[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 247 (Thursday, December 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80432-80440]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32388]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76692; File No. SR-BX-2015-081]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Regarding
Fees and Rebates and Tiers Related to BX Options

December 18, 2015.
    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 December 11, 2015, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``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 amend its Options Pricing at Chapter XV
Section 2, entitled ``BX Options Market--Fees and Rebates,'' which
governs pricing for BX members using the BX Options Market (``BX
Options''). The Exchange proposes to modify certain fees and rebates
(per executed contract) and to adopt tiers applicable to fees and
rebates (each a ``Tier'' and together the ``Tiers'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal
office of the Exchange, 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 proposes to amend its Chapter XV, Section 2 to modify
subsection (1) regarding certain fees and rebates \3\ (known as ``fees
and rebates'') and to adopt Tiers applicable to certain fees and
rebates. The proposed modified fees and rebates (per executed contract)
and new Tiers would apply to Customers,\4\ BX Options Market Makers,\5\
and Non-Customers.\6\ One proposed new Tier schedule, consisting of
three Tiers, would apply to Penny Pilot Options; and one proposed new
Tier schedule, consisting of three Tiers, would apply to Non-Penny
Pilot Options.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Fees and rebates are per executed contract. Chapter XV,
Section 2(1).
    \4\ The term ``Customer'' or (``C'') applies to any transaction
that is identified by a Participant for clearing in the Customer
range at The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') which is not for
the account of broker or dealer or for the account of a
``Professional'' (as that term is defined in Chapter I, Section
1(a)(48)). BX Chapter XV.
    \5\ BX Options Market Makers may also be referred to as ``Market
Makers''. The term ``BX Options Market Maker'' or (``M'') means a
Participant that has registered as a Market Maker on BX Options
pursuant to Chapter VII, Section 2, and must also remain in good
standing pursuant to Chapter VII, Section 4. In order to receive
Market Maker pricing in all securities, the Participant must be
registered as a BX Options Market Maker in at least one security.
    \6\ Note 1 to Chapter XV, Section 2 states: ``\1\A Non-Customer
includes a Professional, Firm, Broker-Dealer and Non-BX Options
Market Maker.''
    \7\ The Penny Pilot was established in June 2012 and extended in
2015. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 67256 (June 26,
2012), 77 FR 39277 (July 2, 2012) (SR-BX-2012-030) (order approving
BX option rules and establishing Penny Pilot); and 75326 (June 29,
2015), 80 FR 38481 (July 6, 2015) (SR-BX-2015-037) (notice of filing
and immediate effectiveness extending the Penny Pilot through June
30, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, Chapter XV, Section 2 subsection (1) reads as follows:
Sec. 2 BX Options Market--Fees and Rebates
    The following charges shall apply to the use of the order execution
and routing services of the BX Options market for all securities.
(1) Fees for Execution of Contracts on the BX Options Market

                                                Fees and Rebates
                                             [Per executed contract]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                BX Options
                                                                   Customer      Market Maker   Non-Customer \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Penny Pilot Options:
    Rebate to Add Liquidity...................................       \2\ $0.00       \2\ $0.10               N/A
    Fee to Add Liquidity......................................        \3\ 0.39        \3\ 0.39             $0.45
    Rebate to Remove Liquidity................................            0.34             N/A               N/A
    Fee to Remove Liquidity...................................             N/A            0.46              0.46
Non-Penny Pilot Options:
    Fee to Add Liquidity......................................  \5\ 0.25/$0.85  \5\ 0.50/$0.85              0.88
    Rebate to Remove Liquidity................................            0.70             N/A               N/A
    Fee to Remove Liquidity...................................             N/A            0.89              0.89
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A Non-Customer includes a Professional, Firm, Broker-Dealer and Non-BX Options Market Maker.
\2\ The Rebate to Add Liquidity will be paid to a Customer or BX Options Market Maker only when the Customer or
  BX Options Market Maker is contra to a Non-Customer or BX Options Market Maker.
\3\ The Fee to Add Liquidity will be assessed to a Customer or BX Options Market Maker only when the Customer or
  BX Options Market Maker is contra to a Customer.
\4\ Reserved
\5\ The higher Fee to Add Liquidity will be assessed to a Customer or BX Options Market Maker only when the
  Customer or BX Options Market Maker is contra to a Customer.

    The Exchange proposes modifications to its fees and rebates for
Penny Pilot Options and for Non-Penny Pilot Options as follows: \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The greatest volume options traded on the Exchange and in
the options market are Penny Pilot Options, and the Exchange has
taken this into account when structuring and modifying its fee and
rebate schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Change 1. For Penny Pilot Options, the Exchange proposes to modify
fees and rebates to add Tiers for: (1) Customer Rebates to Add
Liquidity; (2) Customer Fees to Add Liquidity; (3) Customer Rebates to
Remove Liquidity; and (4) BX Options Market Maker Fees to Remove
Liquidity.
    Change 2. For Non-Penny Pilot Options, the Exchange proposes to
modify fees and rebates to add Tiers for: (1) Customer Rebates to Add
Liquidity; (2) Customer Fees to Add Liquidity; (3) Customer Rebates to
Remove Liquidity; (4) BX Options Marker Maker Fees to Remove Liquidity.
The Exchange also proposes to increase the Fee to Add Liquidity for BX
Options Market Maker and for Non-Customer.
    Each specific change is described in detail below.
Change 1--Penny Pilot Options: Modify Fees and Rebates To Add Tiers
    For Penny Pilot Options, the Exchange is proposing to modify fees
and rebates for Customer and BX Options Market Maker.\9\ Specifically,
the Exchange is proposing to add Tiers for Rebate to Add Liquidity for
Customer,\10\ Fee to Add Liquidity for Customer,\11\ and Rebate to
Remove

Liquidity for Customer. The Exchange is also proposing to add Tiers for
Fee to Remove Liquidity for BX Options Market Maker.\12\ The three new
Tiers, described below, together make up the ``Penny Pilot Options Tier
Schedule''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Non-Customer Penny Pilot Options pricing will remain
unchanged.
    \10\ The addition of Tiers to Rebate to Add Liquidity for
Customer replaces the current fee [sic] ($0.00) and reference to
note 2 which are removed. Note 2 will continue to apply to Rebate to
Add Liquidity for BX Options Market Maker, but without reference to
the note applying to a Customer. Today, Customers do not receive a
Rebate to Add Liquidity.
    \11\ The addition of Tiers to Fee to Add Liquidity for Customer
replaces the current fee ($0.39) and reference to note 3 which are
removed. Note 3 will continue to apply to Fee to Add Liquidity for
BX Options Market Maker, but without reference to the note applying
to a Customer.
    \12\ The addition of tiers to the Fee to Remove Liquidity for
the BX Options Market Maker replaces the current per contract fee of
0.46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Tier 1 (``Penny Pilot Tier 1'') will be where a BX
Participant (``Participant'') executes less than 0.05% of total
industry customer equity and exchange traded fund (``ETF'') option
average daily volume (``ADV'') contracts per month. Proposed Penny
Pilot Tier 1 will range from $0.00 rebate to $0.46 fee:

--the Rebate to Add Liquidity when Customer trading with Non-Customer
or BX Options Market Maker will be $0.00 (no rebate will be paid);
--the Fee to Add Liquidity when Customer trading with Customer will be
$0.39;``\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ For Penny Pilot Options, this $0.39 Fee to Add Liquidity
when Customer trading with Customer is the same in all three Tiers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--the Rebate to Remove Liquidity when Customer trading with Non-
Customer, BX Options Market Maker, or Customer will be $0.00;
--the Fee to Remove Liquidity when BX Market Maker trading with
Customer will be $0.39; and
--the Fee to Remove Liquidity when BX Options Market Maker trading with
Non-Customer or BX Options Market Maker will be $0.46.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For Penny Pilot Options, this $0.46 Fee to Remove Liquidity
when BX Options Market Maker trading with Non-Customer or BX Options
Market Maker will be the same in all Tiers.

    Proposed Tier 2 (``Penny Pilot Tier 2'') will be where Participant
executes 0.05% to less than 0.15% of total industry customer equity and
ETF option ADV contracts per month. Proposed Penny Pilot Tier 2 will
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
range from $0.10 rebate to $0.46 fee:

--the Rebate to Add Liquidity when Customer trading with Non-Customer
or BX Options Market Maker will be $0.10;
--the Fee to Add Liquidity when Customer trading with Customer will be
$0.39;
--the Rebate to Remove Liquidity when Customer trading with Non-
Customer, BX Options Market Maker, or Customer will be $0.25;
--the Fee to Remove Liquidity when BX Options Market Maker trading with
Customer will be $0.39; and
--the Fee to Remove Liquidity when BX Options Market Maker trading with
Non-Customer or BX Options Market Maker will be $0.46.

    Proposed Tier 3 (``Penny Pilot Tier 3'') will be where Participant
executes 0.15% or more of total industry customer equity and ETF option
ADV contracts per month. Proposed Penny Pilot Tier 3 will range from
$0.20 rebate to $0.46 fee:

--the Rebate to Add Liquidity when Customer trading with Non-Customer
or BX Options Market Maker will be $0.20;
--the Fee to Add Liquidity when Customer trading with Customer will be
$0.39;
--the Rebate to Remove Liquidity when Customer trading with Non-
Customer, BX Options Market Maker, or Customer will be $0.35;
--the Fee to Remove Liquidity when BX Options Market Maker trading with
Customer will be $0.30; and
--the Fee to Remove Liquidity when BX Options Market Maker trading with
Non-Customer or BX Options Market Maker will be $0.46.
Change 2--Non-Penny Pilot Options: Modify Fees and Rebates To Add
Tiers, Increase Fee To Add Liquidity
    For Non-Penny Pilot Options, the Exchange is proposing to modify
fees and rebates for Customer, BX Options Market Maker, and Non-
Customer. Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to add Tiers for
Rebate to Add Liquidity for Customer,\15\ Fee to Add Liquidity for
Customer,\16\ and Rebate to Remove Liquidity for Customer.\17\ The
Exchange is proposing to add Tiers for Fee to Remove Liquidity for BX
Market Maker.\18\ The three new Tiers, described below, together make
up the ``Non-Penny Pilot Options Tier Schedule''. The Exchange is also
proposing a modest ten cent increase to the Fee to Add Liquidity for BX
Options Market Maker from $0.50/$0.85 to $0.50/$0.95,\19\ and for Non-
Customer from $0.88 to $0.98.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The addition of Rebate to Add Liquidity of the Non-Penny
Pilot Options part of the fees and rebates schedule is so that the
Non-Penny and Penny parts of the schedule both have Rebate to Add
Liquidity. The addition of Tiers to Rebate to Add Liquidity in the
Non-Penny category applies to Customer only.
    \16\ The addition of Tiers to Fee to Add Liquidity for Customer
replaces the current fee ($0.25/$0.85) and reference to note 5 which
are taken out. Note 5 will continue to apply to Fee to Add Liquidity
for BX Options Market Maker, but without reference to the note
applying to a Customer. The Exchange notes that for Fee to Add
Liquidity for Customer the Exchange is replacing a fee ($0.25/$0.85)
with Tiers that include Fee to Add Liquidity as well as Rebate to
Add Liquidity.
    \17\ The addition of Tiers to Rebate to Remove Liquidity for
Customer replaces the current fee [sic] ($0.70) and reference to it
is taken out.
    \18\ The addition of Tiers to Fee to Remove Liquidity for BX
Options Market Maker replaces the current fee ($0.89) and reference
to it is taken out.
    \19\ Per note 5 as modified, the higher Fee to Add Liquidity
will be assessed to a BX Options Market Maker only when the BX
Options Market Maker is contra to a Customer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Tier 1 (``Non-Penny Pilot Tier 1'') will be where
Participant executes less than 0.05% of total industry customer equity
and ETF option ADV contracts per month. Proposed Non-Penny Pilot Tier 1
will range from $0.00 rebate to $0.89 fee:
--the Rebate to Add Liquidity when Customer trading with Non-Customer
or BX Options Market Maker will be $0.00 (no rebate will be paid);
--the Fee to Add Liquidity when Customer trading with Customer will be
$0.85; \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ For Non-Penny Pilot Options, this $0.85 Fee to Add
Liquidity when Customer trading with Customer is the same in all
three Tiers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--the Rebate to Remove Liquidity when Customer trading with Non-
Customer, BX Options Market Maker, or Customer will be $0.80;
--the Fee to Remove Liquidity when BX Market Maker trading with
Customer will be $0.89; and
--the Fee to Remove Liquidity when BX Options Market Maker trading with
Non-Customer or BX Options Market Maker will be $0.89.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ For Non-Penny Pilot Options, this $0.89 Fee to Remove
Liquidity when BX Options Market Maker trading with Non-Customer or
BX Options Market Maker will be the same in all Tiers.

    Proposed Tier 2 (``Non-Penny Pilot Tier 2'') will be where
Participant executes 0.05% to less than 0.15% of total industry
customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per month. Proposed Non-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Penny Pilot Tier 2 will range from $0.10 rebate to $0.89 fee:

--the Rebate to Add Liquidity when Customer trading with Non-Customer
or BX Options Market Maker will be $0.10;
--the Fee to Add Liquidity when Customer trading with Customer will be
$0.85;
--the Rebate to Remove Liquidity when Customer trading with Non-
Customer, BX Options Market Maker, or Customer will be $0.80;
--the Fee to Remove Liquidity when BX Options Market Maker trading with
Customer will be $0.89; and
--the Fee to Remove Liquidity when BX Options Market Maker trading with
Non-Customer or BX Options Market Maker will be $0.89.

    Proposed Tier 3 (``Non-Penny Pilot Tier 3'') will be where
Participant executes 0.15% or more of total industry customer equity
and ETF option ADV contracts per month. Proposed Non-Penny Pilot Tier 3
will range from $0.20 rebate to $0.89 fee:

--the Rebate to Add Liquidity when Customer trading with Non-Customer
or BX Options Market Maker will be $0.20;
--the Fee to Add Liquidity when Customer trading with Customer will be
$0.85;
--the Rebate to Remove Liquidity when Customer trading with Non-
Customer, BX Options Market Maker, or Customer will be $0.80;
--the Fee to Remove Liquidity when BX Options Market Maker trading with
Customer will be $0.60; and
--the Fee to Remove Liquidity when BX Options Market Maker trading with
Non-Customer or BX Options Market Maker will be $0.89.

    As proposed, Chapter XV, Section 2 subsection (1) will read as
follows:
Sec. 2 BX Options Market--Fees and Rebates
    The following charges shall apply to the use of the order execution
and routing services of the BX Options market for all securities.
(1) Fees for Execution of Contracts on the BX Options Market

                                                Fees and Rebates
                                             [Per executed contract]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                BX Options
                                                                   Customer      Market Maker   Non-Customer \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Penny Pilot Options:
    Rebate to Add Liquidity...................................               #       \2\ $0.10               N/A
    Fee to Add Liquidity......................................               #        \3\ 0.39             $0.45
    Rebate to Remove Liquidity................................               #             N/A               N/A
    Fee to Remove Liquidity...................................             N/A               #              0.46
Non-Penny Pilot Options:
    Rebate to Add Liquidity...................................               *             N/A               N/A
    Fee to Add Liquidity......................................               *  \5\ 0.50/$0.95              0.98
    Rebate to Remove Liquidity................................               *             N/A               N/A
    Fee to Remove Liquidity...................................             N/A               *              0.89
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A Non-Customer includes a Professional, Firm, Broker-Dealer and Non-BX Options Market Maker.
\2\ The Rebate to Add Liquidity will be paid to a BX Options Market Maker only when the BX Options Market Maker
  is contra to a Non-Customer or BX Options Market Maker.
\3\ The Fee to Add Liquidity will be assessed to a BX Options Market Maker only when the BX Options Market Maker
  is contra to a Customer.
\4\ Reserved.
\5\ The higher Fee to Add Liquidity will be assessed to a BX Options Market Maker only when the BX Options
  Market Maker is contra to a Customer.

                                                           # Penny Pilot Options Tier Schedule
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Rebate to add                                 Rebate to remove        Fee to remove          Fee to remove
                                            liquidity         Fee to add liquidity         liquidity              liquidity              liquidity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When...............................  Customer..............  Customer..............  Customer.............  BX Options Market      BX Options Market
                                                                                Maker.                 Maker.
Trading with.......................  Non-Customer or BX      Customer..............  Non-Customer, BX       Customer.............  Non-Customer or BX
                                      Options Market Maker.                           Options Market                                Options Market
                                                                                Maker, or Customer.                           Maker.
Tier 1:
    Participant executes less than   $0.00.................  $0.39.................  $0.00................  $0.39................  $0.46.
     0.05% of total industry
     customer equity and ETF option
     ADV contracts per month.
Tier 2:
    Participant executes 0.05% to    $0.10.................  $0.39.................  $0.25................  $0.39................  $0.46.
     less than 0.15% of total
     industry customer equity and
     ETF option ADV contracts per
     month.
Tier 3:
    Participant executes 0.15% or    $0.20.................  $0.39.................  $0.35................  $0.30................  $0.46.
     more of total industry
     customer equity and ETF option
     ADV contracts per month.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                           # Penny Pilot Options Tier Schedule
                                                         * Non-Penny Pilot Options Tier Schedule
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Rebate to add                                 Rebate to remove        Fee to remove          Fee to remove
                                            liquidity         Fee to add liquidity         liquidity              liquidity              liquidity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When...............................  Customer..............  Customer..............  Customer.............  BX Options Market      BX Options Market
                                                                                Maker.                 Maker.

Trading with.......................  Non-Customer or BX      Customer..............  Non-Customer, BX       Customer.............  Non-Customer or BX
                                      Options Market Maker.                           Options Market                                Options Market
                                                                                Maker, or Customer.                           Maker.
Tier 1:
    Participant executes less than   $0.00.................  $0.85.................  $0.80................  $0.89................  $0.89.
     0.05% of total industry
     customer equity and ETF option
     ADV contracts per month.
Tier 2:
    Participant executes 0.05% to    $0.10.................  $0.85.................  $0.80................  $0.89................  $0.89.
     less than 0.15% of total
     industry customer equity and
     ETF option ADV contracts per
     month.
Tier 3:
    Participant executes 0.15% or    $0.20.................  $0.85.................  $0.80................  $0.60................  $0.89.
     more of total industry
     customer equity and ETF option
     ADV contracts per month.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is adopting these fees and rebates at this time
because it believes that they will provide incentives for execution of
contracts on the BX Options Market. The Exchange believes that its
proposal should provide increased opportunities for participation in
executions on the Exchange, facilitating the ability of the Exchange to
bring together participants and encourage more robust competition for
orders.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\22\ in general, and with
Section 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\23\ 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, and is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, for example, the Commission indicated that market forces should
generally determine the price of non-core market data because national
market system regulation ``has been remarkably successful in promoting
market competition in its broader forms that are most important to
investors and listed companies.'' \24\ Likewise, in NetCoalition v.
NYSE Arca, Inc., 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 2010), the D.C. Circuit upheld
the Commission's use of a market-based approach in evaluating the
fairness of market data fees against a challenge claiming that Congress
mandated a cost-based approach.\25\ As the court emphasized, the
Commission ``intended in Regulation NMS that `market forces, rather
than regulatory requirements' play a role in determining the market
data . . . to be made available to investors and at what cost.'' \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Exchange Act Release No. 34-51808 (June 9, 2005)
(``Regulation NMS Adopting Release'').
    \25\ See NetCoalition, 615 F.3d at 534.
    \26\ Id. at 537.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is
`fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market
system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that
act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of
where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to
take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange
possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of
order flow from broker dealers'. . . .'' \27\ Although the Court and
the SEC were discussing the cash equities markets, the Exchange
believes that, as discussed above, these views apply with equal force
to the options markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ NetCoalition I, 615 F.3d at 539 (quoting ArcaBook Order, 73
FR at 74782-74783).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal should provide increased
opportunities for participation in executions on the Exchange,
facilitating the ability of the Exchange to bring together participants
and encourage more robust competition for orders.
Change 1--Penny Pilot Options: Modify Fees and Rebates
    For Penny Pilot Options, the Exchange is proposing to modify fees
and rebates for Customer and BX Options Market Maker. Specifically, the
Exchange is proposing to add Tiers for Rebate to Add Liquidity for
Customer, Fee to Add Liquidity for Customer, and Rebate to Remove
Liquidity for Customer. The Exchange is also proposing to add Tiers for
Fee to Remove Liquidity for BX Market Maker. The three new Tiers make
up the Penny Pilot Options Tier Schedule.
    In particular, proposed Penny Pilot Tier 1 will be where a
Participant executes less than 0.05% of total industry customer equity
and ETF option ADV contracts per month, and will range from $0.00
rebate to $0.46 fee.\28\ Proposed Penny Pilot Tier 2 will

be where Participant executes 0.05% to less than 0.15% of total
industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per month, and
will range from $0.10 rebate to $0.46 fee.\29\ Proposed Penny Pilot
Tier 3 will be where Participant executes 0.15% or more of total
industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per month, and
will range from $0.20 rebate to $0.46 fee.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ The Rebate to Add Liquidity when Customer trading with Non-
Customer or BX Options Market Maker will be $0.00; the Fee to Add
Liquidity when Customer trading with Customer will be $0.39 (same
across all tiers); the Rebate to Remove Liquidity when Customer
trading with Non-Customer, BX Options Market Maker, or Customer will
be $0.00; the Fee to Remove Liquidity when BX Market Maker trading
with Customer will be $0.39; and the Fee to Remove Liquidity when BX
Options Market Maker trading with Non-Customer or BX Options Market
Maker will be $0.46 (same across all Tiers).
    \29\ The Rebate to Add Liquidity when Customer trading with Non-
Customer or BX Options Market Maker will be $0.10; the Fee to Add
Liquidity when Customer trading with Customer will be $0.39; the
Rebate to Remove Liquidity when Customer trading with Non-Customer,
BX Options Market Maker, or Customer will be $0.25; the Fee to
Remove Liquidity when BX Options Market Maker trading with Customer
will be $0.39; and the Fee to Remove Liquidity when BX Options
Market Maker trading with Non-Customer or BX Options Market Maker
will be $0.46.
    \30\ The Rebate to Add Liquidity when Customer trading with Non-
Customer or BX Options Market Maker will be $0.20; the Fee to Add
Liquidity when Customer trading with Customer will be $0.39; the
Rebate to Remove Liquidity when Customer trading with Non-Customer,
BX Options Market Maker, or Customer will be $0.35; the Fee to
Remove Liquidity when BX Options Market Maker trading with Customer
will be $0.30; and the Fee to Remove Liquidity when BX Options
Market Maker trading with Non-Customer or BX Options Market Maker
will be $0.46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In adding the new Tiers in the Penny Pilot Options Tier Schedule,
the current pricing will be replaced with the proposed Tier Schedule
and is no longer used. Tiers replace the current rebate ($0.00) in
Rebate to Add Liquidity for Customer (no rebate is offered today), and
reference to note 2 is removed.\31\ Tiers replace the current fee
($0.39) to Fee to Add Liquidity for Customer and reference to note 3 is
removed and will not apply with this proposal.\32\ Certain references
in Notes 2 and 3 to Customer are removed, and as such the notes no
longer make sense for Rebate to Add Liquidity and for Customer Fee to
Add Liquidity for Customer.\33\ The Exchange is also substituting the
current fee ($0.46) to Fee to Remove Liquidity for BX Options Market
Maker by putting it in the tier schedule. Deleting the rebates and fees
from the fees and rebates structure for Penny Pilot Options is
reasonable where they have been replaced by the new Tiers structure to
incentivize Participants to send order flow to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ The rule text of note 2 is amended to reflect the removal
of certain references to Customer.
    \32\ The rule text of note 3 is amended to reflect the removal
of certain references to Customer.
    \33\ Notes 2 and 3 continue to apply, to Rebate to Add Liquidity
for BX Options Market Maker and to Fee to Add Liquidity for BX
Options Market Maker, respectively, but without deleted references
to Customer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed Tiers in the Penny Pilot
Options Tier Schedule are reasonable in that they reflect a structure
that is not novel in the options markets but rather is similar to that
of other options markets and competitive with what is offered by other
exchanges.\34\ In addition, the Exchange believes that making changes
to add Tiers applicable to the Customer in terms of Rebate to Add
Liquidity, Fee to Add Liquidity, and Rebate to Remove Liquidity, is
reasonable because it encourages the desired Customer behavior by
attracting Customer interest to the Exchange. Customer activity
enhances liquidity on the Exchange for the benefit of all market
participants and benefits all market participants by providing more
trading opportunities, which attracts market makers. An increase in the
activity of these market participants in turn facilitates tighter
spreads, which may cause an additional corresponding increase in order
flow from other market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See, e.g., the MIAX fee schedule at http://www.miaxoptions.com/sites/default/files/fee-schedules/MIAX_Options_Fee_Schedule_10012015.pdf and the BOX fee schedule at
http://boxexchange.com/assets/BOX_Fee_Schedule1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Establishing Penny Pilot Tiers for Rebate to Add Liquidity for
Customer, Fee to Add Liquidity for Customer, and Rebate to Remove
Liquidity for Customer, and Penny Pilot Tiers for Fee to Remove
Liquidity for BX Options Market Maker is reasonable. It encourages
market participant behavior through progressive tiered fees and rebates
using an accepted methodology among options exchanges.\35\ The proposed
Tiers in the Penny Pilot Options Tier Schedule, which have been
discussed at length, clearly reflect the progressively increasing
nature of Participant executions structured for the purpose of
attracting order flow to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See, e.g., fee and rebate schedules of other options
exchanges, including, but not limited to, NASDAQ Options Market
(``NOM''), NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx''), and Chicago Board Options
Exchange (``CBOE'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Penny Pilot Tiers are reasonable in that they are set up to
incentivize Participants to direct liquidity to the Exchange. That is,
as Participants execute more of total industry customer equity and ETF
option ADV contracts per month on the Exchange, they can in certain
categories earn higher rebates and be assessed lower fees. For example,
the Penny Pilot Tier 3 Rebate to Add Liquidity when Customer trading
with Non-Customer or BX Options Market Maker is higher ($0.20) that
[sic] the Penny Pilot Tier 1 Rebate to Add Liquidity ($0.00), which
offer [sic] no rebate today. The Penny Pilot Tiers are set up in a
similar progressive manner for Rebate to Remove Liquidity when Customer
trading with Non-Customer, BX Options Market Maker, or Customer. And,
the Fee to Remove Liquidity when BX Option Market Maker trading with
Customer is lesser for Tier 3 ($0.30) than for Tier 1 ($0.39).\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ The remaining categories of Fee to Add Liquidity when
Customer trading with Customer and Fee to Remove Liquidity when BX
Options Market Maker trading with Non-Customer or BX Options Market
Maker reflect the same fee in each Penny Pilot Tier, whether 1, 2,
or 3 ($0.39 and $0.46, respectively).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For Penny Pilot Options, establishing the Customer-related and BX
Options Market Maker-related fee and rebate changes, which includes the
new Tiers, is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. This is
because the Exchange's proposal to assess fees and pay rebates
according to Penny Pilot Tiers 1, 2, and 3 will apply uniformly to all
similarly situated Participants. BX Options Market Makers would be
assessed a Fee to Remove Liquidity according to the Penny Pilot Tiers,
and Customers would earn a Rebate to Add Liquidity and a Rebate to
Remove Liquidity according to the same Tiers per the Penny Pilot
Options Tier Schedule .
    The fee and rebate schedule as proposed continues to reflect
differentiation among different market participants. The Exchange
believes that the differentiation is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory, as well as reasonable, and notes that unlike others
(e.g. Non-Customers) some market participants like BX Options Market
Makers commit to various obligations. For example, transactions of a BX
Options Market Maker must constitute a course of dealings reasonably
calculated to contribute to the maintenance of a fair and orderly
market, and BX Options Market Makers should not make bids or offers or
enter into transactions that are inconsistent with such course of
dealings. Further, all BX Options Market Makers are designated as
specialists on BX for all purposes under the Act or rules
thereunder.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See Chapter VII, Section 5, entitled ``Obligations of
Market Makers''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that by making the proposed Penny Pilot
Options changes, it is incentivizing Participants to execute more
volume on the Exchange to further enhance liquidity in this market.

Change 2--Non-Penny Pilot Options: Modify Fees and Rebates
    For Non-Penny Pilot Options, the Exchange is proposing to modify
fees and rebates for Customer and BX Options Market Maker.
Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to add Tiers for Rebate to Add
Liquidity for Customer, Fee to Add Liquidity for Customer,\38\ and
Rebate to Remove Liquidity for Customer. The Exchange is also proposing
to add Tiers for Fee to Remove Liquidity for BX Market Maker. The three
new Tiers make up the Non-Penny Pilot Options Tier Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ The addition of Rebate to Add Liquidity of the Non-Penny
Pilot Options part of the fees and rebates schedule is so that the
Non-Penny and Penny parts of the schedule both have Rebate to Add
Liquidity. The addition of Tiers to Rebate to Add Liquidity in the
Non-Penny category applies to Customer only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, proposed Non-Penny Pilot Tier 1 will be where
Participant executes less than 0.05% of total industry customer equity
and ETF option ADV contracts per month, and will range from $0.00
rebate to $0.89 fee.\39\ The Proposed Non-Penny Pilot Tier 2 will be
where Participant executes 0.05% to less than 0.15% of total industry
customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per month, and will range
from $0.10 rebate to $0.89 fee.\40\ Proposed Non-Penny Pilot Tier 3
will be where Participant executes 0.15% or more of total industry
customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per month, and will range
from $0.20 rebate to $0.89 fee.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ The Rebate to Add Liquidity when Customer trading with Non-
Customer or BX Options Market Maker will be $0.00 ; the Fee to Add
Liquidity when Customer trading with Customer will be $0.85 (same
across all Tiers); the Rebate to Remove Liquidity when Customer
trading with Non-Customer, BX Options Market Maker, or Customer will
be $0.80; the Fee to Remove Liquidity when BX Market Maker trading
with Customer will be $0.89; and the Fee to Remove Liquidity when BX
Options Market Maker trading with Non-Customer or BX Options Market
Maker will be $0.89 (same across all Tiers).
    \40\ The Rebate to Add Liquidity when Customer trading with Non-
Customer or BX Options Market Maker will be $0.10; the Fee to Add
Liquidity when Customer trading with Customer will be $0.85; the
Rebate to Remove Liquidity when Customer trading with Non-Customer,
BX Options Market Maker, or Customer will be $0.80; the Fee to
Remove Liquidity when BX Options Market Maker trading with Customer
will be $0.89; and the Fee to Remove Liquidity when BX Options
Market Maker trading with Non-Customer or BX Options Market Maker
will be $0.89.
    \41\ The Rebate to Add Liquidity when Customer trading with Non-
Customer or BX Options Market Maker will be $0.20; the Fee to Add
Liquidity when Customer trading with Customer will be $0.85; the
Rebate to Remove Liquidity when Customer trading with Non-Customer,
BX Options Market Maker, or Customer will be $0.80; the Fee to
Remove Liquidity when BX Options Market Maker trading with Customer
will be $0.60; and the Fee to Remove Liquidity when BX Options
Market Maker trading with Non-Customer or BX Options Market Maker
will be $0.89.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In adding the new Tiers in the Non-Penny Pilot Options Tier
Schedule, the current pricing will be replaced with the proposed Tier
Schedule and is no longer used. Tiers replace the current fee ($0.25/
$0.85) to Fee to Add Liquidity for Customer \42\ and reference to note
5 is removed.\43\ Certain references in note 5 to Customer are removed
as they are no longer needed.\44\ Tiers replace the current Rebate to
Remove Liquidity for Customer and the current rebate ($0.70) is
removed. Tiers replace the current Fee to Remove Liquidity for BX
Options Market Maker and the current fee ($0.89) is removed. Deleting
the rebates and fees from the fees and rebates structure for Non-Penny
Pilot Options is reasonable where they have been replaced by the new
Tiers structure to incentivize Participants bringing flow to the
Exchange. The Exchange is also reasonably increasing by ten cents (to
$0.95) the Fee to Add Liquidity for BX Options Market Maker when the BX
Options market maker is contra to a Customer, and increasing by ten
cents (to $0.98) the Fee to Add Liquidity for Non-Customer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ The Exchange notes that for Fee to Add Liquidity for
Customer the Exchange is replacing a fee ($0.25/$0.85) with Tiers
that include Fee to Add Liquidity as well as Rebate to Add
Liquidity.
    \43\ The rule text of note 5 is amended to reflect the removal
of certain references to Customer.
    \44\ Note 5 continues to apply, however, to Fee to Add Liquidity
for BX Options Market Maker, but without reference to the note
applying to a Customer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed Tiers in the Non-Penny
Pilot Options Tier Schedule are reasonable in that they reflect a
structure that is not novel in the options markets but rather is
similar to and competitive with what is offered by other exchanges.\45\
In addition, the Exchange believes that making changes to add Tiers
applicable to the Customer in terms of Rebate to Add Liquidity, Fee to
Add Liquidity, and Rebate to Remove Liquidity, is reasonable because it
encourages the desired Customer behavior by attracting Customer
interest to the Exchange. Customer activity enhances liquidity on the
Exchange for the benefit of all market participants and benefits all
market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which
attracts market makers. An increase in the activity of these market
participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an
additional corresponding increase in order flow from other market
participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See, e.g., the MIAX fee schedule at http://www.miaxoptions.com/sites/default/files/fee-schedules/MIAX_Options_Fee_Schedule_10012015.pdf and the BOX fee schedule at
http://boxexchange.com/assets/BOX_Fee_Schedule1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Establishing Non-Penny Pilot Tiers for Rebate to Add Liquidity for
Customer, Fee to Add Liquidity for Customer, and Rebate to Remove
Liquidity for Customer, and Non-Penny Pilot Tiers for Fee to Remove
Liquidity for BX Options Market Maker is reasonable. It encourages
market participant behavior through progressive tiered fees and rebates
using an accepted methodology among options exchanges.\46\ The proposed
Tiers in the Non-Penny Pilot Options Tier Schedule, which have been
discussed at length, clearly reflect the progressively increasing
nature of Participant executions structured for the purpose of
attracting flow to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See, e.g., fee and rebate schedules of other options
exchanges, including, but not limited to, NOM, Phlx, and CBOE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Non-Penny Pilot Tiers are reasonable in that they are set up to
incentivize Participants to direct liquidity to the Exchange. That is,
as Participants execute more of total industry customer equity and ETF
option ADV contracts per month on the Exchange, they can in certain
categories earn higher rebates and be assessed lower fees. For example,
the Non-Penny Pilot Tier 3 Rebate to Add Liquidity when Customer
trading with Non-Customer or BX Options Market Maker is, similarly to
the equivalent Penny Pilot Tier category, higher ($0.20) that [sic] the
Non-Penny Pilot Tier 1 Rebate to Add Liquidity ($0.00). The Non-Penny
Pilot Tiers are set up in a similar progressive manner for Fee to
Remove Liquidity when BX Options Market Maker trading with Customer
being assessed a lesser fee for Tier 3 ($0.60) than for Tier 1
($0.89).\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ The remaining categories of Fee to Add Liquidity when
Customer trading with Customer, Rebate to Remove Liquidity when
Customer trading with Non-Customer, BX Options Market Maker, or
Customer, and Fee to Remove Liquidity when BX Options Market Maker
trading with Non-Customer or BX Options Market Maker reflect the
same rates in each Non-Penny Pilot Tier, whether 1, 2, or 3 ($0.85,
$0.80, and $0.89, respectively).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For Non-Penny Pilot Options, establishing the Customer-related and
BX Options Market Maker-related fee and rebate changes, which includes
the new Tiers, is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. This is
because the Exchange's proposal to assess fees and pay rebates
according to Non-Penny Pilot Tiers 1, 2, and 3 will apply similarly to
all similarly situated Participants. BX Options Market Makers would be
assessed a Fee to Remove Liquidity according to the Non-Penny Pilot
Tiers, and Customers would earn a Rebate to Add Liquidity and a Rebate

to Remove Liquidity and be assessed a Fee to Add Liquidity according to
the same Tiers per the Non-Penny Pilot Options Tier Schedule.
    The fee and rebate schedule as proposed continues to reflect
differentiation among different market participants. The Exchange
believes that the differentiation is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory, as well as reasonable, and notes that unlike others
(e.g. Non-Customers) some market participants like BX Options Market
Makers commit to various obligations. For example, transactions of a BX
Market Maker must constitute a course of dealings reasonably calculated
to contribute to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market, and
Market Makers should not make bids or offers or enter into transactions
that are inconsistent with such course of dealings. Further, all Market
Makers are designated as specialists on BX for all purposes under the
Act or rules thereunder.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See Chapter VII, Section 5, entitled ``Obligations of
Market Makers''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that by making the proposed Non-Penny Pilot
Options changes, it is incentivizing Participants to execute more
volume on the Exchange to further enhance liquidity in this market.

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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically, the Exchange does
not believe that its proposal to make changes to its Penny Pilot
Options and Non-Penny Pilot Options fees and rebates and to establish
Tiers for such fees and rebates will impose any undue burden on
competition, as discussed below.
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which many
sophisticated and knowledgeable market participants can readily and do
send order flow to competing exchanges if they deem fee levels or
rebate incentives at a particular exchange to be excessive or
inadequate. Additionally, new competitors have entered the market and
still others are reportedly entering the market shortly. These market
forces ensure that the Exchange's fees and rebates remain competitive
with the fee structures at other trading platforms. In that sense, the
Exchange's proposal is actually pro-competitive because the Exchange is
simply continuing its fees and rebates and establishing Tiers for Penny
Pilot Options and Non-Penny Pilot Options in order to remain
competitive in the current environment.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In terms of inter-market
competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more
favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust
its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with
alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance
with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because
competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because
market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices,
the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this
market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited. In
terms of intra-market competition, the Exchange notes that price
differentiation among different market participants operating on the
Exchange (e.g., Customer, BX Options Market Maker, Non-Customer) is
reasonable. Customer activity, for example, enhances liquidity on the
Exchange for the benefit of all market participants and benefits all
market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which
attracts market makers. An increase in the activity of these market
participants (particularly in response to pricing) in turn facilitates
tighter spreads, which may cause an additional corresponding increase
in order flow from other market participants. Moreover, unlike others
(e.g. Non-Customers) each BX Options Market Maker commits to various
obligations. These obligations include, for example, transactions of a
BX Market Maker must constitute a course of dealings reasonably
calculated to contribute to the maintenance of a fair and orderly
market, and Market Makers should not make bids or offers or enter into
transactions that are inconsistent with such course of dealings.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See Chapter VII, Section 5, entitled ``Obligations of
Market Makers''. Further, all Market Makers are designated as
specialists on BX for all purposes under the Act or rules
thereunder. See Chapter VII, Section 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this instance, the proposed changes to the fees and rebates for
execution of contracts on the Exchange, and establishing Tiers for such
fees and rebates, do not impose a burden on competition because the
Exchange's execution and routing services are completely voluntary and
subject to extensive competition both from other exchanges and from
off-exchange venues. If the changes proposed herein are unattractive to
market participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market
share as a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the
proposed changes will impair the ability of members or competing order
execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the
financial markets. Additionally, the changes proposed herein are pro-
competitive to the extent that they continue to allow the Exchange to
promote and maintain order executions.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\50\ the Exchange
has designated this proposal as establishing or changing a due, fee, or
other charge imposed by the self-regulatory organization on any person,
whether or not the person is a member of the self-regulatory
organization, which renders the proposed rule change effective upon
filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) 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-BX-2015-081 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-BX-2015-081. 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-BX-2015-081, and should be
submitted on or before January 14, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-32388 Filed 12-23-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Sand & Gravel Pit Damage Cases Page 1 June11, 2001 SUMMARY OF EPA COAL COMBUSTION WASTE DAMAGE CASES INVOLVING SAND & GRAVEL MINES/ PITS/ OPERATIONS This document provides summary information on five damage cases that EPA has concluded involved the placement of coal combustion waste into sand and gravel mines or pits. These five cases are among the proven or potential damage cases discussed in EPA's May 22, 2000 Regulatory Determination on Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels ( 65 FR 32214). These five cases are:

° City of Beverly/ Vitale Brothers Fly Ash Pit, Massachusetts ° Virginia Power Yorktown Power Station Chisman Creek Disposal Site, Virginia ° WEPCO Cedar Sauk Landfill, Wisconsin ° Lemberger Landfill, Wisconsin ° WEPCO Highway 59 Landfill, Wisconsin Also, EPA is currently collecting and analyzing information on an additional case that involved placement of coal combustion waste into a quarry. In the 2000 Regulatory Determination, this case was counted among the 18 cases with insufficient documentation and data to verify and draw a conclusion about whether they should be considered potential or proven damage cases. Because EPA's data collection and analysis for this case is not yet complete, it is not summarized here. Sand & Gravel Pit Damage Cases Page 2 June11, 2001 City of Beverly/ Vitale Brothers Fly Ash Pit, Massachusetts History: This site is an abandoned gravel and sand mine that was used as an unpermitted landfill from the 1950' s until the mid 1970' s. The site was operated by the Vitale Brothers until 1980, when the City of Beverly Conservation Commission gained ownership because of failure to pay property taxes. On the site, the Vitale Brothers accepted and disposed saltwater quenched fly ash from New England Power Company along with other wastes. Leaking underground storage tanks containing petroleum products were also located at the site. In 1973, fly ash at the site eroded into a nearby swamp and a stream that is a tributary to a surface drinking water supply. The erosion created a damming effect and resulted in flooding of neighboring property. In 1988, surface water sampling of the stream revealed levels of iron and manganese significantly greater than upstream levels. Additionally, there were complaints of fugitive dust from the site from neighbors located 500 feet away. Air sampling on one occasion in 1988 revealed arsenic concentrations of 2 parts per billion. Finally, 1988 groundwater sampling found arsenic and selenium in excess of their primary MCLs and aluminum, iron, and manganese in excess of secondary MCLs. According to the State, fly ash is the suspected source of contamination in all of these media.

The site has a long history of noncompliance with local and State laws and regulations. The site is currently undergoing Comprehensive Site Assessment and Risk Characterization in preparation for potential remedial action under Massachusetts regulations for the assessment and cleanup of hazardous waste sites.

Basis for Consideration as a Damage Case: This case was not counted as a proven damage case in the 1999 Report to Congress although it should have been. The case does meet the criteria for a proven damage case for the following reasons: ( 1) selenium and arsenic exceeded ( health based) primary MCLs, ( 2) there is evidence of contamination of nearby ( offsite) wetlands and surface waters, and ( 3) the facility was the subject of several citations and the State is assessing potential remedial actions.

Causative Factors: Fly ash is disposed at the site at depths from 14 to 36 feet. Not only is the site unlined, but groundwater depth at the site is between 10 and 21 feet, indicating the likelihood of direct contact with fly ash. Fly ash also is observed to be present at the surface of the site with no cover or other surface runoff, erosion, or fugitive dust controls. Finally, the site is located in close proximity to a wetland and a surface water body. Sand & Gravel Pit Damage Cases Page 3 June11, 2001 Virginia Power Yorktown Power Station Chisman Creek Disposal Site, Virginia History: This site consists of three parcels of land that cover 27 acres. Between 1957 and 1974, abandoned sand and gravel pits at the site received fly ash from the combustion of coal and petroleum coke at the Yorktown Power Station. Disposal at the site ended in 1974 when Virginia Power began burning oil at the Yorktown plant. In 1980, nearby shallow residential wells became contaminated with vanadium and selenium. Water in the wells turned green and contained selenium above the primary MCL and sulfate above the secondary MCL. Investigations in response to the discolored drinking water found heavy metal contamination in the groundwater around the fly ash disposal areas, in onsite ponds, and in the sediments of Chisman Creek and its tributaries. Arsenic, beryllium, chromium, copper, molybdenum, nickel, vanadium, and selenium were detected above background levels.

In September 1983, EPA added the site to the National Priorities List ( NPL) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liabilities Act ( CERCLA). Cleanup began in late 1986 and was conducted in two parts. The first part addressed the fly ash pits and contaminated groundwater and included the following steps:

C extension of public water to 55 homes with contaminated well water, C capping the disposal pits with soil ( 2 pits) or compacted clay ( 1 pit) overlain with topsoil and vegetative growth, C groundwater and leachate collection for treatment and to lower the water table beneath the pits, and C post closure monitoring.

The second part addressed the onsite ponds, a freshwater tributary stream, and the Chisman Creek estuary and included the following steps:

C relocation of a 600 foot portion of the tributary to minimize contact with the fly ash disposal areas, C diversion of surface runoff, and C long term monitoring for the ponds, tributary, and estuary.

Construction of all cleanup components was completed on December 21, 1990. The site has been redeveloped as a public park.

Basis for Consideration as a Damage Case: EPA has categorized this case as a proven damage case for the following reasons: ( 1) drinking water wells contained selenium above the ( health based) primary MCL; ( 2) there is evidence of surface water and sediment contamination; and ( 3) the site was remediated under CERCLA.

Causative Factors: The facility was operated with no dust or erosion controls. The facility is unlined and located in close proximity to drinking water wells. A surface water tributary passed through or near the disposal areas. In addition, the documentation on the site and design of remedial measures suggest that groundwater at the site was very shallow and possibly in contact with disposed waste. ( Note also that the facility is located in close proximity to a wetland, although there is no documentation of impact to flora in the wetland.) 1 Quantative data on the original depth to groundwater are not available, but documentation on the site reports that the water table was near the base of the original pit.

Sand & Gravel Pit Damage Cases Page 4 June11, 2001 WEPCO Cedar Sauk Landfill, Wisconsin History: This facility is an abandoned sand and gravel pit that received coal combustion waste from the WEPCO Port Washington Power Plant from 1969 to 1979. After closure of the facility, groundwater monitoring revealed exceedences of the primary MCL for selenium, the State standard for boron, and the secondary MCL for sulfate. Vegetative damage resulting from boron uptake also was observed in a nearby wetland. Presumably, this damage is the result of groundwater migration to the wetland. As a result, the State required installation of relief wells to confine and remediate the contamination plume and installation of an upgraded cover at the site.

Basis for Consideration as a Damage Case: EPA has categorized this case as a proven damage case for the following reasons: ( 1) selenium in groundwater exceeded the ( health based) primary MCL, ( 2) there was clear evidence of vegetative damage, and ( 3) the State required remedial action. ( This case was not counted as a proven damage case in the 1999 Report to Congress, however, because there was no evidence of comanagement of low volume wastes at the site.)

Causative Factors: The facility is not only unlined, but was constructed over shallow groundwater1 in highly permeable ( 10 3 to 10 2 cm/ sec) media. Some time after closure, the water table rose, saturating portions of the ash fill. Furthermore, the original soil cover installed at closure was found to be insufficient, less than 2 feet in places. Finally, the site was located in close proximity to a wetland. Sand & Gravel Pit Damage Cases Page 5 June11, 2001 Lemberger Landfill, Wisconsin History: This site is an old gravel pit that was used by the Township of Franklin as an open dump from about 1940 to 1969. Lemberger Landfill, Inc., operated the site as a sanitary landfill under a license from the State from about 1970 to 1976. Under the license, the site was permitted to receive municipal solid waste and power plant fly ash and bottom ash. The available records show that, in addition to municipal solid waste and possibly industrial waste, the landfill received power plant fly ash and bottom ash starting in 1969. In 1976, the site ceased operations except for disposal of fly ash to bring the site to final grade. A second cap was placed on the landfill in May 1981.

Damages at the site include the seepage of landfill leachate onto adjacent property. Groundwater at the site is contaminated with VOC and inorganic constituents including arsenic, barium, chromium, cadmium, and lead. VOCs were present in residential wells in the vicinity of the site, according to monitoring conducted by the State in 1984 and 1985. A river near the site also is potentially impacted; VOCs and inorganics including cadmium and lead are present in surface water.

The site was proposed to the National Priorities List ( NPL) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liabilities Act ( CERCLA) on September 18, 1985 and added to the final NPL on June 10, 1986. In 1991, EPA selected the final remedy for the site, which included the following:

C clearing and regrading the waste area to smooth out the existing cap, C constructing a multi layer cap with a vegetative cover, C constructing a slurry wall around the perimeter of the wastes, C extraction and treatment of contaminated groundwater, and C groundwater monitoring and temporary groundwater use restrictions.

A group of potentially responsible parties entered into a consent decree with EPA in 1992 to implement the remedy. Construction was completed in September 1996.

Basis for Consideration as a Damage Case: Because the available documentation does not clearly implicate, or rule out, coal combustion waste as a source of the contamination, EPA has categorized this case as a potential damage case. Because coal combustion wastes were disposed along with other, non utility wastes, EPA considered this case in its discussion of non utility coal combustion wastes in the 1999 Report to Congress.

Causative Factors: Not only is the facility unlined, but four residences are located within 1,000 feet of the site and the Branch River is located one half mile away. In addition, State inspections showed that fly ash and bottom ash were used as cover material instead of being buried along with the other wastes. CERCLA documentation for the site implies that this practice was not authorized by the State. Sand & Gravel Pit Damage Cases Page 6 June11, 2001 WEPCO Highway 59 Landfill, Wisconsin History: This site is located in an old sand and gravel pit and received fly ash and bottom ash between 1969 and 1978. Groundwater monitoring between 1988 and 1998 found sulfate, boron, manganese, chloride, and iron above the State's Enforcement Standards ( ES) and arsenic above the State's Preventive Action Level ( PAL) in nearby private wells. Other downgradient monitoring wells showed sulfate, boron, iron, and manganese in excess of the ES and selenium and chloride in excess of PALs. State agency staff consider this site one of the most seriously affected coal ash sites in the State. The State required a continuation of monitoring at this closed facility In 1982 and an investigation into groundwater contamination in 1994.

Basis for Consideration as a Damage Case: EPA has categorized this case as a proven damage case for the following reasons: ( 1) although the boron standard was not health based at the time of the exceedences, the boron levels reported for the facility would have exceeded the State's recently promulgated health based ES for boron; ( 2) contamination from the facility appears to have migrated to off site private wells; and ( 3) as a result of the various PAL and ES exceedences, the State required a groundwater investigation.

Causative Factors: The facility is unlined and the soil underlying the site consists of fine to coarse sands and gravel with minor amounts of silt and clay and is believed to be relatively permeable. The original sand and gravel pit included an area of standing water. The presence of the standing water is attributed to the elevation of the groundwater table exceeding the base of the pit in this area. Waste was disposed directly into this area to a depth of 5 to 10 feet below the water table. ( Note also that the facility is located in close proximity to a wetland, although there is no documentation of impact to flora in the wetland.)


2.10 Mouse bone marrow micronucleus assay MRID No. 44865728 Guideline No.: 870.5375 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In a HsDd/ Win: NMRI mouse bone marrow micronucleus assay, 5 animals/ sex/ dose/ sampling time were treated, by intraperitoneal injection ( single dose), with iprovalicarb ( purity  96.7%) at doses of 0 or 2,000 mg/ kg bw. Bone marrow cells, isolated from the femur, were harvested at 16, 24 and 48 hours post treatment. The vehicle and negative control was 0.5% aqueous Cremophor emulsion ( 20 mL/ kg bw). The positive control was cyclophosphamide ( 20 mg/ kg bw). The treated animals exhibited the following treatment related symptoms until sacrifice: apathy, roughened fur, spasm, difficulty in breathing and diarrhea. Their feeding behaviour appeared normal and there were no mortalities. The ratio of normochromatic erythrocytes ( NCE) per 1,000 polychromatic erythrocytes ( PCE) was increased in the treated group over time. This was statistically significant at 48 hours. There was no biologically relevant or statistically significant difference between the negative control group and the treated group with respect to the incidence of micronucleated polychromatic erythrocytes or micronucleated normochromatic erythrocytes at any sacrifice time for both sexes. Iprovalicarb was tested at an adequate dose based on the maximum tolerated dose ( MTD) as indicated in OECD Guideline 474 or based on the limit dose ( 2,000 mg/ kg bw) as indicated in OPPTS 870.5395 [ § 84 2]. The positive control, cyclophosphamide ( 20 mg/ kg bw), induced the appropriate response. There was not a significant increase in the frequency of micronucleated polychromatic erythrocytes in bone marrow after any treatment time.

This study is classified as acceptable / guideline. This study satisfies the requirement for Test Guideline OPPTS 870.5395; OECD 474 for in vivo cytogenetic mutagenicity data. 46 2.11 Unscheduled DNA synthesis, primary rat hepatocyte cultures MRID No. 44865729 Guideline No.: 870.5375 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In an unscheduled DNA synthesis assay, primary rat hepatocyte cultures were exposed to iprovalicarb ( purity: 98.7%) in dimethylsulfoxide ( DMSO; final concentration  1% v/ v) at concentrations of 0, 50, 150, 200, 250, 300, 400 or 500  g/ mL for 16 24 hours. The positive control substance was 2 acetylaminofluorene in DMSO ( 2 AAF; final concentration  0.25 and 0.50  g/ mL).

Iprovalicarb was tested up to cytotoxic ( 250 and 300  g/ mL) and precipitating concentrations ( 400 and 500  g/ mL). The initial trial was considered invalid since the mean nuclear net grain value of the vehicle control was outside the range of the historical control data and the positive control ( 0.25  g/ mL 2 AAF) did not induce an effect which was strong enough according to acceptable assay criteria. In the second trial hepatocyte viability was 84.7 and 75.8% after isolation and attachment, respectively, demonstrating that the hepatocyte cultures were in good condition for the UDS assay. Precipitation of the test substance was observed at 400 and 500  g/ mL. The test substance exhibited clear cytotoxic effects at 250 and 300  g/ mL ( 19.3 and 52.6% relative survival, respectively) and probable cytotoxic effects at 200  g/ mL ( 71.4% relative survival). There were no biologically relevant or statistically significant differences in nuclear labelling or in the percentage of cells in repair between the treatment groups and the vehicle control. The positive control ( 0.5  g/ mL 2 AAF) induced the appropriate response. There was no evidence that unscheduled DNA synthesis, as determined by radioactive tracer procedures [ nuclear silver grain counts] was induced.

This study is classified as acceptable / guideline. This study satisfies the requirement for Test Guideline OPPTS 870.5550; OECD 482 for other genotoxic mutagenicity data.

Mutagenicity Study on the Metabolite of Iprovalicarb 2.12 Reverse gene mutation assay ( Salmonella typhimurium plate test) MRID No. 44865725 Guideline No.: 870.5100 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In a reverse gene mutation assay in bacteria, histidine auxotrophic strains of Salmonella typhimurium ( TA 1535, TA 100, TA 1537, TA 98 and TA 102) were exposed to P Methyl phenethylamine ( 98.8%) disolved in DMSO, at concentrations of 0, 16, 50, 158, 500, 1581 or 5,000  g/ plate, in the presence and absence of S9 mammalian metabolic activation using the standard plate method, in two independent trials. The S9 fraction was derived from Aroclor 1254 induced rat livers. The test substance was tested up to the highest concentration recommended for microbial assays ( 5,000  g/ plate). Doses greater than 50  g/ plate caused some strain specific cytotoxic effects. Evaluation of individual dose groups with respect to relevant assessment parameters indicate that the test substance did not induce a mutagenic response ( biologically relevant increase in mutant counts, in comparison to controls) in the two trials. There was no evidence of induced mutant colonies above background. The positive controls ( sodium azide, nitrofurantoin, 4 nitrophenylene diamine, cumene hydroperoxide, and 2 amino anthracene) induced the appropriate responses in the corresponding strains. Therefore, P Methyl phenethylamine was non mutagenic in the Ames assay, using 47 Salmonella typhimurium strains, in the presence and absence of S 9 metabolic activation.

This study is classified as acceptable / guideline and satisfies the requirement for FIFRA Test Guideline 84 2; OECD 471 / 472 for in vitro mutagenicity ( bacterial reverse gene mutation) data.

2.13 In vivo 32P postlabelling assay, possible DNA adduct formation ( uterus, urinary bladder epithelium and whole urinary bladder. MRID No. 44865730 Guideline No.: none EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The 32P postlabelling assay was employed to investigate iprovalicarb ( purity 96.4%) in vivo in female Wistar rats for possible DNA adduct formation in the uterus, urinary bladder epithelium and whole urinary bladder. The test substance was administered to 9 female rats/ dose in the diet ( ad libitum) at dose levels of 0, 10,000 or 20,000 ppm for 7 days. Approximately 17 hours prior to sacrifice, the positive control animals ( 4 animals/ group) received a single dose of 2 acetylaminofluorene ( 2 AAF; final concentration = 120 mg/ kg bw) or 7,12 dimethylbenzanthracene ( DMBA; final concentration = 150 mg/ kg bw) by oral gavage.

There were no treatment related effects on mortality, clinical signs, food consumption or water consumption. Body weight development was retarded at 10,000 and 20,000 ppm. Based on the data presented in the study report, no iprovalicarb induced DNA adducts could be detected in the uterus, urinary bladder epithelium or in the whole urinary bladder. The positive control substance, DMBA, induced the appropriate response ( DNA adducts) in the uterus, urinary bladder and in the whole urinary bladder. In the urinary bladder epithelium 2 AAF induced the appropriate response only after butanol extraction. After nuclease P1 enrichment no DNA adducts could be detected. The study author concluded that the lack of effect was not due to the inappropriateness of the test performance but due to the fact that nuclease P1 enrichment is not suitable for the detection of 2 AAF specific adducts in urinary bladder epithelium. Based on the study findings, SZX 0722 was assessed as negative in the 32P postlabelling assay in vivo in uterus, urinary bladder epithelium and whole urinary bladder.

Study Deficiencies: Currently, there are no DACO requirements and no accepted guidelines available for the 32P post labelling in vivo assay. This study was a non guideline study to assess whether iprovalicarb, or its metabolites, are able to form DNA adducts in the female rat uterus and urinary bladder epithelium in vivo after application in the diet for 7 days. Measurement of covalently formed DNA adducts is considered to be a tool to assess the ability of a chemical to reach and alter the DNA. Stable DNA adducts can be detected by the 32P postlabelling method by incorporation of 32P into non radioactive nuclei acid constituents by enzyme catalysed derivatization followed by a chromatographic separation of radioactive products. The 32Ppostlabelling assay is considered to be particularly valuable in assessing genotoxicity and the carcinogenicity potential of chemicals and their metabolites. The methods used in this study were considered to represent further developments of the techniques originally described by Randerath et al ( 1981; Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA., 78, 6126 6129), Reddy and Randerath ( 1986; Carcinogenesis, 7, 1543 1551) and Gallagher et al( 1989; Cancer Letters, 45, 7 12). 48 This study appears to be acceptable for the purpose for which it was intended. However, this study is not a required guideline study and in the absence of any accepted guidelines the reviewer cannot attest to the significance of the study author's conclusions or to the validity of the study. This study should not impact on the determination of the genotoxicity potential of SZX 0722 since it is not a required guideline study and the genotoxicity potential of SZX 0722 has been adequately addressed in DACO's 4.5.4, 4.5.5, 4.5.6, 4.5.7 and 4.5.8.

A 3.0 METABOLISM CONSIDERATIONS 1.0 Nature of the Residue Studies in Plants The terminal residue of concern in plants is parent iprovalicarb ( PMRA Monograph, September 2001).

2.0 Nature of the Residue in Livestock There are no significant livestock feed items associated with this petition; therefore, the nature of the residue in livestock does not need to be addressed.

3.0 Confined Rotational Crop Studies Per the NAFTA Guidance Document on Data Requirements for Tolerances on Imported Commodities ( dated April 2003), rotational crop data are not required to support the proposed tolerances on imported tomatoes.

4.0 Summary of Magnitude of Residue ( MOR) Studies For Fruiting Vegetables ( Crop Group 8)

Crop field trials are conducted to determine the maximum residue which may be expected in/ on a raw agricultural commodity as a result of the legal use of the pesticide. The trials must reflect label directions which would be expected to result in the maximum residue levels; ergo, the trials should employ maximum label rates, maximum number of applications, minimum retreatment interval( s), and minimum pre harvest interval.

Data generated in the US or countries other than those where the petitioner has existing or proposed uses may be substituted for up to half of the required number of foreign trials, but a minimum of three trials must be from the countries in which the pesticide is marketed. The petitioner should demonstrate that crop cultural practices, climatological conditions, and use patterns are substantially similar between the subject foreign regions and regions represented by the US ( or other) data.

In the case of tolerances to cover treated commodities imported from Canada or Mexico only, it may be acceptable for more than 50% of the trials to be conducted in the United States. As part of the harmonization process under the NAFTA, the crop field trial regions in the US guidelines have been extended into Canada and efforts are in progress to do the same into Mexico. This 49 would allow trials in the US to support registration and tolerances in Canada and Mexico or vice versa. As a result, among these three countries, for certain crops most or all the field trials could be in a different country than the one in which the tolerance is to be established. For example, if a tolerance is desired to cover the export of cranberries from Canada to the US, most of the trials could be conducted in the northern regions of the US even though the pesticide is to be registered in Canada. Similarly, for certain crops being imported from Mexico, many of the trials could be done in the southwestern US In the future, if other countries develop zone maps employing similar concepts as were used for the NAFTA countries, and the regions and cultural practices are demonstrated to be substantially similar to US regions, then the Agency may consider substitution of US data for those countries as well.

APPENDIX TABLE 5.0.1 Summary of Residue Data from Tomato Field Trials with Iprovalicarb in the US, Mexico, and Chile ( MRID # 45899605).

Commodity EUP Total Rate ( kg ai/ ha) PHI ( Days) Residue Levels ( ppm) 1 n Min. Max. HAFT 2 Mean Std. Dev.

Tomato ( Fruit) 6% WP 1.00 1.06 4  5 14 < 0.020 0.133 0.119 0.059 0.035 9% WP 0.544 5 2 0.055 0.062 0.059 0.059 0.005 1. The LOQ is 0.020 ppm; the LOD is 0.005 ppm. Residues < 0.020 ppm ( less than the LOQ) were estimated to be 0.020 ppm for calculation of the mean and standard deviation. 2. HAFT = Highest Average Field Trial.

APPENDIX TABLE 5.0.2 Summary of Residue Data from Tomato Field Trials with Iprovalicarb in the US ( MRID # 45899606).

Commodity EUP Total Rate ( kg ai/ ha) PHI ( Days) Residue Levels ( ppm) 1 n Min. Max. HAFT Mean Std. Dev.

Tomato ( Fruit) 50% WDG 1.05 1.06 0 4 0.07 0.25 0.25 0.18 0.08 1.54 1.56 0 6 0.22 0.5 0.47 0.35 0.11 1.05 1.56 0 10 0.07 0.5 0.47 0.28 0.13 1. The LOQ is 0.050 ppm; the LOD was not reported.

APPENDIX TABLE 5.0.3 Summary of Residue Data from Tomato Field Trials with Iprovalicarb in Italy, France, and Portugal ( MRID # 45899607).

Commodity EUP Total Rate ( kg ai/ ha) PHI ( Days) 1 Residue Levels ( ppm) 2 n Min. Max. HAFT 3 Mean Std. Dev.

Tomato ( Fruit) 4.2% WP 0.84 0 5 0.115 0.183   0.136 0.028 20 5 < 0.050 < 0.050   0.05 0 1. In Italy, minimum pre harvest intervals ( PHIs) are 7 days for fresh tomatoes and 20 days for processing tomatoes . 2. The LOQ is 0.050 ppm; the LOD was not reported. Residues < 0.050 ppm ( less than the LOQ) were estimated to be 0.050 ppm for calculation of the mean and standard deviation. 3. HAFT = Highest Average Field Trial; with only one sample collected from each trial, a HAFT was not calculated. 50 APPENDIX TABLE 5.0.4 Summary of Residue Data from Tomato Field Trials with Iprovalicarb in Italy, France, and Greece ( MRID # 45899608).

Commodity EUP Total Rate ( kg ai/ ha) PHI ( Days) 1 Residue Levels ( ppm) 2 n Min. Max. HAFT 3 Mean Std. Dev.

Tomato ( Fruit) 4.2% WP 0.84 0 4 0.076 0.247   0.171 0.071 7 4 < 0.050 0.142   0.114 0.043 14 4 < 0.050 0.095   0.061 0.023 20 4 < 0.050 0.086   0.059 0.018 25 4 < 0.050 0.05   0.05 0 1. In Italy and Greece, minimum PHIs are 7 days for fresh tomatoes and 20 days for processing tomatoes. 2. The LOQ is 0.050 ppm; the LOD was not reported. Residues < 0.050 ppm ( less than the LOQ) were estimated to be 0.050 ppm for calculation of the mean and standard deviation. 3. HAFT = Highest Average Field Trial; with only one sample collected from each trial, a HAFT was not calculated.

5.0 International Considerations INTERNATIONAL RESIDUE LIMIT STATUS Chemical Name: 1 methylethyl [( 1S) 2 methyl 1[[[ 1( 4 methylphenyl) ethyl] amino] carbonyl] propyl] carbamate Common Name: Iprovalicarb X Proposed tolerance

Reevaluated tolerance

Other Date: 1/ 04/ 2005 Codex Status ( Maximum Residue Limits) US Tolerances X No Codex proposal step 6 or above

No Codex proposal step 6 or above for the crops requested Petition Numbers: PP# 3E6578 DP Barcode D317045 Other Identifier: PC Code 098359 Residue definition ( Step 8/ CXL): Reviewer/ Branch: Margarita Collantes/ RAB2 Crop( s) MRL ( mg/ kg) Crop Tolerance ( ppm)

N/ A Tomato ( proposed) 0.5 Limits for Canada Limits for Mexico

No Limits X No Limits for the crops requested X No Limits

No Limits for the crops requested Residue definition: Iprovalicarb, [ 2 methyl 1[[[( 1S)( 4 methylphenyl) ethyl] amino] carbonyl] propyl] carbamic acid methylethylester. Residue definition:

Crop MRL ( mg/ kg) Crop( s) MRL ( mg/ kg)

Grape 2 NOTE: Per Steven Funk, 1/ 4/ 2005. The 2.0 ppm MRL for grapes in Canada was established on 9/ 25/ 2004. 51 6.0 Environmental Degradation Since iprovalicarb is proposed for use only on imported tomato commodities, with neither existing nor proposed US registration, there is no expectation that iprovalicarb residues would occur in surface or ground water.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 238 (Tuesday, December 11, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73646-73647]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29847]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EG12-108-000, et al.]

Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator or Foreign
Utility Company Status

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Docket Nos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prairie Rose Wind, LLC.......................  EG12-108-000
Prairie Rose Transmission, LLC...............  EG12-109-000
Crawfordsville Energy, LLC...................  EG12-110-000
Catalina Solar, LLC..........................  EG12-111-000
Ocotillo Express LLC.........................  EG12-112-000
Groton Wind, LLC.............................  EG12-113-000
New England Wind, LLC........................  EG12-114-000
Penascal II Wind Project, LLC................  EG12-115-000
Enbridge Wind Power General Partnership......  FC12-8-000
Greenwich Windfarm, LP.......................  FC12-9-000
Enbridge Renewable Energy Infrastructure       FC12-10-000
 Limited Partnership.
Project AMBG2 LP.............................  FC12-11-000
SunBridge Wind Power Project.................  FC12-12-000
Talbot Windfarm, LP..........................  FC12-13-000
Tilbury Solar Project LP.....................  FC12-14-000
Enbridge Lac-Alfred Wind Project Limited       FC12-15-000
 Partnership.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Take notice that during the month of November 2012, the status of
the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators or Foreign
Utility Companies became effective by operation of the Commission's
regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a).

    Dated: December 5, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-29847 Filed 12-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P