[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 28 (Tuesday, February 11, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8225-8226]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02872]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71479; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2013-141]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule
Change To Adopt New NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.25 To Create a Crowd
Participant Program on a Pilot Basis to Incent Competitive Quoting and
Trading Volume in Exchange-Traded Products by Market Makers Qualified
With the Exchange as CPs

February 5, 2014.
    On December 6, 2013, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
Arca'') 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 adopt the Crowd Participant Program, a one-year
pilot program, to incent competitive quoting and trading volume in
exchange-traded products (``ETPs'') by Market Makers qualified with the
Exchange as Crowd Participants. The proposed rule change was published
for comment in the Federal Register on December 26, 2013.\3\ The
Commission received no comment letters on the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71146 (Dec. 19,
2013), 78 FR 78426.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that, within 45 days of
the publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
Commission is extending this 45-day time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer
period

within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has
sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change. The proposed rule
change would, among other things, create a one-year pilot program, the
Crowd Participant Program, for issuers of certain ETPs listed on the
Exchange.
    Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\5\ designates March 26, 2014, as the date by which the Commission
should either approve or disapprove or institute proceedings to
determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change (File Number
SR-NYSEArca-2013-141).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-02872 Filed 2-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Naphthalene Acetic Acid, Its Salts, Ester and Acetamide R.E.D. FACTS

Publication number:  EPA 738-F-07-017

Pesticide Reregistration

All pesticides sold or distributed in the United States must be
registered by EPA, based on scientific studies showing that they can be
used without posing unreasonable risks to people or the environment.
Because of advances in scientific knowledge, the law requires that
pesticides first registered before November 1, 1984, be reregistered to
ensure that they meet today's more stringent standards.

In evaluating pesticides for reregistration, EPA obtains and reviews a
complete set of studies from pesticide producers that describe the human
health and environmental effects of each pesticide.  To implement
provisions of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996, EPA
considers the special sensitivity of infants and children to pesticides,
as well as aggregate exposure of the public to pesticide residues from
all sources, and the cumulative effects of pesticides and other
compounds with common mechanisms of toxicity.  The Agency develops any
mitigation measures or regulatory controls needed to effectively reduce
each pesticide's risks.  EPA then reregisters pesticides that meet
current human health and safety standards and ensures they can be used
without posing unreasonable risks to human health and the environment.

When a pesticide is eligible for reregistration, EPA explains the basis
for its decision in a Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED)
document.  This fact sheet summarizes the information in the RED
document for the naphthalene acetate pesticides, Naphthalene Acetic
Acid, Its Salts, Ester, and Acetamide, reregistration case number 0379.

Regulatory History

The first naphthalene acetate end-use product (with naphthalene
acetamide as the active ingredient), Rootone Brand Rooting Hormone with
Fungicide, was registered in 1952.  Its labeled use was to stimulate
root growth of cuttings of a number of ornamental plants, vines and
shrubs, deciduous trees, and evergreens.  Seven more naphthalene
acetates, including naphthalene acetic acid (NAA), were registered in
the early to mid-1960s.  There are six active ingredients currently
registered as part of the naphthalene acetates case.

In August 1981, EPA published a Registration Standard for
“Naphthaleneacetic Acid its, Salts, Ester, and Acetamide.”  This
document described the uses and established the data requirements to
reregister the six supported naphthalene acetates.  Tolerances were
established for NAA in/on apples, pears, quinces, olives, and pineapples
(as the sodium salt); for the ethyl ester of NAA in/on apples, pears,
and olives; and for naphthaleneacetamide in/on apples and pears.  Data
Call-ins (DCIs) were issued in October and November 1990 and October
1995.  The 1990 DCIs mainly restated data requirements of the
Registration Standard.  The 1995 DCI required data to discern
post-application (reentry) occupational and residential exposure.

Use Sites and Patterns

Use Sites

Apples, pears, citrus, olives, and cherries.

Non-bearing fruit and nut trees, ornamental plants, and shade trees.

Residential uses to stimulate root growth (root dips and soil drench)
and to control sprouts and sucker growth on non-bearing fruit and
ornamental trees.

Use Patterns

Apples and pears represent approximately 95% of the total active
ingredient used annually with all other registered use sites accounting
for the remaining 5% of use.

Approximately 20,000 lbs of the naphthalene acetate active ingredients
are applied annually in the U.S.

Health Effects

Naphthalene acetates show low acute toxicity, are not mutagenic, and are
not expected to be carcinogenic.

In laboratory animal studies, the most common effect (acute or
short-term) from high exposure to the naphthalene acetates is reduced
body weight gain.

High exposure chronic effects in animal studies include:  vomiting,
stomach lesions, and slight sinusoidal histiocytosis in the livers of
males.

No metabolites (break down substances) of toxicological concern have
been identified.

Ecological Effects

Based on the limited data set available, EPA believes that the toxicity
of naphthalene acetates is low to mammals, birds, aquatic organisms, and
non-endangered, non-target plants.

Risks to terrestrial insects cannot be quantified, but the available
data do not suggest a substantial potential for adverse effects.

The potential for effects to listed plants from the use of naphthalene
acetates on olive trees has been refined to a very small geographic
area.  However, a species specific assessment for that area has not been
completed.

Risk Summary

The acute and chronic dietary exposure estimates for naphthalene
acetates are significantly below EPA’s level of concern for all
supported commodities.

High-end estimates of pesticide concentrations in drinking water (from
surface or ground water) sources are low and do not pose risks of
concern.

For the highest residential exposure scenario to naphthalene acetates,
estimated dermal and inhalation exposure are low and do not pose risks
of concern.

The acute and chronic aggregate risk assessments for naphthalene
acetates include exposure from food and drinking water only.  Both acute
and chronic aggregate risks are not of concern; residential exposures
are not aggregated because the toxicity endpoints selected for the
dietary routes of exposure and those selected for residential exposures
of the naphthalene acetates are not based on common effects.

Using screening level exposure parameters, all but one occupational
handler scenario results in MOEs above the target Margin of Exposure
(MOE of 100), and are not of concern using baseline personal protective
equipment (PPE).  For the one handler scenario of potential concern,
when using refined exposure parameters reflecting crop specific use
patterns, the MOEs are above 100 and no longer of concern.

Two occupational post-application reentry exposure scenarios were
assessed for the naphthalene acetates.  The MOEs for the two
post-application exposure scenarios are well above the target MOE of 100
on the day of application and, therefore, not of risk concern.

No measures are needed to mitigate risk to non-target species and
non-endangered, non-target plants.

Through the Agency’s screening-level ecological risk assessment, the
potential for effects to listed plants from the use of naphthalene
acetates on olive trees has been refined to a very small geographic
area.  However, a species specific assessment for that area has not been
completed.  Until such time as that assessment is completed, the Agency
cannot draw any definitive conclusions regarding whether the naphthalene
acetates have effects on listed plants that may be in the vicinity of
olive trees grown in in certain counties in California.

Regulatory Conclusion

The Agency has determined that the naphthalene acetates are eligible for
reregistration provided that: (i) current data gaps and additional data
needs are addressed and (ii) the label changes outlined in this document
are adopted.  Accordingly, should a registrant fail to implement any of
the label changes or other measures identified in this document, the
Agency may take further regulatory action for the naphthalene acetates.

For More Information

Electronic copies of the NAA RED Amendment and all supporting documents
are available in public docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0507 located online in
the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov"  http://www.regulations.gov .

An electronic copy of the NAA RED Amendment is also available on EPA’s
pesticide reregistration status website at:     HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/status_page_n.html"
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/status_page_n.html .

For more information about EPA's pesticide reregistration program, the
NAA RED, or reregistration of individual products containing naphthalene
acetates, please contact the Special Review and Reregistration Division
(7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, US EPA, Washington, DC 20460,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

For information about the health effects of pesticides, or for
assistance in recognizing and managing pesticide poisoning symptoms,
please contact the National Pesticide Information Center (NPIC). Call
toll-free 1-800-858-7378, from 6:30 am to 4:30 am Pacific Time, or 9:30
am to 7:30 pm Eastern Standard Time, seven days a week. The NPIC
internet address is   HYPERLINK "http://npic.orst.edu"
http://npic.orst.edu .


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 94 (Monday, May 16, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28248-28249]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11886]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64439; File No. SR-BX-2011-023]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Modify
Fees for Non Co-Location Services

May 9, 2011.
    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 April 28, 2011, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX'' 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 Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to modify fees for non co-location services.
While changes to the Fee Schedule pursuant to this proposal are
effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated these changes to be
operative on May 1, 2011. The text of the proposed rule change is
available at http://nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.com/, 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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is amending Rule 7051 entitled ``Direct Connectivity
to Nasdaq'' to establish pricing for customers who are not co-located
in the Exchange's data center, but require shared cabinet space and
power for optional routers, switches, or modems to support their direct
circuit connections. The Exchange proposes to assess customers who are
not co-located in the Exchange's data center monthly fees for space
based on a height unit of approximately two inches high, commonly call
a ``U'' space and a maximum power of 125 Watts per U space.
    Currently, non co-located customers are assessed fees for direct
circuit connection to the Exchange, as well as installation of an
optional on-site cable router.\3\ However, there is no charge to non
co-located customers for the space and utility cost to maintain the
optional router. As more and more non co-located customers seek to
utilize the optional router, the Exchange must utilize more space and
utilities to accommodate the influx. It has become a necessity for the
Exchange to offset the space and utility cost to maintain the optional
router in the same manner as has been established for co-located
customers. Additionally, the optional router may include other networks
devices (e.g., switches or modems) to operate the customer's business.
While co-located customers are assessed the same per U fee, the co-
located customers are assessed in increments of a 4U Block at $600 per
month. The Exchange seeks to establish and make transparent the fees
imposed for space and utility costs to non co-located customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See BX Rule 7051, Direct Connectivity to BX, Release No.
62969 (September 22, 2010), 75 FR 59777 (September 28, 2010) (SR-BX-
2010-064).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\4\ in general, and with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\5\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which
exchanges offer non co-location services as a means to facilitate the
trading activities of those customers who believe that the non co-
location services enhance the efficiency of their trading. Accordingly,
fees charged for non co-location services are constrained by the fees
charged to co-located customers, as well as fees charged by other
exchanges, taking into consideration the different costs associated
with the two service types. It should be noted, however, that the costs
associated with a co-located customer are primarily fixed costs that
include the costs of renting or owning data center space and retaining
a staff of technical personnel. Accordingly, the Exchange establishes a
range of non co-location fees with the goal of covering these same
fixed costs and covering less significant marginal costs, such as the
cost of electricity.
    The Exchange proposes the same fee for non co-located customers and
co-located customers because the space and utility cost are comparable.
If a particular exchange charges excessive fees for non co-location
services that are comparable to co-location services, affected members
will opt to terminate their non co-location arrangements with that
exchange, and pursue range of alternative trading strategies not
dependent upon the Exchange's non co-location service. Accordingly, the
exchange charging excessive fees would stand to lose not only non co-
location revenues and any other revenues associated with the non co-
located customer's operations. Moreover, all of the Exchange's fees for
space and utility costs services are equitably allocated and non-
discriminatory in that all non co-location customers are offered the
same space and utility service as the co-located customers, and, there
is no differentiation among customers 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.

As discussed above, the Exchange believes that proposed fees for non
co-location services are comparable to the same service provided to co-
locations customers. Additionally, such costs are constrained by the
robust competition for order flow among exchanges and non-exchange
markets, because non co-location exists to advance that competition,
and excessive fees for non co-location services would serve to impair
an exchange's ability to compete for order flow rather than burdening
competition.
    Other exchanges charge the customer for fixed costs to house
routers and other equipment to conduct its business on the premises;
however, they are in a co-location relationship. For instance, the
International Stock Exchange (``ISE'') charges 4.75% of ISE's equipment
costs for equipment lease maintenance.\6\ The Chicago Board Options
Exchange (CBOE) charges $100 per month for each Shelf for Equipment.\7\
The Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX'') charges $45 per month plus a
one-time set up of $150 for 1 U of space. An additional Rack Mount will
cost an extra $45 per month and a one-time fee of $150.\8\ Since the
Exchange seeks to charge a comparable price for its non co-located
customers for the similar service, the Exchange believes, based on the
charges of BX and the other exchanges mentioned above, that $150 per
month is a comparable price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See ISE Schedule of Fees, page 10, at http://www.ise.com/assets/documents/OptionsExchange/legal/fee/fee_schedule.pdf.
    \7\ See CBOE Fee schedule, page 8 http://www.cboe.com/publish/feeschedule/CBOEFeeSchedule.pdf.
    \8\ See CHX Fee Schedule, page 9, at http://www.chx.com/content/participant_information/Downloadable_Docs/Rules/CHX_ Fee_
Schedule_04252011.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.\9\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BX-2011-023 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-BX-2011-023. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the self-regulatory
organization. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-
2011-023 and should be submitted on or before June 6, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-11886 Filed 5-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P