[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 71 (Tuesday, April 14, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20049-20053]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08449]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74677; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2015-23]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT, LLC; Notice of Filing of
Proposed Rule Change Adopting a Principles-Based Approach To Prohibit
the Misuse of Material Nonpublic Information by Specialists and e-
Specialists by Deleting Rule 927.3NY and Section (f) of Rule 927.5NY

April 8, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on March 26, 2015, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
MKT'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to adopt a principles-based approach to
prohibit the misuse of material nonpublic information by Specialists
and e-Specialists by deleting Rule 927.3NY and section (f) of Rule
927.5NY. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.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 self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to adopt a principles-based approach to
prohibit the misuse of material nonpublic information by Specialists
and e-Specialists by deleting Rule 927.3NY and section (f) of Rule
927.5NY. In so doing, the Exchange would harmonize its rules governing
Specialists, e-Specialists and Market Makers relating to protecting
against the misuse of material, non-public information. The Exchange
believes that Rules 927.3NY and 927.5NY(f) are no longer necessary
because all ATP Holders, including Specialists and e-Specialists, are
subject to the Exchange's general principles-based requirements
governing the protection against the misuse of material, non-public
information, pursuant to Exchange Rules, Part 1--General Rules, Rule 3
(General Prohibitions and Duty to Report), section (j) (``Rule 3(j)''),
which obviates the need for separately-prescribed requirements for a
subset of market participants on the Exchange.
Background
    The Exchange has three classes of registered market makers.
Pursuant to Rule 920NY(a), a Market Maker is an ATP holder that is
registered with the Exchange for the purpose of submitting quotes
electronically and making transactions as a dealer-specialist verbally
on the Trading Floor, through the System from the Trading Floor, or
remotely from off the Trading Floor. As the rule further provides, a
Market Maker can be either a Remote Market Maker, a Floor Market Maker,
a Specialist, or an e-Specialist. All Market Makers are subject to the
requirements of Rule 925NY and 925.1NY, which set forth the obligations
of Market Makers, particularly relating to quoting.

    Rule 927NY(c) specifies the obligations of Specialists, which, in
addition to the Market Maker obligations of Rule 925NY, must also honor
guaranteed markets. Rules 927.4NY and 927.5NY specify the obligations
of e-Specialists, which is a form of Specialist that operates remotely
only. The quoting obligations of all Market Makers, including
Specialists/e-Specialists, are set forth in Rule 925.1NY. That rule
sets forth the main difference between Market Makers and Specialists/e-
Specialists, namely that Specialists/e-Specialists have a heightened
quoting obligation as compared to Market Makers.\4\ In addition to a
heightened quoting obligation, pursuant to Rule 964NY, Specialists/e-
Specialists that are participants in the Specialist Pool are eligible
to receive a guaranteed participation of incoming bids and offers.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Compare Rule 925.1NY(b) (``Specialists must provide
continuous two-sided quotations throughout the trading day in its
appointed issues [sic] 90% of the time the Exchange is open for
trading in each issue.'') with Rule 925.1NY(c) (``A Market Maker
must provide continuous two-sided quotations throughout the trading
day in its appointed issues for 60% of the time the Exchange is open
for trading in each issue.'')
    \5\ See Rule 964NY(b)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Importantly, whether operating on the Trading Floor or remotely,
all Market Makers, including Specialists/e-Specialists, have access to
the same information in the Consolidated Book that is available to all
other market participants. Moreover, none of the Exchange's Market
Makers, including Specialists/e-Specialists, have agency obligations to
the Exchange's Consolidated Book. As such, the distinctions between
Market Makers and Specialists/e-Specialists are the quoting
requirements set forth in Rule 925.1NY and allocation guarantee for the
Specialist Pool set forth in Rule 964NY.
    Notwithstanding that Market Makers, Specialists, and e-Specialists
have access to the same Exchange trading information as all other
market participants on the Exchange, the Exchange has distinct,
prescriptive rules governing how Specialists and e-Specialists may
operate. Rule 927.3NY prohibits ATP Holders affiliated with a
Specialist from purchasing or selling any option to which the
Specialist is appointed, except to reduce or liquidate positions after
appropriate identification and floor official approval of the
transaction. The rule further provides an exemption from the
prohibition for affiliated firms that implement specified Exchange-
approved procedures to restrict the flow of material, non-public
information. Rules 927.3NY(e)-(j) outline the ``Exemption Guidelines''
with which an affiliated firm must comply to obtain an exemption from
the restriction in Rule 927.3NY. These specified ``Exemption
Guidelines'' are meant to ensure that a Specialist will not have access
to material, non-public information possessed by its affiliated ATP
Holder, and that a firm will not misuse its affiliated Specialist's
material, non-public information. The Exchange notes that the current
rule is based on requirements from when specialists on the American
Stock Exchange had agency obligations to the Exchange's book.
    Rule 927.5NY(f) requires e-Specialists to maintain information
barriers that are reasonably designed to prevent the misuse of
material, non-public information with any affiliates that may conduct a
brokerage business in option classes allocated to the e-Specialist or
act as specialist or Market Maker in any security underlying options
allocated to the e-Specialist (but does not require prior Exchange
approval and does not set forth proscribed ``Exemption Guidelines'').
Proposed Rule Change
    The Exchange believes that the particularized guidelines in Rule
927.3NY and 927.5NY(f) for Specialists and e-Specialists, respectively,
are no longer necessary and proposes to delete them. Rather, the
Exchange believes that Rule 3(j) governing the misuse of material, non-
public information provides for an appropriate, principles-based
approach to prevent the market abuses Rules 927.3NY and 927.5(f) are
designed to address. Specifically, Rule 3(j) requires every Exchange
member to establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to prevent the misuse of material, non-
public information by such member or associated persons. For purposes
of this requirement, the misuse of material, non-public information
includes, but is not limited to, the following:
    (a) Trading in any securities issued by a corporation, or in any
related securities or related options or other derivative securities,
while in possession of material, non-public information concerning that
issuer;
    (b) trading in a security or related options or other derivative
securities, while in possession of material, non-public information
concerning imminent transactions in the security or related securities;
or
    (c) disclosing to another person or entity any material, non-public
information involving a corporation whose shares are publicly traded or
an imminent transaction in an underlying security or related securities
for the purpose of facilitating the possible misuse of such material,
non-public information.
    Because Specialists and e-Specialists are already subject to the
requirements of Rule 3(j), the Exchange does not believe that it is
necessary to separately require specific limitations on dealings
between Specialists/e-Specialists and their affiliates. Deleting Rule
927.3NY and 927.5NY(f) and requirements for specific procedures would
provide Specialists/e-Specialists and ATP Holders with the flexibility
to adapt their policies and procedures as appropriate to reflect
changes to their business model, business activities, or the securities
market in a manner similar to how Market Makers on the Exchange
currently operate and consistent with Rule 3(j).
    As noted above, Exchange Specialists and e-Specialists are
distinguished under Exchange rules from other types of Market Makers
only to the extent that Specialists and e-Specialists have heightened
obligations and allocation guarantees. However, none of these
heightened obligations provides [sic] different or greater access to
nonpublic information than any other market participant on the
Exchange.\6\ Specifically, whether on the Trading Floor or remotely,
neither Specialists nor e-Specialists on the Exchange have access to
trading information provided by the Exchange, either at, or prior to,
the point of execution, that is not made available to all other market
participants on the Exchange in a similar manner. Further, as noted
above, Specialists/e-Specialists on the Exchange do not have any agency
responsibilities for orders in the Consolidated Book. Accordingly,
because Specialists, e-Specialists and Market Makers do not have any
trading advantages at the Exchange due to their market role, the
Exchange believes that they should be subject to the same rules
regarding the protection against the misuse of material non-public
information, which in this case, is existing Rule 3(j).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Rules 927NY(c) and 927.5NY.
    \7\ The Exchange notes that by deleting Rule 927.3NY, the
Exchange would no longer require specific information barriers for
Specialists or require pre-approval of any information barriers that
a Specialist would erect for purposes of protecting against the
misuse of material non-public information. However, as is the case
today with Market Makers, information barriers of new entrants,
including new Specialists, would be subject to review as part of a
new firm application. Moreover, the policies and procedures of
Specialists and e-Specialists, including those relating to
information barriers, would be subject to review by FINRA, on behalf
of the Exchange, pursuant to a Regulatory Services Agreement.

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

    The Exchange notes that its proposed approach to use a principles-
based approach to protecting against the misuse of material non-public
information for all of its registered market makers is consistent with
recent approved rule changes for NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. (``NYSE
Arca''), BATS Exchange, Inc.'s (``BATS''), and New York Stock Exchange
LLC (``NYSE'') rules governing cash equity market makers on those
respective exchanges.\8\ Except for prescribed rules relating to floor-
based designated market makers on the NYSE, who have access to
specified non-public trading information, each of these exchanges have
moved to a principles-based approach to protecting against the misuse
of material non-public information. In connection with approving those
rule changes, the Commission found that eliminating prescriptive
information barrier requirements should not reduce the effectiveness of
exchange rules requiring its members to establish and maintain systems
to supervise the activities of its members, including written
procedures reasonably designed to ensure compliance with applicable
federal securities law and regulations, and with the rules of the
applicable exchange.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 60604 (Sept. 2,
2009), 76 FR 46272 (Sept. 8, 2009) (SR-NYSEArca-2009-78) (Order
approving elimination of NYSE Arca rule that required market makers
to establish and maintain specifically prescribed information
barriers, including discussion of NYSE Arca and Nasdaq rules)
(``Arca Approval Order''); 61574 (Feb. 23, 2010), 75 FR 9455 (Mar.
2, 2010) (SR-BATS-2010-003) (Order approving amendments to BATS Rule
5.5 to move to a principles-based approach to protecting against the
misuse of material, non-public information, and noting that the
proposed change is consistent with the approaches of NYSE Arca and
Nasdaq) (``BATS Approval Order''); and 72534 (July 3, 2014), 79 FR
39440 (July 10, 2014), SR-NYSE-2014-12) (Order approving amendments
to NYSE Rule 98 governing designated market makers to move to a
principles-based approach to prohibit the misuse of material non-
public information) (``NYSE Approval Order'').
    \9\ See, e.g., BATS Approval Order, supra note 8 at 9458.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comparable to members of cash equity markets, the Exchange believes
that a principles-based rule applicable to members of options markets
would be equally effective in protecting against the misuse of material
non-public information. Indeed, Exchange Rule 3(j) is currently
applicable to Exchange Market Makers other than Specialists and e-
Specialists and already requires all ATP Holders to have policies and
procedures reasonably designed to protect against the misuse of
material nonpublic information, which is similar to the respective NYSE
Arca Equities, BATS and NYSE rules governing cash equity market makers.
The Exchange believes Rule 3(j) provides appropriate protection against
the misuse of material nonpublic information by Specialists and e-
Specialists on the Exchange and there is no longer a need for
prescriptive information barrier requirements in Rules 927.3NY and
927.5NY(f).
    The Exchange notes that even with this proposed rule change,
pursuant to Rule 3(j), a Specialist or e-Specialist would still be
obligated to ensure that its policies and procedures reflect the
current state of its business and continue to be reasonably designed to
achieve compliance with applicable federal securities law and
regulations, and with applicable Exchange rules, including being
reasonably designed to protect against the misuse of material, non-
public information. While information barriers would not specifically
be required under the proposal, Rule 3(j) already requires that an ATP
Holder consider its business model or business activities in
structuring its policies and procedures, which may dictate that an
information barrier or a functional separation be part of the
appropriate set of policies and procedures that would be reasonably
designed to achieve compliance with applicable securities law and
regulations, and with applicable Exchange rules.
    The Exchange further notes that under Rule 3(j), an ATP Holder
would be able [sic] structure its firm to provide for its options
Specialists, e-Specialists, or Market Makers, as applicable, to be
structured with its equities and customer-facing businesses, provided
that any such structuring would be done in a manner reasonably designed
to protect against the misuse of material, non-public information. For
example, pursuant to Rule 3(j), a Specialist on the Exchange could be
in the same independent trading unit, as defined in Rule 200(f) of
Regulation SHO,\10\ as an equities market maker and other trading desks
within the firm, including options trading desks, so that the firm
could share post-trade information to better manage its risk across
related securities. The Exchange believes it is appropriate, and
consistent with Rule 3(j) and Section 15(g) of the Act \11\ for a firm
to share options position and related hedging position information
(e.g., equities, futures, and foreign currency) within a firm to better
manage risk on a firm-wide basis. The Exchange notes, however, that if
so structured, a firm would need to have appropriate policies and
procedures, including information barriers as applicable, to protect
against the misuse of material non-public information, and specifically
customer information, consistent with Rule 3(j).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR part 242.200(f).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78o(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed reliance on the principles-
based Rule 3(j) would ensure that an ATP Holder that operates a
Specialist or e-Specialist would be required to protect against the
misuse of any material non-public information. As noted above, Rule
3(j) already requires that firms refrain from trading while in
possession of material non-public information concerning imminent
transactions in the security or related product. The Exchange believes
that moving to a principles-based approach rather than prescribing how
and when to wall off a Specialist or e-Specialist from the rest of the
firm would provide ATP Holders operating Specialists or e-Specialists
with appropriate tools to better manage risk across a firm, including
integrating options positions with other positions of the firm or, as
applicable, by the respective independent trading unit. Specifically,
the Exchange believes that it is appropriate for risk management
purposes for a member operating a Specialist or e-Specialist to be able
to consider both options Specialist/e-Specialist traded positions for
purposes of calculating net positions consistent with Rule 200 of
Regulation SHO, calculating intra-day net capital positions, and
managing risk both generally as well as in compliance with Rule 15c3-5
under the Act (the ``Market Access Rule'').\12\ The Exchange notes that
any risk management operations would need to operate consistent with
the requirement to protect against the misuse of material non-public
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR part 240.15c3-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further notes that if Specialists or e-Specialists are
integrated with other market making operations, they would be subject
to existing rules that prohibit ATP Holders from disadvantaging their
customers or other market participants by improperly capitalizing on a
member organization's access to the receipt of material, non-public
information. As such, a member organization that integrates its
Specialist/e-Specialist operations together with equity market making
would need to protect customer information consistent with existing
obligations to protect such information. The Exchange has rules
prohibiting members from disadvantaging their customers or other market
participants by improperly capitalizing on the

members' [sic] access to or receipt of material, non-public
information. For example, Rule 320 requires members to establish,
maintain, enforce, and keep current a system of compliance and
supervisory controls, reasonably designed to achieve compliance with
applicable securities laws and Exchange rules. Additionally, Rule
995NY(c) prevents an ATP Holder or person associated with an ATP
Holder, who has knowledge of an originating order, a solicited order,
or a facilitation order, to enter, based on such knowledge, an order to
buy or sell an option on the underlying securities of any option that
is the subject of the order, an order to buy or sell the security
underlying any option that is the subject of the order, or any order to
buy or sell any related instrument unless certain circumstances are
met.
    The Exchange proposes to make a conforming amendment to remove the
section referencing Rule 927.3NY in Rule 927.6NY.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \13\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \14\ in particular, in that it is designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system,
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market by
adopting a principles-based approach to permit an ATP Holder operating
a Specialist or e-Specialist to maintain and enforce policies and
procedures to, among other things, prohibit the misuse of material non-
public information and eliminating restrictions on how an ATP Holder
structures it Specialist or e-Specialist operations. The Exchange notes
that the proposed rule change is based on an approved rule of the
Exchange to which Specialists and e-Specialists are already subject--
Rule 3(j)--and harmonizes the rules governing Specialists, e-
Specialists, and Market Makers. Moreover, ATP Holders operating
Specialists and e-Specialists would continue to be subject to federal
and Exchange requirements for protecting material non-public order
information.\15\ The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and
open market because it would harmonize the Exchange's approach to
protecting against the misuse of material nonpublic information and no
longer subject Specialists/e-Specialists to prescriptive requirements.
The Exchange does not believes that the existing prescriptive
requirements applicable to Specialists/e-Specialists are narrowly
tailored to their respective roles because neither market participant
has access to Exchange trading information in a manner different from
any other market participant on the Exchange and they do not have
agency responsibilities to the Consolidated Book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See 15 U.S.C. 78o(g) and Rule 3(j).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further believes the proposal is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices and to promote just and
equitable principles of trade because existing rules make clear to
Specialists, e-Specialists and ATP Holders the type of conduct that is
prohibited by the Exchange. While the proposal eliminates prescriptive
requirements relating to the misuse of material non-public information,
Specialists, e-Specialists and ATP Holders would remain subject to
existing Exchange rules requiring them to establish and maintain
systems to supervise their activities, and to create, implement, and
maintain written procedures that are reasonably designed to comply with
applicable securities laws and Exchange rules, including the
prohibition on the misuse of material, nonpublic information.
    The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change would still
require that ATP Holders operating Specialists and e-Specialists
maintain and enforce policies and procedures reasonably designed to
ensure compliance with applicable federal securities laws and
regulations and with Exchange rules. Even though there would no longer
be pre-approval of Specialist information barriers, any Specialist/e-
Specialist written policies and procedures would continue to be subject
to oversight by the Exchange and therefore the elimination of
prescribed restrictions should not reduce the effectiveness of the
Exchange rules to protect against the misuse of material non-public
information. Rather, ATP Holders will be able to utilize a flexible,
principles-based approach to modify their policies and procedures as
appropriate to reflect changes to their business model, business
activities, or to the securities market itself. Moreover, while
specified information barriers may no longer be required, an ATP
Holder's business model or business activities may dictate that an
information barrier or functional separation be part of the appropriate
set of policies and procedures that would be reasonably designed to
achieve compliance with applicable securities laws and regulations, and
with applicable Exchange rules. The Exchange therefore believes that
the proposed rule change will maintain the existing protection of
investors and the public interest that is currently applicable to
Specialists and e-Specialists, while at the same time removing
impediments to and perfecting a free and open market by moving to a
principles-based approach to protect against the misuse of material
non-public information.

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. To the contrary, the Exchange
believes that the proposal will enhance competition by allowing
Specialists, e-Specialists and Market Makers to comply with applicable
Exchange rules in a manner best suited to their business models,
business activities, and the securities markets, thus reducing
regulatory burdens while still ensuring compliance with applicable
securities laws and regulations and Exchange rules. The Exchange
believes that the proposal will foster a fair and orderly marketplace
without being overly burdensome upon Specialists and e-Specialists.

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

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

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or up to 90 days (i) as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or (ii) as to which the self-regulatory
organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or

    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be 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-NYSEMKT-2015-23 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-NYSEMKT-2015-23. 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 the filing will also be available
for inspection and copying at the NYSE's principal office and on its
Internet Web site at www.nyse.com. 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-NYSEMKT-2015-23 and should be submitted on or before May
5, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-08449 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 37 (Thursday, February 25, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9557-9559]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03953]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77193; File No. SR-BOX-2016-09]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend the Fee Schedule To Eliminate Certain Fees Which Relate to the
Series 56 Examination and To Include Certain Fees Which Relate to
Series 57 Examination and Continuing Education

February 19, 2016.
    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 February 9, 2016, BOX Options Exchange LLC (the ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the
proposed rule change pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\3\
and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal
effective upon filing with the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change to amend the Fee Schedule to
delete the Continuing Education Fees and the Qualification Examination
Fee which relate to the Series 56 registration category under the
Regulatory Fees section of the BOX Fee Schedule on the BOX Market LLC
(``BOX'') options facility. The text of the proposed rule change is
available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the
Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's Internet
Web site at http://boxexchange.com.

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 the Fee Schedule for trading on BOX
to delete the Continuing Education Fees and the Qualification
Examination Fee

which relate to the Series 56 registration category under the
Regulatory Fees section of the BOX Fee Schedule. The Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority (``FINRA'') is retiring the Proprietary Traders
Qualification Examination (Series 56) and the S501 Proprietary Traders
Continuing Education Program and replacing them with the Securities
Trader Qualification Examination (Series 57) and the S101 Continuing
Education Program.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 75783 (August 28,
2015), 80 FR 53369 (September 3, 2015) (approving SR-FINRA-2015-017)
and 75581 (July 31, 2015), 80 FR 47018 (August 6, 2015) (approving
SR-FINRA-2015-015) collectively referred to herein as the ``FINRA
Amendments''. According to the approval orders, FINRA's expected
effective date for the FINRA Amendments is [sic] January 4, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange proposes to delete the (i) $60.00 S501
Continuing Education Fee for Series 56 and (ii) the $195.00 Series 56
Examination Fee. The Exchange further proposes to add a (i) $55.00 S101
Continuing Education Fee and (ii) a $120.00 Series 57 Examination Fee.
    BOX is proposing such Fee Schedule amendments in consultation with
FINRA and the other exchanges, and anticipates that the other exchanges
will make corresponding changes to their respective fee schedules.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 76391 (November 9,
2015), 80 FR 70862 (November 16, 2015) (SR-FINRA-2015-044) and 75581
(July 31, 2015), 80 FR 47018 (August 6, 2015) (SR-FINRA-2015-015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    BOX has amended its rules to establish the Securities Trader and
Securities Trader Principal registration categories to establish the
Series 57 examination as the appropriate qualification examination for
Securities Traders and retire the Series 56 examination for Proprietary
Traders, and to establish S101 as the appropriate continuing education
program for Securities Traders and retire the S501 continuing education
program for Proprietary Traders starting January 4, 2016.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76732 (December 22,
2015), 80 FR 81390 (December 29, 2015) (SR-BOX-2015-38).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with BOX's amended rules relating to the new
Securities Trader registration category, individual Participants and
associated persons of Participants engaged in proprietary trading or
the direct supervision of proprietary trading will be required to
register with the Exchange as Securities Traders and be qualified by
passing the new Securities Trader qualification examination (Series 57)
being implemented by FINRA, unless grandfathered as provided for in the
Rules. In addition, the Series 57 examination replaces the Series 56
examination for those exchange registration categories, such as the
Proprietary Trader Principal registration category, where the Series 56
examination was the acceptable prerequisite.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See supra note 7. These amended rule [sic] are effective as
of January 4, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has further amended its Rules, in consultation with
FINRA and the other exchanges, to provide for the Continuing Education
Regulatory Element for registered persons. The personalized S101
Continuing Education Program will be the required Continuing Education
Program for all registered persons including Securities Traders.
Proposal
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to delete the (i)
$60.00 Continuing Education Fee for Series 56 [sic] and the (ii)
$195.00 Series 56 Examination Fee. The Exchange further proposes to add
a $120.00 Series 57 Examination Fee which will be applicable with
respect to the new Securities Trader Qualification Examination (Series
57).
    The $100.00 fee charged for administration of the S101 Continuing
Education program applicable to registrants required to take
examinations other than the Series 56 will remain in effect, and become
applicable to all registrants, if a continuing education session is
conducted at a testing center from January 4, 2016 through no later
than six months thereafter when the Continuing Education program will
no longer be offered at testing centers. A new $55.00 fee will be
applicable to all registrants from and after January 4, 2016 for the
S101 Continuing Education program. The $195.00 fee currently charged
for the Series 56 examination will be replaced with a $120.00 fee for
the Series 57 examination starting January 4, 2016. Therefore, the
Exchange is proposing to add the $55.00 S101 Continuing Education fee
and the $120.00 Series 57 examination fee to the current BOX Fee
Schedule. Additionally, the $60.00 fee currently charged for the
administration of the S501 Continuing Education Program applicable to
Series 56 is being retired starting January 4, 2016. Therefore, the
Exchange is proposing to delete both the Series 56 examination fee and
the $60.00 S501 Continuing Education fee from the current BOX Fee
Schedule.
    Since the Series 57 and the S101 Continuing Education Program will
fall within FINRA's jurisdiction, the related fees will be billed
directly through FINRA commencing as of January 4, 2016.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and section
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5)of the Act,\10\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among BOX Participants and other persons using its facilities
and does not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers
or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposal is fair, equitable and not
unreasonably discriminatory because the fee change applies equally to
all Participants and persons associated with Participants. The proposed
deletion of the S501 Continuing Education Fees and Series 56
Qualification Examination Fee is further reasonable because such
Continuing Education program and exam will be replaced by the S101
Continuing Education Program and Series 57 Qualification Examination
Program. In addition, the Exchange believes that the fees added to the
BOX Fee Schedule are equitably allocated and not unfairly
discriminatory as they will apply uniformly to all Participants and
persons associated with Participants who choose to take the Series 57
examination and participate in the continuing education program through
FINRA.

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. The Exchange further believes
that the proposal does not impose any burden on competition because it
believes that the other exchanges will also be making the same changes
to their fee schedules.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See supra notes 5 and 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act \12\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\13\ because it establishes or changes a due, or fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the rule
change if it appears to the Commission that the action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
would otherwise further 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-BOX-2016-09 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2016-09. 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-BOX-2016-09, and should be
submitted on or before March 17, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-03953 Filed 2-24-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 230 (Friday, December 3, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 68594]
[FR Doc No: 2021-26269]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, 1917, 1918, 1926, and 1928

[Docket No. OSHA-2021-0009]
RIN 1218-AD39

Heat Injury and Illness Prevention in Outdoor and Indoor Work
Settings; Extension of Comment Period

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA),
Department of Labor.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM); extension of
comment period.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA is extending the period for submitting comments by 30
days to allow stakeholders interested in the ANPRM on Heat Injury and
Illness Prevention in Outdoor and Indoor Work Settings additional time
to review the ANPRM and collect information and data necessary for
comment.

DATES: The comment period for the ANPRM that was published at 86 FR
59309 on October 27, 2021, is extended. Comments on any aspect of the
ANPRM must be submitted by January 26, 2022.

ADDRESSES:
    Written comments: You may submit comments and attachments,
identified by Docket No. OSHA-2021-0009, electronically at
www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Follow
the online instructions for making electronic submissions. The Federal
e-Rulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov is the only way to submit
comments on this ANPRM.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency's name and
the docket number for this rulemaking (Docket No. OSHA-2021-0009). All
comments, including any personal information you provide, are placed in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting information they do not want made available to the public or
submitting materials that contain personal information (either about
themselves or others), such as Social Security Numbers and birthdates.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to Docket No. OSHA-2021-0009 at www.regulations.gov. All
comments and submissions are listed in the www.regulations.gov index;
however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download through that website. All comments and
submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for
inspection through the OSHA Docket Office. Documents submitted to the
docket by OSHA or stakeholders are assigned document identification
numbers (Document ID) for easy identification and retrieval. The full
Document ID is the docket number plus a unique four-digit code. OSHA is
identifying supporting information in this ANPRM by author name and
publication year, when appropriate. This information can be used to
search for a supporting document in the docket at http://www.regulations.gov. Contact the OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(TTY number:<PHONE_NUMBER>) for assistance in locating docket
submissions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    Press inquiries: Contact Frank Meilinger, Director, Office of
Communications, U.S. Department of Labor; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email: [email protected].
    General and technical information: Contact Andrew Levinson,
Directorate of Standards and Guidance, U.S. Department of Labor;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 27, 2021, OSHA issued an ANPRM to
initiate rulemaking to protect indoor and outdoor workers from
hazardous heat and to obtain additional information about the extent
and nature of hazardous heat in the workplace and the nature and
effectiveness of interventions and controls used to prevent heat-
related injury and illness.
    The public comment period for the ANPRM was to close on December
27, 2021, 60 days after publication of the ANPRM. However, OSHA
received requests from stakeholders to extend the comment period by an
additional 30 days (Document ID 0145) or 60 days (Document ID 0101,
0133, 0141, 0143, 0144, 0148, 0152, 0159). These stakeholders explained
that they need additional time to carefully review the questions in the
ANPRM, obtain input from members, and provide comments (see, e.g.,
Document ID 0101).
    OSHA agrees to an extension of the public comment period and
believes a 30-day extension is sufficient and appropriate in order to
balance the agency's need for timely input to inform how the agency
will proceed with the rulemaking with these stakeholder requests.
Therefore, OSHA is extending the public comment period until January
26, 2022.

Authority and Signature

    Douglas L. Parker, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this document
pursuant to the following authorities: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657);
Secretary of Labor's Order 8-2020 (85 FR 58393 (Sept. 18, 2020)); 29
CFR part 1911; and 5 U.S.C. 553.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on November 24, 2021.
Douglas L. Parker,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2021-26269 Filed 12-2-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 170 (Friday, August 31, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 53197]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21518]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER12-2510-000]

Brandon Shores LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding,
of Brandon Shores LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such application
includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of
future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability is September 17, 2012.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 27, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-21518 Filed 8-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


U.S. Department of Energy - Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Biomass Program

Processing and Conversion

The Office of the Biomass Program focuses its research and development
efforts in converting biomass into fuels, products, and power via
two biochemical and thermochemical routes.

Biochemical Conversion - Biomass is broken down to sugars using either
enzymatic or chemical processes and then converted to ethanol via
fermentation.

Thermochemical Conversion - Biomass is broken down to intermediates
using heat and upgraded to fuels using a combination of heat and
pressure in the presence of catalysts.

These R&D efforts focus on technologies and processes that can reduce
the cost and increase the efficiency of producing biofuels, products,
and power. Efficiencies can be achieved through methods for increasing
the yields derived from conversion of various feedstocks, among other
improvements. The majority of the Biomass Program's R&D is focused on
these technologies. Current R&D projects are described in detail in this
website's Information Resources section.

Biomass Program Home | EERE Home | U.S. Department of Energy

Webmaster | Web Site Policies | Security & Privacy | USA.gov

Content Last Updated: 05/05/2008

Website: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/processing_conversion.html

U.S. Department of Energy - Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Biomass Program

Thermochemical Conversion

The Biomass Program conducts research on heat and pressure-based
conversion of various biomass feedstocks to alcohol and hydrocarbon
fuels, chemicals, and power. These conversion processes, including
gasification and pyrolysis, are described in detail in the links on the
left.

Thermochemical conversion is effectively applied to any biomass
feedstock.

Thermochemical processes also complement biochemical work by converting
lignin-rich non-fermentable material left over from high-starch
feedstocks conversion.

Thermochemical conversion will enhance fuel yields in integrated
biorefineries by combining conversion types with heat and power
efficiencies to produce fuel and products.

The Thermochemical Platform aims to efficiently produce biobased fuels
and co-products via the processes described on the left. The platform
aligns its R&D with the Program's goals according to the President's 20
in 10 initiative, which includes using stand-alone thermochemical
conversion, and integrating efficient, complementary thermochemical
conversion technology into a model biorefinery.

Feedstocks for thermochemical processes include a wide variety of
biomass types with little to no restrictions on physical or chemical
properties. Moisture and particle size are specified for the respective
conversion processes.

Biomass Program Home | EERE Home | U.S. Department of Energy

Webmaster | Web Site Policies | Security & Privacy | USA.gov

Content Last Updated: 04/02/2008

Website:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/thermochemical_conversion.html

U.S. Department of Energy - Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Biomass Program

Biochemical Conversion

This area focuses on the research, development and demonstration of
biological processes that convert biomass to biofuels, chemicals, and
power.

Biochemical processes also complement thermochemical conversion by
providing residual materials for further processing.

Biochemical conversion will advance in the future by enhancing fuel
yields in integrated biorefineries which combine conversion types with
heat and power efficiencies to produce fuel and products.

Lignocellulose (mainly lignin, cellulose and hemicellulose), is the
primary component of plant residues, woody materials and grasses. The
cell walls or these plant matters are comprised of long chains of sugars
(carbohydrates), which can be converted to biofuels. Biochemical
conversion breaks down the cell wall through the introduction of enzymes
or acid in order to extract the sugars which are then converted to
biofuels using microorganisms. Due to the complex structure of the cell
wall it is more difficult to break down into sugars, making this
material more expensive to convert to biofuels.

A key to developing cost-competitive cellulosic biofuels is reducing the
processing and capital cost and improving the efficiency of separating
and converting cellulosic biomass into fermentable sugars. Current R&D
focuses on high-yield feedstocks, more efficient enzymes, and more
robust microorganisms to advance biochemical conversion processes.

Biomass Program Home | EERE Home | U.S. Department of Energy

Webmaster | Web Site Policies | Security & Privacy | USA.gov

Content Last Updated: 04/02/2008

Website:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/biochemical_conversion.html

U.S. Department of Energy - Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Biomass Program

Thermochemical Conversion Processes

Gasification

In gasification conversion, lignocellulosic feedstocks such as wood and
forest products are broken down to synthesis gas, primarily carbon
monoxide and hydrogen, using heat. The feedstock is then partially
oxidized, or reformed with a gasifying agent (air, oxygen, or steam),
which produces synthesis gas (syngas). The makeup of syngas will vary
due to the different types of feedstocks, their moisture content, the
type of gasifier used, the gasification agent, and the temperature and
pressure in the gasifier.

Gas Cleanup and Conditioning

The syngas produced undergoes clean-up and conditioning to create a
contaminant-free gas having the appropriate hydrogen-carbon
monoxide ratio prior to the catalytic conversion step.

Among the contaminants removed during clean-up are tars, acid gas,
ammonia, alkali metals, and other particulates.

Syngas is then conditioned: hydrogen sulfide levels are reduced by
sulfur polishing, and hydrogen-carbon monoxide ratio is adjusted using
water-gas shift.

Pyrolysis

In pyrolysis processing, biomass feedstocks are broken down using heat
in the absence of oxygen, producing a biooil that can be further refined
to a hydrocarbon product. The decomposition occurs at lower temperatures
than gasification processes, and produces liquid oil instead of a
synthesis gas. Oil produced varies in oxygen content or viscosity
according to the feedstock used.

Bio-Oil Cleanup

Oil produced in pyrolysis processing must have particulates and ash
removed in filtration to create a homogenous product. The oil is then
upgraded to hydrocarbon fuels via hydrotreating and hydrocracking
processing, which reduces its total oxygen content.

Biomass Program Home | EERE Home | U.S. Department of Energy

Webmaster | Web Site Policies | Security & Privacy | USA.gov

Content Last Updated: 04/08/2008

Website:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/thermochemical_processes.html


Notice of Filing of Pesticide Petition Number 8E7318

Prepared by Chemtura Corporation

<EPA Registration Division contact: Susan Stanton;<PHONE_NUMBER>>

<	EPA has received a pesticide petition (PP#8E7318) from IR-4 Project
Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540
proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.572 by
establishing tolerances for residues of bifenazate and its metabolite,
diazinecarboxylic acid, 2-(4-methoxy-[1,1'-biphenyl]-3-yl),
1-methylethyl ester (expressed as bifenazate), in or on the raw
agricultural commodity bean dry, seed at 0.2 parts per million (ppm), in
or on the raw agricultural commodity grass, forage, fodder and hay,
group 17, forage at 140 parts per million (ppm), and in or on the raw
agricultural commodity grass, forage, fodder and hay, group 17, hay at
120 parts per million (ppm) .  EPA has determined that the petition
contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section
408 (d)(2) of  FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the
sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data
supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before
EPA rules on the petition>

<A. Residue Chemistry>

<	1. Plant metabolism. The nature of the residues of bifenazate in
plants is adequately understood.  The major residue in all plant
metabolism studies is bifenazate.  A minor, but significant metabolite
is the diazene D3598, which was found to interconvert readily to/from
bifenazate in the plant matrix during the analytical procedure.>

<	2. Analytical method. Chemtura Corporation has developed practical
analytical methodology for detecting and measuring residues of
bifenazate in or on raw agricultural commodities.   As D3598, a
significant metabolite, was found to interconvert readily to/from
bifenazate, the analytical method was designed to convert all residues
of D3598 to the parent compound (bifenazate) for analysis.  The method
utilizes reversed phase HPLC to separate the bifenazate from matrix
derived interferences, and oxidative coulometric electrochemical
detection for the identification and quantification of this analyte.
Using this method the limit of quantitation (LOQ) for bifenazate in
stone fruit, pome fruit, grapes, strawberries, and cotton was 0.01 ppm.
For hops the LOQ was 0.05 ppm.  The limit of detection for this method,
which varies with matrix, is 0.005 ppm.  The analytical method for
bifenazate and its major metabolite D3598 in animal samples was designed
using the same principles invoked in the plant method, with minor
modifications.  However, in animal samples, a separate aliquot of the
extract was used to determine residues of A1530 and its sulfate
(combined) in milk and meat samples (these metabolites appeared to be
significant in goat metabolism studies). The extract was subjected to
acid hydrolysis to convert the sulfate conjugate to A1530 before it was
quantified by HPLC using fluorescence or OCED detectors.>

<	3. Magnitude of residues. A complete crop residue program has been
completed for bifenezate in the major growing areas of the US for:

Dry Beans:

Chemtura Corporation is proposing a crop specific tolerance of 0.2 ppm
on dry beans (Lupinus spp. include grain lupin, sweet lupin, white
lupin, and white sweet lupin; Phaseolus spp. include field bean, kidney
bean, lima beans (dry), navy bean, and pinto bean; tepary bean; Vigna
spp. include adzuki bean, blackeyed pea, catjang, cowpea, Crowder pea,
moth bean, mung bean, rice bean, southern pea, and urd bean; broad bean;
chickpea; guar; lablab bean; and lentil).

Grass Forage, Fodder, and Hay Group (Crop Group 17):

 Chemtura Corporation is proposing a tolerance of 140 ppm on grass
forage and fodder, and a tolerance of 120 ppm on grass hay. Crop Group
17 commodities include any grass, Graminaeae family (either green or
cured) except sugarcane and those included in the cereal grains group,
that will be fed to or grazed by livestock, all pasture and range
grasses and grasses grown for hay or silage.>

<B. Toxicological Profile>

<	1. Acute toxicity.  Bifenazate Technical, Acramite-50WS have low acute
oral, dermal, and inhalation toxicity in laboratory animals.  The oral
LD50 in rats and mice is greater than 5 g/kg for Acramite 50WS and the
technical material. The dermal LD50 in rats of Bifenazate Technical and
both formulations is greater than 5 g/kg.   The inhalation LC50 in the
rats of Bifenazate Technical and Acramite 50WS was found to be greater
than 4.4, 5.2 and 1.8 mg/l, respectively.  In eye irritation studies,
Acramite-50WS was a slight irritant, and Bifenazate Technical was
non-irritating. Acramite-50WS was found to be non-irritating to the skin
of rabbits and non-sensitizing on the skin of guinea pigs.  Acramite 4SC
has been shown to be of low acute oral, dermal and inhalation toxicity
in laboratory animals.  The oral LD50 for male rats is greater than 5
g/kg in male rats and greater than 2 g/kg but less than 5 g/kg in female
rats for Acramite 4SC.   The dermal LD50 in rats is greater than 5g/kg
for Acramite 4SC.  The inhalation LC50 in rats is greater than 1.8 mg/L
for Acramite 4SC.   In eye irritation studies Acramite 4SC was
demonstrated to be a mild eye irritant.  In skin irritation studies,
Acramite 4SC was demonstrated to be non-irritating to the skin.
Acramite 4SC was demonstrated to be non-sensitizing on the skin of
guinea pigs.>

<	2. Genotoxicty. Bifenazate was evaluated and found to be negative in
the Ames Reverse Mutation, Mouse Lymphoma, CHO Chromosome Aberration and
Mouse Micronucleus assays.>

≥500 mg/kg/day and abortions at dosage levels of ≥250 mg/kg/day.
Bifenazate was then administered by oral gavage to pregnant New Zealand
White rabbits at dosage levels of 10, 50 and 200 mg/kg/day. No test
article related effects were seen at any dose level.  The NOAEL for
maternal and developmental toxicity was greater than 200 mg/kg/day, but
less than 250 mg/kg/day.>

Rat Teratology Study: Bifenazate did not produce developmental toxicity
when administered by oral gavage to pregnant Sprague-Dawley CD rats at
dosage levels of 10, 100 and 500 mg/kg/day.  A reduction in maternal
body weight gain was seen at dosage levels of 100 and 500 mg/kg/day.
Clinical observations at 500 mg/kg/day included red material/staining on
body surfaces, pale extremities and brown discharge. No developmental or
teratogenic effects were observed at any dosage level. The NOAEL for
maternal toxicity was 10 mg/kg/day and the NOAEL for developmental
toxicity was greater than 500 mg/kg/day.

Rat Reproduction Study: Bifenazate showed no effects on reproduction
upon dietary administration to two generations of male and female
Sprague-Dawley CD rats at dietary concentrations of 20, 80 and 200 ppm.
At a dosage level of 200 ppm there was a reduction in body weight gain
in F0 males and females.  Food consumption was unaffected.  There was a
reduction in body weight gain in F1 females at all dosage levels and in
F1 males at 80 and 200 ppm in the absence of effects on food
consumption. Since the 20 ppm F1 males did not have a significant
reduction in body weight gain, this dosage level can be considered a
NOEL for systemic adult toxicity. The reduction in body weight gain in
the F1 females at 20 ppm would not be considered biologically
significant because no effects were observed on reproductive parameters
or in the F2 litter. The reproductive and developmental NOEL was greater
than 200 ppm (10 mg/kg/day).]

<	4. Subchronic toxicity. Thirteen Week Rat Feeding Study:  Bifenazate
was fed to male and female Sprague Dawley CD rats for thirteen weeks at
dietary concentrations of 40, 200 and 400 ppm. At dosage levels of 200
and 400 ppm there was a reduction in red blood cell count and
hemoglobin. Food intake was reduced for 200 ppm females and 200 and 400
ppm males. Histopathological effects were seen in the liver, spleen and
adrenal cortex in males and females at 200 and/or 400 pm.  The maximum
tolerated dose (MTD) was exceeded in females at 200 ppm and in males and
females at 400 ppm. The NOAEL for subchronic toxicity in rats was 40 ppm
(2 mg/kg/day).

Neurotoxicity assessment: No treatment related effects were seen on
neurobehavior in a standard Functional Observation Battery conducted at
weeks 8 and 13 of the thirteen-week rat feeding study. No overt signs of
anti-cholinergic activity, and no statistically significant effects on
cholinesterase activity were seen in rats in a two week feeding study at
dose levels up to 400 ppm.  Plasma, erythrocyte and brain cholinesterase
activity were evaluated in male and female rats fed bifenazate-treated
diet at 0, 20, 200, or 400 ppm for two weeks. All animals survived until
study termination and effects were only seen on body weight gain and
food consumption. The NOAEL for cholinergic inhibition was greater than
400 ppm (20 mg/kg/day).

Thirteen Week Dog Feeding Study:  Bifenazate was fed to male and female
Beagle dogs for thirteen weeks at dietary concentrations of 40, 400 and
1,000 ppm.  At dosage levels of 400 and 1,000 ppm there was a reduction
in red blood cell count, hemoglobin and hematocrit. Liver weights were
increased at 400 and 1,000 ppm and centrilobular hepatocellular
hypertrophy was seen in females at 400 ppm and males and females at
1,000 ppm. The NOAEL for subchronic toxicity in dogs was 40 ppm (1
mg/kg/day).>

<	5. Chronic toxicity. Dog Chronic Feeding Study: Bifenazate was fed to
male and female Beagle dogs for one year at dietary concentrations of
40, 400 and 1,000 ppm.  At dose levels of 400 and 1,000 ppm, there was a
reduction in food consumption in males and reduced body weight gain in
males and females.  There was a reduction in red blood cell count,
hemoglobin and hematocrit and an increase in bilirubin at 400 and 1,000
ppm.  Histopathological effects on bone marrow, kidney and liver were
also seen at these dose levels.  The NOAEL for chronic toxicity in dogs
was 40 ppm (1 mg/kg/day).

Rat Chronic Feeding/Oncogenicity Study:  Bifenazate was not oncogenic in
rats when fed to male and female Sprague-Dawley CD rats for two years at
dietary concentrations of 20, 80 and 160 in females or 20, 80 and 200
ppm in males.  Body weight gain was reduced in males and females at the
high dosage levels. A reduction in red blood cell count and an increase
in splenic pigment were seen in females at 160 ppm, while high dose
males exhibited a reduction in total cholesterol and an increase in
splenic pigment. At a dose level of 80 ppm there was a reduction in body
weight gain, a decrease in red blood cell count and an increase in
splenic pigment in females. There was no increase in tumor incidence in
males or females as a result of bifenazate administration. The NOAEL for
chronic toxicity in rats was 20 ppm (1 mg/kg/day).

Mouse Oncogenicity Study:  Bifenazate was not oncogenic when fed to male
and female CD-1 mice for eighteen months at dietary concentrations of
10, 100 and 175 ppm in females and 10, 100 and 225 ppm in males. Body
weight gain was reduced in males and females at the high dose level. A
reduction in red blood cell, total leukocyte and lymphocyte counts was
seen in males at 225 ppm.  There was no increase in tumor incidence in
males or females as a result of bifenazate administration.>

<	6. Animal metabolism. In rat, [14C]-bifenazate, [14C-Phenyl] Hydrazine
carboxylic acid, 2-(4-methoxy-[1,1?-biphenyl]-3-yl)-1-methylethyl ester
was extensively metabolized when it was given orally in two dose levels
low (10 mg/kg), and high (1000 mg/kg). Although 2/3 of the dosed
radioactivity was excreted in the feces, bifenazate depicted a good
degree of absorption as indicated from the level of radioactivity in the
bile.  In the bile radioactivity study, about 70% of the C-14 was
collected from the cannulated bile ducts of low dosed rats indicating an
active level of absorption and enterohepatic circulation.

In general, the major metabolites present in feces, urine and bile
resulted from several well known metabolic reactions, including
hydrazine oxidation to diazene (D3598), molecular scission with loss of
the hydrazine carboxylic acid portion of the molecule to yield
4-methoxybiphenyl (D1989) followed by demethylation to form
4-hydroxybiphenyl (A1530). Metabolites resulted from aromatic
hydroxylation, and conjugation with glucuronic acid or sulfate were also
identified.

Pharmacokinetic parameters: The maximum plasma concentration  (Cmax,
calculated as ppm D2341 equivalents) was reached much earlier following
the low dose (5-6 h) than the high dose (18-24 h). Elimination
half-lives (t1/2) were marginally longer at the high dose (12-16 h) than
at the low dose (12-13 h).  There were no obvious and consistent sex
differences in the pharmacokinetic parameters.>

<

7. Metabolite toxicology. In a single dose oral toxicity limit test in
rats, the oral LD50 of the diazene product of bifenazate was estimated
to be approximately 5,000 mg/kg. At two hours and at seven days
post-dosing, no effects were seen on erythrocyte cholinesterase
inhibition in male or female rats.  In addition, no effect on plasma
cholinesterase inhibition was seen in male rats at seven days only.
Since this effect was seen only in plasma of females at one time point,
it is most likely a pseudocholinesterase effect without biological
significance.  In a dermal toxicity screen, the LD50 of the diazene was
estimated to be >2,000 mg/kg.

Mutagenicity screens with the diazene showed it to be weakly positive in
the Salmonella plate incorporation (Ames) assay  in TA98 with activation
and negative in the L5178Y mouse lymphoma and mouse micronucleus
assays.>

<	8. Endocrine disruption. There are no known reported adverse
reproductive or developmental effects in domestic animals or wildlife as
a result of exposure to this chemical.

A standard battery of required toxicity tests have been conducted on
bifenazate. No effects were seen in the reproduction or teratology
studies to indicate that bifenazate has an effect on the endocrine
system. Bifenazate administration to rats for 90 days at dose levels of
200 and 400 ppm resulted in an increased incidence of vacuolation in the
zona fasciculate of the adrenal cortex in male rats.  No effect was seen
at a dose level of 40 ppm (2 mg/kg/day). However, in the chronic rat
feeding study, no effect was seen on the adrenal cortex in male rats fed
200 ppm for one year. Furthermore, fasting glucose levels were not
reduced at any dose level in males or females in either study.  The zona
fasciculate is the site of cortisol production and cortisol is required
for gluconogenesis during fasting. The finding that fasting glucose
levels are not affected would suggest that adrenal cortex functionality
is not impaired at any dose level by bifenazate.>

<C. Aggregate Exposure>

1. Dietary exposure. Based on dietary, drinking water, and
non-occupational exposure assessments, there is reasonable certainty of
no harm to the US population, any population subgroup, or infants and
children from chronic exposure to bifenazate.

<	i. Food. Chronic dietary exposures were estimated utilizing the
Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with Food Commodity Intake
Database (DEEM-FCID), version 2.00. Default processing factors from DEEM
7.73 were used for all crops to estimate residues in foods consumed by
humans in accordance with standard EPA practice when processing studies
are not available.  EPA provided percent crop treated estimates for some
registered crops in the August 30, 2006, FR notice.  When a percent crop
treated estimate was not available in the August 30, 2006 FR notice,
Chemtura provided estimates of the percent crop treated for all other
registered and proposed crops. EPA’s percent crop treated estimates
were extrapolated for similar crops.  For some recently registered
crops, the percent crop treated was estimated by Chemtura as the maximum
of any available data and a consideration of future market penetration,
including 2.7% for cherries, 1% for cotton, 100% for hops, 1% for peas
and bean (6A and 6B), 4.5% potatoes, 1% for root and tuberous vegetables
(1C). The percent crop treated for soybeans is 0% because there was no
use on soybeans in 2005 and there are no plans to pursue future use of
bifenazate on soybeans.  Market projections are 1% for tropical fruit
(except avocados) group 6B and 10% for caneberries.  The predicted
percent crop treated for grasses is expected to be less than 1%,
therefore, the percent crop treated for animal products (meat and milk)
was assumed to be 4.5% based on the percent crop treated estimate for
potatoes.

Using existing %cPAD for existing tolerances from 68 FR 55494-5503
(9/26/03) for the chronic dietary exposure to the US Population (total)
was estimated was 5.3% of the cPAD (0.000529 mg/kg/day). The most highly
exposed subpopulation, children 1-2 yrs, has an estimated total
bifenazate exposure equal to 13.5% of the cPAD. The total chronic
dietary exposure associated with current and proposed uses of bifenazate
has been demonstrated to be less than the cPAD (0.01 mg/kg/d) and are
therefore not of concern. It is important to remember that this
assessment is quite conservative because it includes tolerance level
residues in all current and proposed crops (with the exception of
tomatoes, for which EPA used average residues from field trials).>

<	ii. Drinking water. Exposure to bifenazate and potential residues in
drinking water is expected to be negligible. Bifenazate (half-life of 30
minutes) degrades rapidly under aerobic conditions to D3598 (half-life
of 7 hours), which degrades rapidly to D1989 (half-life of 96 days).
Photodegradation and other routes of dissipation of bifenazate do not
appear to be significant. Based on these data, the residue of concern
was considered to be D1989. Parent and D3598 were not included as
residues of concern in drinking later due to the short half-lives of
these compounds and the lack of an acute dietary endpoint. As reported
in the February 4, 2004 Federal Register (69 CFR 5289-5297), the annual
average estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) for bifenazate
(6.38 ppb in surface water and < 0.001 ppb in ground water) are based on
a single application of 0.75 lb ai/acre to strawberries, since the
application to grass was assumed not to impact the EECs estimated by
EPA. Chronic estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) of D1989 in
surface and ground water were generated using FIRST and SCI-GROW (1
application at 0.75 lbs ai/acre). The FIRST model generated an EEC of
6.4 ppb and SCI-GROW model generated an EEC of <0.001 ppb. These EEC
values are lower than the drinking water levels of concern (DWLOC) for
adults (260 ppb) and infants 1-2 years of age (8.8 ppb). Uses on
proposed crops were assumed not to impact the EEC estimates.>

<	2. Non-dietary exposure. As reported in the September 26, 2003 Federal
Register notice (68 FR 55494-55503), EPA estimated a combined MOE for
4200 for residents applying a product to home ornamental plants and
fruit trees.  Therefore, for the current short-term aggregate assessment
this MOE was included in estimating the short-term aggregate MOE
resulting from dietary and residential exposures.  Calculations were
performed for population subgroups that might apply bifenazate to
ornamentals and fruit trees (i.e., youth 13-19 years old, adults 20-49
years old, females 13-49 years old, adults 50+ years old and the general
population).  The short term oral endpoint for this scenario is 10
mg/kg/d.  MOEs range from 3400-3600.  Estimated aggregate MOEs in excess
of the target MOE (100) indicate reasonable certainty of no harm
resulting from aggregate bifenazate exposures from food, drinking water
and residential uses.>

<D. Cumulative Effects. The mechanism/mode of action of bifenazate on
the mammalian red blood cell, which is target organ in the species
tested, remains to be elucidated. The lack of information on bifenazate
mode of action precludes an assessment of cumulative effects. EPA has
not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to bifenazate and any
other substances and bifenazate does not appear to produce a toxic
metabolite produced by other substances.>

<E. Safety Determination>

<	1. U.S. population. Based on the toxicology database and available
information on anticipated residues, chronic dietary exposure to the
U.S. population (total) was 5.3% of the cPAD. The FIRST model generated
an EEC of 6.4 ppb and SCI-GROW model generated an EEC of <0.001 ppb.
These EEC values are lower than the drinking water levels of concern
(DWLOC) for adults (260 ppb). The combined MOE from the limited
potential for short-term exposure from residential uses is >1000. Based
on these assessments, it can be concluded that there is reasonable
certainty of no harm to the U.S. Population or any population subgroup
from exposure to bifenazate.>

<	2. Infants and children. Based on the toxicology database and
available information on anticipated residues, chronic dietary exposure
to infants (under 1 year of age) was 9.7% of the cPAD and to children
(1-2 years of age) was 7.3% of the cPAD. The FIRST model generated an
EEC of 6.4 ppb and SCI-GROW model generated an EEC of <0.001 ppb. These
EEC values are lower than the drinking water levels of concern (DWLOC)
for infants 1-2 years of age (8.8 ppb). The combined MOE from the
limited potential for short-term exposure from residential uses is
>1000. Based on these assessments, it can be concluded that there is
reasonable certainty of no harm to the U.S. Population or any population
subgroup from exposure to bifenazate.>

<F. International Tolerances>

!

"

ᔔ赨ꈲᘀ੨॰䌀ᡊ愀ᡊᜀ$

'

8

9

h

h

옍)

萎Ũ葝Ũ摧፾#ᜀ1옍

옍)

萎Ũ萏Ũ萑Ũ葝Ũ葞Ũ葠Ũ摧瀊	ༀ1옍

옍)

℀en established: Strawberry 1.0 (mg/kg). The Netherlands have national
MRLs of 2.0 for Strawberries and Chili Peppers, 0.5 for Sweet Peppers,
Tomatoes and Aubergines, 0.3 for Cucumbers and 0.2 for Melons and
Watermelons.  The Dutch national MRLs are also import tolerances (MRLs)
for Germany.  The EU commission have set MRLs of 2 for Strawberries and
Peppers, 0.5 for Aubergines and Tomatoes and 0.3 for Curcubits with
edible peel.>

 PAGE

 PAGE   2


QUESTIONS YOUR RESPONSE 1. Number of CWISs: 2 2. Brief description of each CWIS ( e. g., sea chest, simple pipe): Straight pipe in wet leg. Intake is the inlet to the submerged pump.

3. Rough dimensions of each CWIS and indicate whether CWIS has existing flange: 3 inch dia ( pump inlet). Cooling water is taken from inside a platform leg. Sea water enter the leg through a " window" which is a hole that a pipe runs through that is not sealed to the pipe ( i. e., water passes through the hole around the pipe). Technically the sapce through which the water enters the leg is the CWIS. However, because the cross sectional area of the window minus the pipe is unknown, the calculations below assumes the pump inlet is the CWIS.

4. Screen type ( e. g., strainer, wedge wire) with mesh size: Strainer 5. Total daily maximum design water intake volumn of each CWIS: Pump " B" = ?? , Pump " C" = 100,800 Gal.

6. Total daily water intake volume of each CWIS ( set up/ drilling): 100,800 Gal 7. Total daily cooling water intake volume of each CWIS ( set up/ drilling): 100,800 Gal 8. Design through screen velocity of each CWIS ( i. e., Q= V* A) ( set up/ drilling): 3.17 ft/ sec 9. List purposes of cooling water intake ( e. g., cool crude oil, produced water, power generators, drill pipe brakes): Cool gas 10. List purposes of non cooling water intakes ( e. g., fire, water, hotel loads) other than ballast water: Used as flushing and mixing agent for injection well, firewater 11. Total volume of water intake for ballasting, duration of ballast intake, and through screen velocity of ballast intake: NA 12. Describe mitigation measures used for reducing impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms ( e. g., sea chest screens, strainers): Stainer at pick up, backflush weekly 13. Describe measures used to reduce or prevent biofouling: Back flush pump weekly 14. Describe mitigation measures used for reducing exotic species migration through ballast water: None OCS Lease and Block: Platform Name: Bruce Platform COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE ( CWIS) INFORMATION The following questions apply to cooling water intake structure( s) at oil and gas extraction facility. If you own more than one facilty, please copy the questions and answer separately for each facility.

Prospect or Field Name: Granite Point Company: Unocal