.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, the tolerance is established for combined residues of
trifoxystrobin, (Benzeneacetic acid, (E,E)-[alpha]-(methoxyimino)-2-
[[[[1-[3-(trifluoromethyl) phenyl] ethylidene] amino]oxy]methyl]-,
methyl ester and the free form of its acid metabolite CGA-321113
((E,E)-methoxyimino-(2-[1-(3-trifluoromethylphenyl)
ethylideneaminooxymethyl)phenyl)acetic acid)) in or on soybean, forage
at 10.0 ppm, soybean, hay at 25.0 ppm, and soybean, seed at 0.08 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of
significance, this rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). 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., or impose
any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law
104-4). 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); or OMB review or any Agency action under Executive
Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does
not involve any technical standards that would require Agency
consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section
12(d) of the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113,
section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Since tolerances and exemptions
that are established on the basis of a petition under section 408(d) of
FFDCA, such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the
issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply. In addition,
the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial
direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified
in Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable
process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local
officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.'' This final rule directly regulates growers, food
processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States. This action
does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency has
determined that this rule does not have any ``tribal implications'' as
described in Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 6,
2000). Executive Order 13175, requires EPA to develop an accountable
process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in
the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.''
``Policies that have tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive
order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.''
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on tribal
governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this rule.

VII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. 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 this final rule in the Federal Register. This final
rule 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: September 14, 2006.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
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. Section 180.555 is amended by alphabetically adding commodities to
the table in paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  180.555  Trifloxystrobin; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                * * * * *
Soybean, forage............................................         10.0
Soybean, hay...............................................         25.0
Soybean, seed..............................................         0.08
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 06-8060 Filed 9-21-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 20, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28671-28675]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13165]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83439; File No. SR-NYSENAT-2018-12]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE National, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt
Transaction, Routing, and Port Fees In Connection With the Re-Launch of
Trading on the Exchange

June 14, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on June 6, 2018, NYSE National, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE National'') 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 self-
regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to adopt transaction, routing, and port fees
in connection with the re-launch of trading on the Exchange. The
Exchange proposes to implement the rule change on June 6, 2018.\4\ The
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange originally filed to amend the Fee Schedule on
May 18, 2018 (SR-NYSENAT-2018-08) and withdrew such filing on May
25, 2018. The Exchange re-filed to amend the Fee Schedule on May 25,
2018 (SR-NYSENAT-2018-10) and withdrew such filing on June 6, 2018.
This filing replaces SR-NYSENAT-2018-10 in its entirety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    On February 1, 2017, the Exchange ceased trading operations.\5\ On
May 17, 2018, the Commission approved rule changes to support re-launch
of trading operations on Pillar, which is an integrated trading
technology platform designed to use a single specification for
connecting to the equities and options markets operated by the Exchange
and its affiliates, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca''), NYSE American LLC
(``NYSE American''), and New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'').\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80018 (February 10,
2017), 82 FR 10947 (February 16, 2017) (SR-NSX-2017-04)
(``Termination Filing''). On January 31, 2017, Intercontinental
Exchange, Inc. (``ICE''), through its wholly-owned subsidiary NYSE
Group, acquired all of the outstanding capital stock of the Exchange
(the ``Acquisition''). See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79902
(January 30, 2017), 82 FR 9258 (February 3, 2017) (SR-NSX-2016-16).
Prior to the Acquisition, the Exchange was named ``National Stock
Exchange, Inc.''
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83289 (May 17, 2018)
(SR-NYSENat-2018-02) (Approval Order) (``Re-Launch Filing''); see
generally www.nyse.com/pillar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described in the Re-Launch Filing, with Pillar, the Exchange
will re-launch trading in all Tape A, Tape B, and Tape C securities on
an unlisted trading privileges (``UTP'') basis on a fully automated
price-time priority allocation model.\7\ The Exchange's Pillar trading
platform is based on the rules and trading model of the cash equities
platforms of NYSE Arca, which operates as a fully automated price-time
priority allocation exchange. However, unlike its affiliated exchanges,
the Exchange is not a listing venue and therefore will not have any
``lead'' or ``designated'' market makers for listed securities and
would not operate any auctions. In addition, the Exchange will not
operate a retail liquidity program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See generally Re-Launch Filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In connection with its re-launch of operations, the Exchange
proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees and Rebates to adopt a new
pricing model for trading on the Pillar platform.
    The proposed changes would apply to transactions executed in all
trading sessions in securities priced at or above and below $1.00.
    The Exchange proposes to implement these changes effective June 6,
2018.

Proposed Rule Change
    The Exchange proposes the following transaction fees for the re-
launch of trading on its Pillar trading platform.
General Information Applicable to the Fee Schedule
    The Exchange proposes to summarize general information applicable
to the Fee Schedule in two bullets under the first heading in the Fee
Schedule titled ``Fees and Credits Applicable to Market Participants.''
    The first bullet would provide that rebates are indicated by
parentheses.
    The second bullet would provide that, for purposes of determining
transaction fees and credits based on requirements based on quoting
levels, average daily volume (``ADV''), and consolidated ADV
(``CADV''), the Exchange may exclude shares traded any day that (1) the
Exchange is not open for the entire trading day and/or (2) a disruption
affects an Exchange system that lasts for more than 60 minutes during
regular trading hours. The second proposed bullet would reproduce the
language that appears in both the NYSE American Equities and NYSE Arca
Equities price lists.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See NYSE American Equities Price List, available at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/nyse-american/NYSE_America_Equities_Price_List.pdf; NYSE Arca Equities Price List,
available at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/nyse-arca/NYSE_Arca_Marketplace_Fees.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Transaction Fees
    The Exchange proposes the following fees and credits for all
transactions under new heading I titled ``Transaction Fees'':
Liquidity Adding Fees \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Currently, there are two other exchanges (Cboe BYX and
Nasdaq BX) that have adopted a fee model that offers rebates to
liquidity takers and charges fees to liquidity providers. See Cboe
BYX U.S. Equities Exchange Fee Schedule, available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/byx/, and
Nasdaq BX Fee Schedule, available at https://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=bx_pricing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For securities priced at or above $1.00, the Exchange proposes the
following charges for executions on the Exchange of displayed orders
that add liquidity to the Exchange:
     The Exchange proposes to charge $0.0023 per share for
executions on the Exchange of displayed orders that add liquidity to
the Exchange.
     The Exchange proposes to charge $0.0021 per share for
executions on the Exchange of orders that set a new BBO \10\ and that
add liquidity to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The term ``BBO'' is defined in Rule 1.1 to mean the best
bid or offer that is a Protected Quotation on the Exchange. The term
``BB'' means the best bid that is a Protected Quotation on the
Exchange and the term ``BO'' means the best offer that is a
Protected Quotation on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Exchange proposes to charge $0.0025 per share for
executions on the Exchange of non-displayed orders that add liquidity
to the Exchange.
     Finally, the Exchange proposes to charge $0.0010 per share
for executions on the Exchange of Mid-Point Liquidity (``MPL'') orders
that add liquidity to the Exchange.
    For securities priced below $1.00, the Exchange does not propose to
charge a fee for executions on the Exchange of displayed orders and
non-displayed orders that add liquidity to the Exchange.
Liquidity Removing Fees
    The Exchange does not propose to charge a fee for executions on the
Exchange of orders that remove liquidity from the Exchange. The
proposal would apply to securities priced at or above $1.00.
    The Exchange also does not propose to charge a fee for executions
on the Exchange of MPL orders that remove liquidity from the Exchange.
The proposal would apply to securities priced at or above $1.00.
    For securities priced below $1.00, the Exchange does not propose to
charge a fee for orders that remove liquidity from the Exchange.
Adding and Remove Tiers for Securities at or Above $1.00
    The Exchange proposes tiered adding requirements for displayed and
non-displayed orders in securities priced at or above $1.00, as
follows.
    Under the proposed Adding Tier, the Exchange would offer the
following fees for transactions in stocks with a per share price of
$1.00 or more when adding liquidity to the Exchange if the ETP Holder
has at least 0.015% of Adding ADV as a percent of US CADV:
     $0.0020 per share for displayed orders;
     $0.0022 per share for non-displayed orders;
     $0.0018 per share for orders that set a new Exchange BBO;
and
     $0.0005 per share for MPL orders.
    Under the proposed Taking Tier, the Exchange would offer the
following credits for transactions in stocks with a per share price of
$1.00 or more when removing liquidity from the Exchange if the ETP
Holder has at least 50,000 shares of Adding ADV:
     ($0.0020) per share for orders;
     ($0.0002) per share for MPL orders.
    The Exchange also proposes to waive the Adding Tier and Taking Tier
volume requirements until June 1, 2018, which would be reflected in
footnote *.
Routing Fees
    Under a new heading II titled ``Routing Fees,'' the Exchange
proposes the following fees for routing, which would be applicable to
all orders by ETP Holders that are routed.
    For all executions in securities with a price at or above $1.00
that route to and execute in an away market,\11\ the Exchange proposes
to charge a fee of $0.0030 per share for executions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The term ``Away Market'' is defined in Rule 1.1 to mean any
exchange, alternative trading system (``ATS'') or other broker-
dealer (1) with which the Exchange maintains an electronic linkage
and (2) that provides instantaneous responses to orders routed from
the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For securities priced below $1.00 that route to and execute in an
away market, the Exchange proposes to charge a fee of 0.30% of the
total dollar value of the transaction.
Port Fees
    Under proposed new heading III titled ``Port Fees,'' the Exchange
proposes fees for the use of ports that:
    (1) Provide connectivity to the Exchange's trading systems (i.e.,
ports for entry of orders and/or quotes (``order/quote entry ports'')),
and
    (2) allow for the receipt of ``drop copies'' of order or
transaction information (``drop copy ports'' and, together with order/
quote entry ports, ``ports'').\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Firms receive confirmations of their orders and receive
execution reports via the order/quote entry port that is used to
enter the order or quote. A ``drop copy'' contains redundant
information that a firm chooses to have ``dropped'' to another
destination (e.g., to allow the firm's back office and/or compliance
department, or another firm--typically the firm's clearing broker--
to have immediate access to the information). Drop copies can only
be sent via a drop copy port. Drop copy ports cannot be used to
enter orders and/or quotes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For order/quote entry ports, the Exchange proposes to charge $250
per port per month. The fee would apply to all market participants.
    The Exchange proposes not to charge for order/quote entry ports
until June 1, 2018. Thereafter, the Exchange proposes to implement the
$250 per port per month fee.
    Similarly, the Exchange proposes to charge $250 per drop copy port
per month. The fee would apply to all market participants.
Additionally, the Exchange proposes to specify that only one fee per
drop copy port would apply, even if the port receives drop copies from
multiple order/quote entry ports.
    The Exchange proposes not to charge for drop copy ports until June
1, 2018. Thereafter, the Exchange proposes to implement the $250 per
port per month fee.

Equity Trading Permit (``ETP'') Fee
    The Exchange proposes a new heading IV titled ``ETP Fee.'' The
Exchange does not propose to charge a fee to obtain an ETP.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ ETP refers to an Equity Trading Permit issued by the
Exchange for effecting approved securities transactions on the
Exchange. See Rule 1.1 (definition of ETP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address any
other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that ETP
Holders would have in complying with the proposed change.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\14\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\15\ in
particular, because it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and
other persons using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate
between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) & (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Liquidity Removing Fees
    The Exchange believes that not charging a fee for removing
liquidity in securities priced at or above $1.00 and securities priced
below $1.00 is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because it would provide a financial incentive to bring additional
removing flow to a public market.
Liquidity Adding Fees
    The Exchange believes that charging a fee of $0.0023 per share for
liquidity adding displayed orders in securities priced at or above
$1.00 is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
the Exchange must balance the cost of credits for orders that remove
liquidity and the fees to provide displayed liquidity. The Exchange
believes that the proposed change is both equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the fee would apply uniformly to all similarly-
situated market participants.
    The Exchange believes that charging a fee of $0.0021 per share for
liquidity adding orders that set a new Exchange BBO in securities
priced at or above $1.00 is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the lower fee, compared with the fee of $0.0023
per share for liquidity adding displayed orders that do not set a new
Exchange BBO, will provide an incentive for ETP Holders to improve
displayed quotes on the Exchange, which would benefit all market
participants.
    The Exchange believes that charging a fee of $0.0025 per share for
liquidity adding non-displayed orders in securities priced at or above
$1.00 is reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory because the
proposed rate would be lower than the fee charged by other
exchanges.\16\ The Exchange further believes that the proposed fee is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it would apply to all
non-displayed orders that add liquidity to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Nasdaq BX, for instance, charges a fee of $0.0030 per share
for providing non-displayed liquidity for securities priced at or
above $1.00 for all other firms. See Nasdaq BX Exchange Fee Schedule
2018, available at https://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=bx_pricing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that charging a lower fee of $0.0010 per
share for liquidity adding MPL orders in securities priced at or above
$1.00 is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
the lower fee would provide an incentive for participation and provide
price improvement, which would benefit all market participants.
    The Exchange believes that not charging a fee for orders that
remove liquidity in securities priced below $1.00 is reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange believes that
not charging a fee for orders that remove liquidity would encourage
price discovery and enhance market quality by encouraging more
competitive quoting of displayed orders that add liquidity. The
Exchange further believes that not charging a fee for orders that
remove liquidity is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
it is designed to facilitate execution of, and enhance trading
opportunities for, displayed orders that add liquidity and that would
execute against those orders that remove liquidity, thereby further
incentivizing entry of displayed adding orders on the Exchange. The
Exchange believes that not charging a fee for orders that remove
liquidity would also reduce costs for market participants and
investors.
Adding and Remove Tiers for Securities at or Above $1.00
    The Exchange believes that the proposed tiered adding requirements
for displayed and non-displayed orders in securities priced at or above
$1.00 are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory, as
follows.
    The proposed Adding Tier fees for adding liquidity ($0.0020 per
share for displayed orders, $0.0022 per share for non-displayed orders,
$0.0018 per share for orders that set a new Exchange BBO, and $0.0005
per share for MPL orders) for ETP Holders with at least 0.015% of
Adding CADV in securities with a per share price of $1.00 or more when
adding liquidity are reasonable because it would further contribute to
incent ETP Holders to provide increased liquidity on the Exchange,
benefiting all ETP Holders. In addition, the Exchange believes that the
proposed Adding Tier credits are equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory as all similarly situated market participants will be
subject to the same credits on an equal and non-discriminatory basis.
    Similarly, the proposed Taking Tier credits (($0.0020) per share
for orders that remove liquidity and ($0.0002) per share for MPL
orders) that remove liquidity for ETP Holders with an Adding ADV of at
least 50,000 shares in securities with a per share price of $1.00 or
more when removing liquidity from the Exchange is reasonable, equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed fees are in line
with the fees for removing liquidity on other exchanges.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See CBOE BYX Exchange Fee Schedule at https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/byx/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to waive the Adding
Tier and Taking Tier volume requirements until June 1, 2018, because
the waiver for a limited period of time will enable the Exchange to
improve its overall competitiveness and strengthen its market quality
for all market participants. The proposed waiver is not unfairly
discriminatory because it will apply equally to all similarly situated
ETP Holders.
Routing Fees
    The Exchange believes that its proposed routing fees are reasonable
and not an unfairly discriminatory allocation of fees because the fee
would be applicable to all ETP Holders in an equivalent manner.
Moreover, the proposed fees for routing shares are also reasonable and
not unfairly discriminatory because they are consistent with fees
charged on other exchanges. In particular, the Exchange's proposal to
charge a fee of $0.0030 per share for all executions that route to and
execute on away markets in securities priced at or above $1.00 is
reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory because it is consistent
with fees charged on other exchanges.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Nasdaq Exchange Fee Schedule at http://nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=PriceListTrading2.

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

    Finally, the proposal to charge a fee for all executions of 0.30%
of total dollar value for transactions in securities with a price under
$1.00 that route to and execute on away markets is reasonable and not
unfairly discriminatory because it is consistent with fees charged on
other exchanges.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ NASDAQ, for example, charges a fee of 0.30% (i.e., 30 basis
points) of total dollar volume to remove liquidity for shares
executed below $1.00. See NASDAQ Fee Schedule at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=PriceListTrading2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Port Fees
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rates for order/quote entry
ports and drop copy ports are reasonable because the fees charged for
both types of ports are expected to permit the Exchange to offset, in
part, its connectivity costs associated with making such ports
available, including costs based on software and hardware enhancements
and resources dedicated to gateway development, quality assurance, and
support. The proposed port fees are also reasonable because the
proposed fees are comparable to the rates charged by other venues, and
in some cases are less expensive than many of the Exchange's
competitors.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ For example, NASDAQ charges $575 for order entry ports and
$550 for DROP ports. See NASDAQ Fee Schedule at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=PriceListTrading2#connectivity.
Also, Cboe BZX charges $550 per month per pair for logical ports.
See Cboe BZX U.S. Equities Exchange Fee Schedule at https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/bzx/.
Additionally, Cboe EDGA and Cboe EDGX each charge $550 per port per
month. See Cboe EDGA U.S. Equities Exchange Fee Schedule at https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/edga/ and Cboe
EDGX U.S. Equities Exchange Fee Schedule at https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/edgx/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed fee for order/quote entry
ports is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because charges for
order/entry ports will be based on the number of ports utilized. This
aspect of the proposed rule change is also equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it will apply on an equal basis for all ports on
the Exchange. The Exchange also believes that these fees are equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because they would apply to all users
of order/quote entry ports on the Exchange.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed fee for drop copy ports is
reasonable because it will result in a fee being charged for the use of
technology and infrastructure provided by the Exchange. In this regard,
the Exchange believes that the rate is reasonable because it is
comparable to the rate charged by other exchanges for drop copy
ports.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See note 20, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that it is reasonable that only one fee
per drop copy port would apply, even if the port receives drop copies
from multiple order/quote entry ports, because the purpose of drop
copies is such that a trading unit's or a firm's entire order and
execution activity is captured. The Exchange believes that the proposed
new fee for drop copy ports is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it will apply on an equal basis to all users of
drop copy ports and to all drop copy ports on the Exchange. In this
regard, all firms will be able to request drop copy ports, as would be
the case with order/quote entry ports.
ETP Fee
    The Exchange believes that not charging a fee to obtain an ETP on
the Exchange is reasonable because it may incentivize broker-dealers to
become Exchange permit holders and to direct order flow to the
Exchange, which benefits all market participants through increased
liquidity and enhanced price discovery.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant
competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement
regarding the burden on competition.
    For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal
is consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\22\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. Instead, the Exchange believes that the proposed
changes would encourage the submission of additional liquidity to a
public exchange, thereby promoting price discovery and transparency and
enhancing order execution opportunities for ETP Holders. The Exchange
believes that this could promote competition between the Exchange and
other execution venues, including those that currently offer similar
order types and comparable transaction pricing, by encouraging
additional orders to be sent to the Exchange for execution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more
favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust
its fees and rebates to remain competitive with other exchanges and
with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from
compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges.
Because competitors are free to modify their own fees and credits in
response, and because market participants may readily adjust their
order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which
fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is
extremely limited. As a result of all of these considerations, the
Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the
ability of ETP Holders or competing order execution venues to maintain
their competitive standing in the financial markets.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \23\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \24\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \24\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \25\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule

change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSENAT-2018-12 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSENAT-2018-12. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. Persons submitting
comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal
identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSENAT-2018-12 and should
be submitted on or before July 11, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-13165 Filed 6-19-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P