[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 97 (Thursday, May 19, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31520-31526]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11837]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0853; FRL-9945-82]

Maleic Anhydride; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of maleic anhydride (CAS Reg. No. 108-31-6)
when used as an inert ingredient (stabilizer) in pesticide formulations
applied to growing crops at a maximum concentration not to exceed 3.5%
by weight in the pesticide formulation. Exponent, on behalf of
Cheminova A/S, submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an amendment to an existing
requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to

establish a maximum permissible level for residues of maleic anhydride.

DATES: This regulation is effective May 19, 2016. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before July 18, 2016, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0853, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Lewis, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

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

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0853 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
July 18, 2016. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0853, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. Additional
instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more
information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Petition for Exemption

    In the Federal Register of April 6, 2015 (80 FR 18327) (FRL-9924-
00), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C.
346a, announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP) IN-10771 by
Exponent on behalf of Cheminova A/S, 1600 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 700,
Arlington, VA 22209. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.920 be
amended by modifying an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance
for residues of maleic anhydride (CAS Reg. No. 108-31-6) when used as
an inert ingredient (stabilizer) in pesticide formulations applied to
growing crops to allow for use at a maximum concentration not to exceed
5% in formulation. That document referenced a summary of the petition
prepared by Exponent, the petitioner, which is available in the docket,
http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response
to the notice of filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
modified the limitation on the maximum concentration in pesticide
formulation from 5% to 3.5%. This limitation is based on the Agency's
risk assessment which can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in
document, Maleic Anhydride; Human Health Risk Assessment and Ecological
Effects Assessment to Support Proposed Exemption from the Requirement
of a Tolerance When Used as an Inert Ingredient in Pesticide Products
under 40 CFR 180.920, in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0853.

III. Inert Ingredient Definition

    Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active
ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not
limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a
pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and
hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty
acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as
carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing
agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents;
and emulsifiers. The term ``inert'' is not intended to imply
nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active.
Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a
tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert
ingredients.

IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical

residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the 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 establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only
in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably
foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human
health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to
pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the
inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert
ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures
that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA
is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure
that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from
aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance may be established.
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), 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 for maleic anhydride including
exposure resulting from the exemption established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with maleic anhydride
follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their
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 adverse effects caused by maleic anhydride as well as the no-
observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-
effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in this
unit.
    Maleic anhydride exhibits relatively low toxicity via oral and
dermal routes of exposure. Maleic anhydride has been reported to be
severely irritating to the skin and eyes of rabbits, dermally
sensitizing to guinea pigs, and is a possible respiratory sensitizer.
    In a six-month repeat dose inhalation study, CD rats, Engle
hamsters, and Rhesus monkeys were exposed by inhalation (whole body) to
0, 1.1, 3.3 and 9.8 mg/m\3\ (0, 0.3, 0.8, and 2.4 ppm) maleic anhydride
for six months. Body weights were decreased in rats at 3.3 and 9.8 mg/
m\3\ (0.8, and 2.4 ppm) in the mid- and high-exposure groups at
intervals during the study (<10%). However, at study termination, body
weights were decreased only at the 9.8 mg/m\3\ exposure group (6-8%).
These decreases in the body weights are not considered as an adverse
effect. All other effects were limited to the respiratory tract and
eye. All of these effects were considered indicative of irritation and
judged to be reversible. The NOAEL for irritation in this study was 3.3
mg/m\3\ or 0.93 mg/kg/day based on localized eye/nasal irritation
effects seen at the LOAEL of 9.8 mg/m\3\. The NOAEL for systemic
toxicity in rats, hamsters and monkeys is 9.8 mg/m\3\, the highest dose
tested.
    In a 28-day inhalation study with maleic anhydride in Sprague-
Dawley rats, evidence of nasal and ocular irritation (concentration-
dependent) occurred at 12, 32 and 86 mg/m\3\. Reduced body weight gain
and food consumption as well as increased incidence of hemorrhagic lung
foci occurred at 32 and 86 mg/m\3\. The NOAEL for the systemic toxicity
is 12 mg/m\3\ (3 ppm) based on the reduced body weights and food
consumption seen at the LOAEL of 32 mg/m\3\.
    In a 90-day oral (dietary) study in rats were fed in the diet 0,
100, 250, or 600 mg/kg/day maleic anhydride for 90 days. At 600 mg/kg/
day, there was slight proteinuria in both sexes, increased relative
liver weight in males, increased relative/absolute kidney weights in
both sexes. Macroscopic and microscopic kidney changes, including
nephrosis were seen in male rats at 100, 250, and 600 mg/kg/day. The
LOAEL for this study is 100 mg/kg/day. In a separate study, rats were
fed in the diet 0, 20, or 40 mg/kg/day maleic anhydride, seven days a
week for 90 days. There were no treatment-related effects. The NOAEL
for this study is 40 mg/kg/day.
    In a 183-day oral (dietary) study in rats there were renal lesions
and an increase in the absolute and relative liver and kidney weights
at 250 mg/kg/day and 600 mg/kg/day. The LOAEL for this study is 250 mg/
kg/day. A NOAEL was not established.
    In a 2-year oral (dietary) study in rats only marginal toxicity was
observed which was evidenced by small (<6%), but dose-related, decrease
in body weights of rats. The LOAEL for this study is 32 mg/kg/day and
the NOAEL for this study is 10 mg/kg/day.
    In a 90-day dietary study in dogs, there were no treatment related
effects observed at doses up to 60 mg/kg/day, the highest dose tested.
    In an oral (gavage) developmental toxicity study in CD rats, no
treatment related adverse effects were observed. The NOAEL for both
maternal and developmental toxicity was 140 mg/kg/day, the highest dose
tested.
    In a 2-generation oral (gavage) reproductive toxicity study in
rats, significant mortality occurred in the F0 and
F1 parental animals and maleic anhydride was toxic to
parental animals in all dose groups (20, 55 and 150 mg/kg/day of maleic
anhydride). There was no significant reduction in the percentage of
pregnant females or the percentage of fertile males. Adverse effects on
litter size and on pup survival were observed at the dose of 55 mg/kg/
day and above in the F2 litters. Maleic anhydride was toxic
to parental animals in all dose groups. For parental toxicity the LOAEL
was 20 mg/kg/day. Although a NOAEL for parental toxicity was not
established, the selected NOAEL (which is from the 2-year toxicity
study in the rat) will be protective of the kidney and bladder effects
seen at the lowest dose tested in this study, since the 2-year toxicity
study examined those organs and found no effects. The NOAEL for
offspring toxicity was 55 mg/kg/day based on decreased pup survival
observed at 150 mg/kg/day.
    Maleic anhydride was negative for mutagenicity or chromosomal
aberrations in a battery of tests of genotoxicity including a bacterial
gene mutation test, an in vivo mammalian chromosomal aberration test
using rat bone marrow and an in vitro chromosomal test.
    In the previously described 2-year dietary study, male and female
rats were exposed to 0, 10, 32, or 100 mg/kg/day maleic anhydride in
feed for two years. There were no increases in tumor incidence that
were considered related

to maleic anhydride exposure. Additionally in a two-year chronic
feeding study on Osborne-Mendel rats fed 0, 0.5, 1.0 or 1.5% maleic
acid in their diets for two years resulted in no treatment-related
increases in tumors.
    A 1-hour neurotoxicity inhalation study exposed rats to 0.72 mg/L
of maleic acid which produced generalized inactivity, hyperpnea and
sedation within 15 minutes of exposure. Gross necropsy revealed no
significant findings. No neurotoxic effects have been reported in the
other available studies.
    No immunotoxicity studies on maleic anhydride or maleic acid were
available in the database.
    In a metabolism study, dogs were fed 60 mg/kg/day maleic anhydride
for 90 days. Using a one compartment model, uptake rate and elimination
rate constants were calculated as 3.49 x 10-3 per day and
8.32 x 10-2 per day, respectively. Based on this model, 99%
of steady state was reached by day 55 of the study.
    Maleic anhydride is readily hydrolyzed to maleic acid under aqueous
conditions and is then hydroxylated to malic acid, which participates
in the Krebs cycle or may be excreted unchanged or in conjugated form.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    An acute effect was not found in the database for maleic anhdyride.
    The 2-year oral toxicity study in rats was selected for dietary and
dermal exposure scenarios (all non-acute durations) for this risk
assessment. The NOAEL in this study was 10 mg/kg/day. The LOAEL was 32
mg/kg/day based on slight to marginal decreases in body weight. The
rationale for selecting this study for the dietary is based on the fact
that this study provided the lowest and most conservative toxicity
endpoint in the most sensitive species for oral after a long-term
exposure. No repeat dose dermal toxicity studies are available for
maleic anhydride; the dermal risk assessment was conducted using the
most sensitive conservative oral endpoint. An uncertainty factor of
100x was applied, 10x for interspecies variability and 10x for
intraspecies variability; the FQPA safety factor was reduced to 1x. No
dermal absorption studies were available for maleic anhydride or maleic
acid, therefore, a dermal absorption value was estimated using the
ratio of an oral LD50 and a dermal LD50. The two
studies used were the oral rabbit LD50 of 875 mg/kg and the
dermal rabbit LD50 of 2,620 mg/kg. The resulting estimated
dermal absorption was 33%. Therefore, a dermal absorption factor of 33%
will be used for dermal exposure scenarios.
    The 6-month inhalation toxicity study in rats was selected for
inhalation exposure scenarios (all durations) for this risk assessment.
The NOAEL in this study was 3.3 mg/m\3\ or 0.93 mg/kg/day based on
localized eye/nasal irritation effects seen at the LOAEL of 9.8 mg/
m\3\. Since the major effect of maleic anhydride is irritation via
inhalation, this endpoint is protective of any systemic toxicity seen
at concentrations of 32 mg/m\3\ and above seen in the 28-day inhalation
toxicity study. An uncertainty factor of 100x was applied, 10x for
interspecies variability and 10x for intraspecies variability. The FQPA
safety factor was reduced to 1x.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to maleic anhydride, EPA considered exposure under the
proposed exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. EPA assessed
dietary exposures from maleic anhydride in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide chemical, if a
toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of
concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. No such
effects were identified in the toxicological studies for maleic
anhydride therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment
is unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. The chronic dietary exposure assessment for
this inert ingredient utilizes the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model
Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM--FCID), Version 3.16, EPA, which
includes food consumption information from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, ``What
We Eat In America'', (NHANES/WWEIA). This dietary survey was conducted
from 2003 to 2008. In the absence of actual residue data, the inert
ingredient evaluation is based on a highly conservative model which
assumes that the residue level of the inert ingredient would be no
higher than the highest established tolerance for an active ingredient
on a given commodity. Implicit in this assumption is that there would
be similar rates of degradation between the active and inert ingredient
(if any) and that the concentration of inert ingredient in the
scenarios leading to these highest of tolerances would be no higher
than the concentration of the active ingredient. The model assumes 100
percent crop treated (PCT) for all crops and that every food eaten by a
person each day has tolerance-level residues. A complete description of
the general approach taken to assess inert ingredient risks in the
absence of residue data is contained in the memorandum entitled ``Alkyl
Amines Polyalkoxylates (Cluster 4): Acute and Chronic Aggregate (Food
and Drinking Water) Dietary Exposure and Risk Assessments for the
Inerts.'' (D361707, S. Piper, 2/25/09) and can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0738. In the
case of maleic anhydride, EPA made specific adjustments to the dietary
exposure assessment to account for the use limitation of maleic
anhydride (as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations applied to
apples with a minimum preharvest interval of 21 days and at maximum
concentration of 3.5% by weight in all other preharvest uses).
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. For the purpose of the
screening level dietary risk assessment to support this request for an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for maleic anhydride, a
conservative drinking water concentration value of 100 ppb based on
screening level modeling was used to assess the contribution to

drinking water for the chronic dietary risk assessments for parent
compound. These values were directly entered into the dietary exposure
model.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., textiles (clothing and diapers), carpets, swimming
pools, and hard surface disinfection on walls, floors, tables).
    Maleic anhydride may be used as inert ingredient in pesticide
products that are registered for specific uses that may result in
indoor or outdoor residential inhalation and dermal exposures. A
screening-level residential exposure and risk assessment was completed
utilizing conservative residential exposure assumptions. The Agency
assessed short- and intermediate-term dermal and inhalation exposures
for residential handlers that would result from low pressure handwand,
hose end sprayer and trigger sprayer for outdoor scenarios of each
pesticide type, herbicide, insecticide and fungicide and mopping,
wiping and aerosol sprays for indoor scenarios. The Agency assessed
post-application short-term dermal exposure for children and adults as
well as short-term hand-to-mouth exposure for children from contact
with treated lawns.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, 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.''
    EPA has not found maleic anhydride to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and maleic anhydride does not
appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For
the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
maleic anhydride does not have 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 EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10x) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10x, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There is no evidence of
increased quantitative or qualitative susceptibility of rat fetuses to
the effects of maleic anhydride. In the 2-generation reproduction
study, the LOAEL for parental toxicity was 20 mg/kg/day. No adverse
effects on litter size or pup survival were noted at doses up to 55 mg/
kg/day.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1x. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for maleic anhydride is adequate for
characterizing the toxicity and assessing the risk from dietary
exposure.
    ii. There is no indication that maleic anhydride is a neurotoxic
chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study
or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. There is no indication that maleic anhydride is an immunotoxic
chemical and there is no need for an immunotoxicity study or additional
UFs to account for immunotoxicity.
    iv. There is no evidence that maleic anhydride results in increased
susceptibility in in utero in rats in the combined repeated dose
toxicity study with the reproduction/developmental toxicity screening
studies and prenatal developmental studies.
    v. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on highly conservative model that assumes 100 percent crop treated
(PCT) for all crops and that every food eaten by a person each day has
residues of inert ingredient equivalent to the residue level of the
highest established tolerance for an active ingredient on a given
commodity. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground
and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to maleic anhydride
in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to
assess post application exposure of children as well as incidental oral
exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the
exposure and risks posed by maleic anhydride.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure
was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore,
maleic anhydride is not expected to pose an acute risk.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
maleic anhydride from food and water will utilize 72.4% of the cPAD for
children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest
exposure. Based on the explanation in this unit, regarding residential
use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of maleic
anhydride is not expected.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level).
    Maleic anhydride may be used as an inert ingredient in pesticide
products that are registered for uses that could result in short-term
residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is
appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with
short-term residential exposures to maleic anhydride.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water,
and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 112 for adults
and 105 for children. Because EPA's level of concern for maleic
anhydride is a MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.

    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level).
    Maleic anhydride is currently used as an inert ingredient in
pesticide products that are registered for uses that could result in
intermediate-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined
that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and
water with short-term residential exposures to maleic anhydride.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for
intermediate-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined
intermediate-term food, water, and residential exposures result in
aggregate MOEs of 178 for adults and 119 for children. Because EPA's
level of concern for maleic anhydride is a MOE of 100 or below, these
MOEs are not of concern.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the
discussion in Unit IV.A., maleic anhydride is not expected 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, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to maleic anhydride residues.

V. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Although EPA is establishing a limitation on the amount of maleic
anhydride that may be used in pesticide formulations, an analytical
enforcement methodology is not necessary for this exemption. The
limitation will be enforced through the pesticide registration process
under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA),
7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. EPA will not register any pesticide for sale or
distribution for use on growing crops with concentrations of maleic
anhydride exceeding 3.5% by weight of the formulation.

B. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    Based upon an evaluation of the data included in the petition, EPA
is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for
residues of maleic anhydride when used in pesticide formulations as an
inert ingredient (stabilizer), not to exceed 3.5% by weight of the
formulation, instead of the 5% limit requested. The basis for this
revision can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document Maleic
Anhydride; Human Health Risk Assessment and Ecological Effects
Assessment to Support Proposed Exemption from the Requirement of a
Tolerance When Used as an Inert Ingredient in Pre-harvest Pesticide
Products under 40 CFR 180.920 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0853.

VI. Conclusions

    Therefore, EPA is amending the existing exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance under 40 CFR 180.920 for maleic anhydride
(CAS Reg. No. 108-31-6). In addition to the existing limitation for use
as an inert ingredient (stabilizer) in pesticide formulations applied
to growing crops for use in pesticide formulations applied to apples
with a minimum preharvest interval of 21 days, the Agency is extending
the exemption for use in all pesticide formulations at a maximum
concentration not to exceed 3.5% in the pesticide formulation. In order
to clarify that this extension applies only to maleic anhydride, the
Agency is separating the existing exemption for maleic anhydride from
the existing maleic acid exemption.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

VIII. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: May 6, 2016.
Daniel J. Rosenblatt,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.920:
0
i. Remove the existing entry for ``Maleic acid and maleic anhydride''
from the table.
0
ii. Add alphabetically the following entries ``Maleic acid,'' and
``Maleic anhydride'' to the table to read as follows:

Sec.  180.920  Inert ingredients used preharvest; exemptions from the
requirement of a tolerance.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Inert ingredients                Limits                Uses
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
Maleic acid...................  For pesticide          Stabilizer.
                                 formulations applied
                                 to apples with a
                                 minimum preharvest
                                 interval of 21 days.
Maleic anhydride (CAS Reg. No.  Not to exceed 3.5% in  Stabilizer.
 108-31-6).                      pesticide
                                 formulations; or for
                                 pesticide
                                 formulations applied
                                 to apples with a
                                 minimum preharvest
                                 interval of 21 days.

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2016-11837 Filed 5-18-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 154 (Friday, August 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37633-37639]
[FR Doc No: 2017-16924]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81321; File No. SR-MIAX-2017-38]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend MIAX Options Rules 504, Trading Halts,
and 521, Nullification and Adjustment of Options Transactions Including
Obvious Errors

August 7, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on August 1, 2017, Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC
(``MIAX Options'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by
the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rules 504, Trading Halts,
and 521, Nullification and Adjustment of Options Transactions including
Obvious Errors.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings, at MIAX'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
Background
    The Exchange and other options exchanges recently adopted a new,
harmonized rule related to the adjustment and nullification of
erroneous options transactions, including a specific provision related
to coordination in connection with large-scale events involving
erroneous options transactions.\3\ The Exchange believes that the
changes the options exchanges implemented with the new, harmonized rule
have led to increased transparency and finality with respect to the
adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions.
However, as part of the initial initiative, the Exchange and other
options exchanges deferred a few specific matters for further
discussion. Specifically, as described in the Initial Filing, the
Exchange and all other options exchanges have been working to further
improve the review of potentially erroneous transactions as well as
their subsequent adjustment by creating an objective and universal way
to determine Theoretical Price in the event a reliable NBBO is not
available. Because this initiative required additional exchange and
industry discussion as well as additional time for development and
implementation, the Exchange and the other options exchanges determined
to proceed with the Initial Filing and to undergo a secondary
initiative to complete any additional improvements to the applicable
rule. In this filing, the Exchange proposes to adopt procedures that
will lead to a more objective and uniform way to determine Theoretical
Price in the event a reliable NBBO is not available. In addition to
this change, the Exchange has proposed two additional minor changes to
its rules. The Exchange's proposal mirrors that of Bats BZX, which the
Commission approved on July 6, 2017,\4\ and those that the other
options exchanges intend to or have filed. Finally, the Exchange notes
that options exchanges that offer complex orders on their options
platforms either already have in place rules for handling the
adjustment and nullification of erroneous complex order transactions in
place or have filed proposals related to such rules, which proposals
have recently been approved by the Commission or filed on an
immediately effective basis.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74918 (May 8, 2015),
80 FR 27781 (May 14, 2015) (SR-MIAX-2015-35); see also Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 73884 (December 18, 2014), 79 FR 77557
(December 24, 2014) (the ``Initial Filing'').
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81084 (July 6,
2017), 82 FR 32216 (July 12, 2017) (granting approval of Bats BZX
proposal).
    \5\ See e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 80040
(February 14, 2017), 82 FR 11248 (February 21, 2017) (SR-CBOE-2016-
088) (granting approval of CBOE proposal related to the
nullification and adjustment of complex orders); 80298 (March 22,
2017), 82 FR 15393 (March 28, 2017) (SR-C2-2017-011) (notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness of C2 proposal related to the
nullification and adjustment of complex orders); 80284 (March 21,
2017), 82 FR 15251 (March 27, 2017) (SR-MIAX-2017-13) (notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness of MIAX proposal related to the
nullification and adjustment of complex orders).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Calculation of Theoretical Price Using a Third Party Provider
    Under the harmonized rule, when reviewing a transaction as
potentially erroneous, the Exchange needs to first determine the
``Theoretical Price'' of the option, i.e., the Exchange's estimate of
the correct market price for the option. Pursuant to Rule 521, if the
applicable option series is traded on at least one other options
exchange, then the Theoretical Price of an option series is the last
national best bid (``NBB'') just prior to the trade in question with
respect to an erroneous sell transaction or the last national best
offer (``NBO'') just prior to the trade in question with respect to an
erroneous buy transaction unless one of the exceptions described below
exists. Thus, whenever the Exchange has a reliable NBB or NBO, as
applicable, just prior to the transaction, then the Exchange uses this
NBB or NBO as the Theoretical Price. The Rule also contains various
provisions governing specific situations where the NBB or NBO is not
available or may not be reliable. Specifically, the Rule specifies
situations in which there are no quotes or no valid quotes for
comparison purposes, when the national best bid or offer (``NBBO'') is
determined to be too wide to be reliable,

and at the open of trading on each trading day. In each of these
circumstances, in turn, because the NBB or NBO is not available or is
deemed to be unreliable, the Exchange determines Theoretical Price.
Under the current Rule, when determining Theoretical Price, Exchange
personnel generally consult and refer to data such as the prices of
related series, especially the closest strikes in the option in
question. Exchange personnel may also take into account the price of
the underlying security and the volatility characteristics of the
option as well as historical pricing of the option and/or similar
options. Although the Rule is administered by experienced personnel and
the Exchange believes the process is currently appropriate, the
Exchange recognizes that it is also subjective and could lead to
disparate results for a transaction that spans multiple options
exchanges.
    The Exchange proposes to adopt Interpretation and Policy .04 to
specify how the Exchange will determine Theoretical Price when required
by sub-paragraphs (b)(1)-(3) of the Rule (i.e., at the open, when there
are no valid quotes or when there is a wide quote). In particular, the
Exchange has been working with other options exchanges to identify and
select a reliable third party vendor (``TP Provider'') that would
provide Theoretical Price to the Exchange whenever one or more
transactions is under review pursuant to Rule 521 and the NBBO is
unavailable or deemed unreliable pursuant to Rule 521(b). The Exchange
and other options exchanges have selected CBOE Livevol, LLC
(``Livevol'') as the TP Provider, as described below. As further
described below, proposed Interpretation and Policy .04 would codify
the use of the TP Provider as well as limited exceptions where the
Exchange would be able to deviate from the Theoretical Price given by
the TP Provider.
    Pursuant to proposed Interpretation and Policy .04, when the
Exchange must determine Theoretical Price pursuant to the sub-
paragraphs (b)(1)-(3) of the Rule, the Exchange will request
Theoretical Price from the third party vendor to which the Exchange and
all other options exchanges have subscribed. Thus, as set forth in this
proposed language, Theoretical Price would be provided to the Exchange
by the TP Provider on request and not through a streaming data feed.\6\
This language also makes clear that the Exchange and all other options
exchanges will use the same TP Provider.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Though the Exchange and other options exchanges considered a
streaming feed, it was determined that it would be more feasible to
develop and implement an on demand service and that such a service
would satisfy the goals of the initiative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the proposed TP Provider selected by the Exchange
and other options exchanges is Livevol. The Exchange proposes to codify
this selection in proposed paragraph (d) to Interpretation and Policy
.04. As such, the Exchange would file a rule proposal and would provide
notice to the options industry of any proposed change to the TP
Provider. The Exchange and other options exchanges have selected
Livevol as the proposed TP Provider after diligence into various
alternatives. Livevol has, since 2009, been the options industry leader
in providing equity and index options market data and analytics
services.\7\ The Exchange believes that Livevol has established itself
within the options industry as a trusted provider of such services and
notes that it and all other options exchanges already subscribe to
various Livevol services. In connection with this proposal, Livevol
will develop a new tool based on its existing technology and services
that will supply Theoretical Price to the Exchange and other options
exchanges upon request. The Theoretical Price tool will leverage
current market data and surrounding strikes to assist in a relative
value pricing approach to generating a Theoretical Price. When relative
value methods are incapable of generating a valid Theoretical Price,
the Theoretical Price tool will utilize historical trade and quote data
to calculate Theoretical Price. Because the purpose of the proposal is
to move away from a subjective determination by Exchange personnel when
the NBBO is unavailable or unreliable, the Exchange intends to use the
Theoretical Price provided by the TP Provider in all such
circumstances. However, the Exchange believes it is necessary to retain
the ability to contact the TP Provider if it believes that the
Theoretical Price provided is fundamentally incorrect and to determine
the Theoretical Price in the limited circumstance of a systems issue
experienced by the TP Provider, as described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange notes that in 2015, Livevol was acquired by
CBOE Holdings, Inc., the ultimate parent company of the Chicago
Board Options Exchange (``CBOE'') and C2 Options Exchange (``C2'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, to the extent an Official \8\ of the Exchange believes
that the Theoretical Price provided by the TP Provider is fundamentally
incorrect and cannot be used consistent with the maintenance of a fair
and orderly market, the Official shall contact the TP Provider to
notify the TP Provider of the reason the Official believes such
Theoretical Price is inaccurate and to request a review and correction
of the calculated Theoretical Price. For example, if an Official
received from the TP Provider a Theoretical Price of $80 in a series
that the Official might expect to be instead in the range of $8 to $10
because of a recent corporate action in the underlying, the Official
would request that the TP Provider review and confirm its calculation
and determine whether it had appropriately accounted for the corporate
action. In order to ensure that other options exchanges that may
potentially be relying on the same Theoretical Price that, in turn, the
Official believes to be fundamentally incorrect, the Exchange also
proposes to promptly provide notice to other options exchanges that the
TP Provider has been contacted to review and correct the calculated
Theoretical Price at issue and to include a brief explanation of the
reason for the request.\9\ Although not directly addressed by the
proposed Rule, the Exchange expects that all other options exchanges
once in receipt of this notification would await the determination of
the TP Provider and would use the corrected price as soon as it is
available. The Exchange further notes that it expects the TP Provider
to cooperate with, but to be independent of, the Exchange and other
options exchanges.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For purposes of the Rule, an Official is an Officer of the
Exchange or such other employee designee of the Exchange that is
trained in the application of Rule 521.
    \9\ See proposed paragraph (b) to Interpretation and Policy .04.
    \10\ The Exchange expects any TP Provider selected by the
Exchange and other options exchanges to act independently in its
determination and calculation of Theoretical Price. With respect to
Livevol specifically, the Exchange again notes that Livevol is a
subsidiary of CBOE Holdings, Inc., which is also the ultimate parent
company of multiple options exchanges. The Exchange expects Livevol
to calculate Theoretical Price independent of its affiliated
exchanges in the same way it will calculate Theoretical Price
independent of non-affiliated exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed provision to allow an
Official to contact the TP Provider if he or she believes the provided
Theoretical Price is fundamentally incorrect is necessary, particularly
because the Exchange and other options exchanges will be using the new
process for the first time. Although the exchanges have conducted
thorough diligence with respect to Livevol as the selected TP Provider
and would do so with any potential replacement TP Provider, the
Exchange is concerned that certain scenarios

could arise where the Theoretical Price generated by the TP Provider
does not take into account relevant factors and would result in an
unfair result for market participants involved in a transaction. The
Exchange notes that if such situations do indeed arise, to the extent
practicable the Exchange will also work with the TP Provider and other
options exchanges to improve the TP Provider's calculation of
Theoretical Price in future situations. For instance, if the Exchange
determines that a particular type of corporate action is not being
appropriately captured by the TP Provider when such provider is
generating Theoretical Price, while the Exchange believes that it needs
the ability to request a review and correction of the Theoretical Price
in connection with a specific review in order to provide a timely
decision to market participants, the Exchange would share information
regarding the specific situation with the TP Provider and other options
exchanges in an effort to improve the Theoretical Price service for
future use. The Exchange notes that it does not anticipate needing to
rely on this provision frequently, if at all, but believes the
provision is necessary nonetheless to best prepare for all potential
circumstances. Further, the Theoretical Price used by the Exchange in
connection with its rulings will always be that received from the TP
Provider and the Exchange has not proposed the ability to deviate from
such price.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ To the extent the TP Provider has been contacted by an
Official of the Exchange, reviews the Theoretical Price provided but
disagrees that there has been any error, then the Exchange would be
bound to use the Theoretical Price provided by the TP Provider.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to proposed paragraph (c) to Interpretation and Policy
.04, an Official of the Exchange may determine the Theoretical Price if
the TP Provider has experienced a systems issue that has rendered its
services unavailable to accurately calculate Theoretical Price and such
issue cannot be corrected in a timely manner. The Exchange notes that
it does not anticipate needing to rely on this provision frequently, if
at all, but believes the provision is necessary nonetheless to best
prepare for all potential circumstances. Further, consistent with
existing text in Rule 521(e)(4), the Exchange has not proposed a
specific time by which the service must be available in order to be
considered timely.\12\ The Exchange expects that it would await the TP
Provider's services becoming available again so long as the Exchange
was able to obtain information regarding the issue and the TP Provider
had a reasonable expectation of being able to resume normal operations
within the next several hours based on communications with the TP
Provider. More specifically with respect to Livevol, Livevol has
business continuity and disaster recovery procedures that will help to
ensure that the Theoretical Price tool remains available or, in the
event of an outage, that service is restored in a timely manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ In the context of a Significant Market Event, the Exchange
may determine, ``in consultation with other options exchanges . . .
that timely adjustment is not feasible due to the extraordinary
nature of the situation.'' See Rule 521(e)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also notes that if a wide-scale event occurred, even
if such event did not qualify as a ``Significant Market Event''
pursuant to Rule 521(e), and the TP Provider was unavailable or
otherwise experiencing difficulty, the Exchange believes that it and
other options exchanges would seek to coordinate to the extent
possible. In particular, the Exchange and other options exchanges now
have a process, administered by the Options Clearing Corporation, to
invoke a discussion amongst all options exchanges in the event of any
widespread or significant market events. The Exchange believes that
this process could be used in the event necessary if there were an
issue with the TP Provider.
    The Exchange also proposes to adopt language in paragraph (d) of
Interpretation and Policy .04 to Rule 521 to disclaim the liability of
the Exchange and the TP Provider in connection with the proposed Rule,
the TP Provider's calculation of Theoretical Price, and the Exchange's
use of such Theoretical Price. Specifically, the proposed rule would
state that neither the Exchange, the TP Provider, nor any affiliate of
the TP Provider (the TP Provider and its affiliates are referred to
collectively as the ``TP Provider''), makes any warranty, express or
implied, as to the results to be obtained by any person or entity from
the use of the TP Provider pursuant to Interpretation .04. The proposed
rule would further state that the TP Provider does not guarantee the
accuracy or completeness of the calculated Theoretical Price and that
the TP Provider disclaims all warranties of merchantability or fitness
for a particular purpose or use with respect to such Theoretical Price.
Finally, the proposed Rule would state that neither the Exchange nor
the TP Provider shall have any liability for any damages, claims,
losses (including any indirect or consequential losses), expenses, or
delays, whether direct or indirect, foreseen or unforeseen, suffered by
any person arising out of any circumstance or occurrence relating to
the use of such Theoretical Price or arising out of any errors or
delays in calculating such Theoretical Price. This proposed language is
modeled after existing language in Exchange Rules regarding ``reporting
authorities'' that calculate indices.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See, e.g., MIAX Rule 526, which relates to index options
potentially listed and traded on the Exchange and disclaims
liability for a reporting authority and their affiliates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In connection with the proposed change described above, the
Exchange proposes to modify Rule 521 to state that the Exchange will
rely on paragraph (b) and Interpretation and Policy .04 when
determining Theoretical Price.
No Valid Quotes--Market Participant Quoting on Multiple Exchanges
    As described above, one of the times where the NBB or NBO is deemed
to be unreliable for purposes of Theoretical Price is when there are no
quotes or no valid quotes for the affected series. In addition to when
there are no quotes, the Exchange does not consider the following to be
valid quotes: (i) All quotes in the applicable option series published
at a time where the last NBB is higher than the last NBO in such series
(a ``crossed market''); (ii) quotes published by the Exchange that were
submitted by either party to the transaction in question; and (iii)
quotes published by another options exchange against which the Exchange
has declared self-help. In recognition of today's market structure
where certain participants actively provide liquidity on multiple
exchanges simultaneously, the Exchange proposes to add an additional
category of invalid quotes. Specifically, in order to avoid a situation
where a market participant has established the market at an erroneous
price on multiple exchanges, the Exchange proposes to consider as
invalid the quotes in a series published by another options exchange if
either party to the transaction in question submitted the quotes in the
series representing such options exchange's best bid or offer. Thus,
similar to being able to ignore for purposes of the Rule the quotes
published by the Exchange if submitted by either party to the
transaction in question, the Exchange would be able to ignore for
purposes of the rule quotations on other options exchanges by that same
market participant.
    In order to continue to apply the Rule in a timely and organized
fashion, however, the Exchange proposes to initially limit the scope of
this proposed provision in two ways. First, because the process will
take considerable

coordination with other options exchanges to confirm that the
quotations in question on an away options exchange were indeed
submitted by a party to a transaction on the Exchange, the Exchange
proposes to limit this provision to apply to up to twenty-five (25)
total options series (i.e., whether such series all relate to the same
underlying security or multiple underlying securities). Second, the
Exchange proposes to require the party that believes it established the
best bid or offer on one or more other options exchanges to identify to
the Exchange the quotes which were submitted by such party and
published by other options exchanges. In other words, as proposed, the
burden will be on the party seeking that the Exchange disregard their
quotations on other options exchanges to identify such quotations. In
turn, the Exchange will verify with such other options exchanges that
such quotations were indeed submitted by such party.
    Below are examples of both the current rule and the rule as
proposed to be amended.
Example 1--Current Rule, Member Erroneously Quotes on One Exchange
Assumptions
    For purposes of this example, assume the following:
     A Member acting as a Market Maker on the Exchange
(``Market Maker A'') is quoting in twenty series of options underlying
security ABCD on the Exchange (and only the Exchange).
     Market Maker A makes an error in calculating the market
for options on ABCD, and publishes quotes in all twenty series to buy
options at $1.00 and to sell options at $1.05.
     In fact, options on ABCD in these series are nearly
worthless and no other market participant is quoting in such series.
     Therefore, the NBBO in the twenty series at issue is $1.00
x $1.05 (with the Exchange representing the NBBO based on Market Maker
A's quotes).
     Assume Member A immediately enters sell orders and
executes against Market Maker A's quotes at $1.00.
     Assume Market Maker A submits to the Exchange a timely
request for review of the trades with Member A as potentially erroneous
transactions to buy.
Result
     Based on the Exchange's current rules, the Exchange would
identify Market Maker A as a participant to the trades at issue and
would consider Market Maker A's quotations invalid pursuant to Rule
521(b)(2).
     As there were no other valid quotes to use as a reference
price, the Exchange would then determine Theoretical Price.
     Assume the Exchange determines a Theoretical Price of
$0.05.
    [cir] The execution price of $1.00 exceeds the $0.25 minimum amount
set forth in the Exchange's table to determine whether an obvious error
has occurred (i.e., $0.05 + $0.25 = $0.30) so any execution at or above
this price is an obvious error.
    [cir] Accordingly, the executions in all series would be adjusted
by the Exchange to executions at $0.20 per contract (Theoretical Price
of $0.05 plus $0.15) to the extent the incoming orders submitted by
Member A were non-Customer orders.
    [cir] The executions in all series would be nullified to the extent
the incoming orders submitted by Member A were Customer orders.
Example 2--Current Rule, Member Erroneously Quotes on Multiple
Exchanges
Assumptions
    For purposes of this example, assume the following:
     A Member acting as a Market Maker on the Exchange
(``Market Maker A'') is quoting in twenty series of options underlying
security ABCD on the Exchange and on a second exchange (``Away
Exchange'').
     Market Maker A makes an error in calculating the market
for options on ABCD, and publishes quotes on both the Exchange and the
Away Exchange in all twenty series to buy options at $1.00 and to sell
options at $1.05.
     In fact, options on ABCD in these series are nearly
worthless and no other market participant is quoting in such series.
     Therefore, the NBBO in the twenty series at issue is $1.00
x $1.05 (with the Exchange and the Away Exchange representing the NBBO
based on Market Maker A's quotes).
     Assume Member A immediately enters sell orders and
executes against Market Maker A's quotes at $1.00.
     Assume Market Maker A submits to the Exchange and to the
Away Exchange timely requests for review of the trades with Member A as
potentially erroneous transactions to buy.
Result
     Based on the Exchange's current rules, the Exchange would
identify Market Maker A as a participant to the trades at issue and
would consider Market Maker A's quotations on the Exchange invalid
pursuant to Rule 521(b)(2). The Exchange, however, would view the Away
Exchange's quotations as valid, and would thus determine Theoretical
Price to be $1.05 (i.e., the NBO in the case of a potentially erroneous
buy transaction).
     The execution price of $1.00 does not exceed the $0.25
minimum amount set forth in the Exchange's table to determine whether
an obvious error has occurred (i.e., $1.05 + $0.25 = $1.30) so any
execution at or above this price is an obvious error.
     The transactions on the Exchange would not be nullified or
adjusted.
     As the Exchange and all other options exchanges have
identical rules with respect to the process described above, the
transactions on the Away Exchange would not be nullified or adjusted.
Example 3--Proposed Rule, Member Erroneously Quotes on Multiple
Exchanges \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The Exchange notes that its proposed rule will not impact
the proposed handling of a request for review where a market
participant is quoting only on the Exchange, thus, the Exchange has
not included a separate example for such a fact-pattern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assumptions
    For purposes of this example, assume the following:
     A Member acting as a Market Maker on the Exchange
(``Market Maker A'') is quoting in twenty series of options underlying
security ABCD on the Exchange and on a second exchange (``Away
Exchange'').\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The Exchange notes that the proposed rule would operate the
same if Market Maker A was quoting on more than two exchanges. The
Exchange has limited the example to two exchanges for simplicity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Market Maker A makes an error in calculating the market
for options on ABCD, and publishes quotes on both the Exchange and the
Away Exchange in all twenty series to buy options at $1.00 and to sell
options at $1.05.
     In fact, options on ABCD in these series are nearly
worthless and no other market participant is quoting in such series.
     Therefore, the NBBO in the twenty series at issue is $1.00
x $1.05 (with the Exchange and the Away Exchange representing the NBBO
based on Market Maker A's quotes).
     Assume Member A immediately enters sell orders and
executes against Market Maker A's quotes at $1.00.
     Assume Market Maker A submits to the Exchange and to the
Away Exchange timely requests for review of the trades with Member A as
potentially erroneous transactions to buy. At the time of submitting
the requests for review to the Exchange and the Away Exchange, Market
Maker A identifies to the

Exchange the quotes on the Away Exchange as quotes also represented by
Market Maker A (and to the Away Exchange, the quotes on the Exchange as
quotes also represented by Market Maker A).
Result
     Based on the proposed rules, the Exchange would identify
Market Maker A as a participant to the trades at issue and would
consider Market Maker A's quotations on the Exchange invalid pursuant
to Rule 521(b)(2).
     The Exchange and the Away Exchange would also coordinate
to confirm that the quotations identified by Market Maker A on the
other exchange were indeed Market Maker A's quotations. Once confirmed,
each of the Exchange and the Away Exchange would also consider invalid
the quotations published on the other exchange.
     As there were no other valid quotes to use as a reference
price, the Exchange would then determine Theoretical Price.
     Assume the Exchange determines a Theoretical Price of
$0.05.
    [cir] The execution price of $1.00 exceeds the $0.25 minimum amount
set forth in the Exchange's table to determine whether an obvious error
has occurred (i.e., $0.05 + $0.25 = $0.30) so any execution at or above
this price is an obvious error.
    [cir] Accordingly, the executions in all series would be adjusted
by the Exchange to executions at $0.20 per contract (Theoretical Price
of $0.05 plus $0.15) to the extent the incoming orders submitted by
Member A were non-Customer orders.
    [cir] The executions in all series would be nullified to the extent
the incoming orders submitted by Member A were Customer orders.
     As the Exchange and all other options exchanges would have
identical rules with respect to the process described above, as other
options exchanges intend to adopt the same rule if the proposed rule is
approved, the transactions on the Away Exchange would also be nullified
or adjusted as set forth above.
     If this example was instead modified such that Market
Maker A was quoting in 200 series rather than 20, the Exchange notes
that Market Maker A could only request that the Exchange consider as
invalid their quotations in 25 of those series on other exchanges. As
noted above, the Exchange has proposed to limit the proposed rule to 25
series in order to continue to process requests for review in a timely
and organized fashion in order to provide certainty to market
participants. This is due to the amount of coordination that will be
necessary in such a scenario to confirm that the quotations in question
on an away options exchange were indeed submitted by a party to a
transaction on the Exchange.
Trading Halts--Clarifying Change to Rules 504 and 521(f)
    Exchange Rules 504 and 521(f) describe the Exchange's authority to
declare trading halts in one or more options traded on the Exchange.
Currently, Rule 521(f) and Interpretation and Policy .04 to Rule 504
both state that the Exchange shall nullify any transaction that occurs
during a trading halt in the affected option on the Exchange or, with
respect to equity options, during a trading halt on the primary listing
market for the underlying security. The Exchange proposes to make clear
with respect to equity options that it shall nullify any transaction
that occurs during a regulatory halt as declared by the primary listing
market for the underlying security. The Exchange believes this change
is necessary to distinguish a declared regulatory halt, where the
underlying security should not be actively trading on any venue, from
an operational issue on the primary listing exchange where the security
continues to safely trade on other trading venues.
Implementation Date
    The Exchange proposes to delay the operative date of this proposal
to a date within ninety (90) days after the Commission approved the
Bats BZX proposal on July 6, 2017.\16\ The Exchange will announce the
operative date in a Regulatory Alert made available to its Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See supra, note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that
are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular,
with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\17\ Specifically, the
proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \18\ because it
would promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove
impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market
and a national market system, and, in general, protect investors and
the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, the Exchange and other options exchanges are
seeking to further modify their harmonized rules related to the
adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions. The
Exchange believes that the proposal to utilize a TP Provider in the
event the NBBO is unavailable or unreliable will provide greater
transparency and clarity with respect to the adjustment and
nullification of erroneous options transactions. Particularly, the
proposed changes seek to achieve consistent results for participants
across U.S. options exchanges while maintaining a fair and orderly
market, protecting investors and protecting the public interest. Thus,
the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \19\ in that the proposed Rule will foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating and
facilitating transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange again reiterates that it has retained the standard of
the current rule for most reviews of options transactions pursuant to
Rule 521, which is to rely on the NBBO to determine Theoretical Price
if such NBBO can reasonably be relied upon. The proposal to use a TP
Provider when the NBBO is unavailable or unreliable is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \20\ in that the proposed Rule will foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating and
facilitating transactions by further reducing the possibility of
disparate results between options exchanges and increasing the
objectivity of the application of Rule 521. Further, the Exchange
believes that the proposed Rule is transparent with respect to the
limited circumstances under which the Exchange will request a review
and correction of Theoretical Price from the TP Provider, and has
sought to limit such circumstances as much as possible. The Exchange
notes that under the current Rule, Exchange personnel are required to
determine Theoretical Price in certain circumstances and yet rarely do
so because such circumstances have already been significantly limited
under the harmonized rule (for example, because the wide quote
provision of the harmonized rule only applies if the quote was narrower
and then gapped but does not apply if the quote had been persistently
wide). Thus, the Exchange believes it will need to request Theoretical
Price from the TP Provider only in very rare circumstances and in turn,
the Exchange anticipates that the need to contact the TP Provider for

additional review of the Theoretical Price provided by the TP Provider
will be even rarer. Similarly, the Exchange believes it is unlikely
that an Exchange Official will ever be required to determine
Theoretical Price, as such circumstance would only be in the event of a
systems issue that has rendered the TP Provider's services unavailable
and such issue cannot be corrected in a timely manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes its proposal to adopt language in
paragraph (d) of Interpretation and Policy .04 to Rule 521 to disclaim
the liability of the Exchange and the TP Provider in connection with
the proposed Rule, the TP Provider's calculation of Theoretical Price,
and the Exchange's use of such Theoretical Price is consistent with the
Act. As noted above, this proposed language is modeled after existing
language in Exchange Rules regarding ``reporting authorities'' that
calculate indices,\21\ and is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act \22\ in that the proposed Rule will foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating and facilitating
transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See supra, note 13.
    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, the Exchange proposes a modification to the
valid quotes provision to also exclude quotes in a series published by
another options exchange if either party to the transaction in question
submitted the orders or quotes in the series representing such options
exchange's best bid or offer. The Exchange believes this proposal is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \23\ because the application
of the rule will foster cooperation and coordination with persons
engaged in regulating and facilitating transactions by allowing the
Exchange to coordinate with other options exchanges to determine
whether a market participant that is party to a potentially erroneous
transaction on the Exchange established the market in an option on
other options exchanges; to the extent this can be established, the
Exchange believes such participant's quotes should be excluded in the
same way such quotes are excluded on the Exchange. The Exchange also
believes it is reasonable to limit the scope of this provision to
twenty-five (25) series and to require the party that believes it
established the best bid or offer on one or more other options
exchanges to identify to the Exchange the quotes which were submitted
by that party and published by other options exchanges. The Exchange
believes these limitations are consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act \24\ because they will ensure that the Exchange is able to continue
to apply the Rule in a timely and organized fashion, thus fostering
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating and
facilitating transactions and also removing impediments to and
perfecting the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, with respect to the proposed modification to the
Exchange's trading halt rules, Rule 504 and Rule 521(f), the Exchange
believes that this proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act \25\ because such proposal clarifies the provision by
distinguishing between a trading halt in an underlying security where
the security has halted trading across the industry (i.e., a regulatory
halt) from a situation where the primary exchange has experienced a
technical issue but the underlying security continues to trade on other
equities platforms. The Exchange notes that this distinction is already
clear in the rules of certain other options exchanges, and thus, has
been found to be consistent with the Act.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Id.
    \26\ See, e.g., Interpretation and Policy .07 to CBOE Rule 6.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes the
entire proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act \27\ in
that it does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary
or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act as explained
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Importantly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposal will
impose a burden on intermarket competition but rather that it will
alleviate any burden on competition because it is the result of a
collaborative effort by all options exchanges to further harmonize and
improve the process related to the adjustment and nullification of
erroneous options transactions. The Exchange does not believe that the
rules applicable to such process in [sic] an area where options
exchanges should compete, but rather, that all options exchanges should
have consistent rules to the extent possible. Particularly where a
market participant trades on several different exchanges and an
erroneous trade may occur on multiple markets nearly simultaneously,
the Exchange believes that a participant should have a consistent
experience with respect to the nullification or adjustment of
transactions. To that end, the selection and implementation of a TP
Provider utilized by all options exchanges will further reduce the
possibility that participants with potentially erroneous transactions
that span multiple options exchanges are handled differently on such
exchanges. Similarly, the proposed ability to consider quotations
invalid on another options exchange if ultimately originating from a
party to a potentially erroneous transaction on the Exchange represents
a proposal intended to further foster cooperation by the options
exchanges with respect to market events. The Exchange understands that
all other options exchanges either have or they intend to file
proposals that are substantially similar to this proposal.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes
a burden on intramarket competition because the proposed provisions
apply to all market participants equally.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective
pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \28\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \29\
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \29\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MIAX-2017-38 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-MIAX-2017-38. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2017-38, and should be
submitted on or before September 1, 2017.

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

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-16924 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 106 (Friday, June 2, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 36308]
[FR Doc No: 2023-11767]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM98-1-000]

Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public Notice

    This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of
the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
    Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission
decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-
the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested
proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of
the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any
oral communication.
    Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional
file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the
proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited
communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the
decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not
be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a
proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or
contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication and may
request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and
responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant
such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any
person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record
communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the
official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with
Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
    Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional
record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a
cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR
385.2201(e)(1)(v).
    The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently
received by the Secretary of the Commission. This filing may be viewed
on the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary
link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits, in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please
contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free
at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Emailed comments from Yancette Halverson and 147 others.
    \2\ Emailed comments from Brett Little and 48 others.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Docket Nos.                         File date                     Presenter or requester
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prohibited:
    1. CP20-55-000....................                     5-18-2023  FERC Staff \1\.
    2. CP22-2-000.....................                     5-18-2023  FERC Staff \2\.
Exempt:
    1. P-2197-000.....................                     5-25-2023  U.S. Senator Ted Budd.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: May 26, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-11767 Filed 6-1-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P