[Federal Register: November 19, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 224)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 69559-69564]
[DOCID:fr19no08-8]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0417; FRL-8389-5]

Polyoxin D Zinc Salt; Exemption from the Requirement of a
Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of the polyoxin D zinc salt (zinc 5-[[2-
amino-5-o-(aminocarbonyl)-2-deoxy-L-xylonoyl]amino]-1-(5-carboxy-3,4-
dihydro-2,4-dioxo-1(2H)-pyrimidinyl)-1,5-dideoxy-[beta]-D-
allofuranuronatein) on almonds, cucurbit vegetables, fruiting
vegetables, ginseng, grapes, pistachios, pome fruits, potatoes and
strawberries when applied/used as a biochemical pesticide to control
and suppress fungal diseases. Arysta LifeScience North America
Corporation submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a
maximum permissible level for residues of polyoxin D zinc salt (zinc 5-
[[2-amino-5-o-(aminocarbonyl)-2-deoxy-L-xylonoyl]amino]-1-(5-carboxy-
3,4-dihydro-2,4-dioxo-1(2H)-pyrimidinyl)-1,5-dideoxy-[beta]-D-
allofuranuronatein).

DATES: This regulation is effective November 19, 2008. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before January 20, 2009,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008--0417. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://
www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chris Pfeifer, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially

affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

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

    In addition to accessing electronically available documents at
http://www.regulations.gov, you may access this Federal Register
document electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal
Register'' listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may also access
a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the
Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/
ecfr.

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file
an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which
govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in
40 CFR part 178. You must file your objection or request a hearing on
this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0417 in the subject line on the first page of
your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or
delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before January 20, 2009.
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit your copies, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0417, by one of the following methods.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of July 31, 2008 (73 FR 44719) (FRL-8374-
3), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance
petition (PP 7F7252) by Arysta LifeScience North America Corporation,
15401 Weston Parkway, Suite 150, Cary, NC 27513. The petition requested
that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for residues of polyoxin D zinc salt (zinc
5-[[2-amino-5-o-(aminocarbonyl)-2-deoxy-L-xylonoyl]amino]-1-(5-carboxy-
3,4-dihydro-2,4-dioxo-1(2H)-pyrimidinyl)-1,5-dideoxy-[beta]-D-
allofuranuronatein). This notice included a summary of the petition
prepared by the petitioner Arysta LifeScience North America
Corporation. There were no comments received in response to the notice
of filing.
    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include
occupational exposure. Pursuant to section 408(c)(2)(B) of FFDCA, in
establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in
section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA, which require EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.'' Additionally, section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA requires that the
Agency consider ``available information concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues '' and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, EPA determines the
toxicity of pesticides. Second, EPA examines exposure to the pesticide
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings.

III. Toxicological Profile

    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability
and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also
considered available information concerning the variability of the
sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including
infants and children.
    Polyoxin D zinc salt is a brown musty smelling powder derived
through the fermentation of the microbe Streptomyces cacaoi var.
asoensis, which was isolated from a soil sample collected in Japan. It
is registered with EPA's Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention
Division (BPPD) as a biochemical active ingredient, intended for
incorporation into sprayable fungicides for turf. As an active
ingredient, it has a non-toxic mode of action, which acts against
fungi; not by killing it, but by inhibiting chitin growth in the cell
walls, and thus precluding the development of fungal colonies. Its
effects are considered fungi-exclusive in that it has no mode of action
relative to mammals. Polyoxin D zinc salt does not persist in the
environment, biodegrading readily within 2 to 3 days. Finally, polyoxin
D zinc salt has a well understood low toxicity profile.
    Polyoxin-D zinc salt was first assessed by EPA in 1997 with regard
to the

human health risks associated with its fungicidal use on turf. The risk
assessment concluded that the commercial turf uses of polyoxin D zinc
salt posed no health risks to either occupational users or to any non-
occupational populations that might be exposed. A battery of acute and
chronic toxicological studies, submitted in support of this non-food
use, showed that polyoxin D zinc salt induced ``minimal toxic affects
to humans through oral, dermal, ocular or inhalation routes of
exposure.'' These studies included all acute toxicity studies,
mutagenicity studies, developmental studies, and exposure and
oncogenicity studies. Additionally, EPA's risk assessment considered
the active ingredient in light of the requirements of the Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA) and made a determination of ``reasonable
certainty of no harm to human health.'' Altogether, the Agency's 1997
risk assessment of polyoxin D zinc salt concluded that there are no
risks expected for acute, subchronic, chronic, immune, endocrine, or
non-dietary cumulative exposures due to the negligible toxicity
associated with the active ingredient.
    New toxicity data have since been submitted in support of the
request by the applicant to allow food uses (detailed in this rule) of
this registered non-food use active ingredient. These data have been
incorporated into a comprehensive risk assessment on polyoxin D zinc
salt and provide sufficient grounds for this exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance. The new data include a new mutagenicity
study, a 90-day subchronic oral toxicity study, a 2-generation
developmental toxicity study, an immunotoxicty study, and calculations
for terrestrial residues. All new data confirm a lack of human health
hazard associated with dietary exposures. These new toxicity data,
coupled with the data to support the original non-food uses, allow for
a comprehensive dietary risk analysis, and fully demonstrate polyoxin D
zinc salt's lack of acute, subchronic, and/or chronic toxicity with
regard to dietary exposure. All data substantiate the lack of dietary
risk associated with the food use of polyoxin D zinc salt.
    All data supporting the use of polyoxin D zinc salt on the food
crops mentioned in this rule confirm that the dietary risks to humans
are negligible for the following reasons:
    i. The fungistatic mode of action of this active ingredient is
specific to fungi and poses no risk to mammals.
    ii. Polyoxin D zinc salt is not digestible by mammals and passes
through the digestive system.
    iii. Theoretical (potential) residues are substantially less than
the doses that were actually used in polyoxin D zinc salts' toxicity
studies, which showed virtual non-toxicity.
    iv. A complete battery of toxicological studies show no
toxicological endpoints and confirm the active ingredient's very low
toxicity. For the reasons listed in this unit, any potential residues
of polyoxin D zinc salt are considered to be safe with regard to
dietary risk. Summaries of the supporting toxicological information are
found in this unit.
    1. Acute toxicity. Acute toxicity studies were submitted to support
the initial registration of polyoxin D zinc salt. These studies show a
lack of significant acute toxicological endpoints, and support the
finding that polyoxin D zinc salt poses no significant human health
risk with regard to food uses listed in the summary section of this
document. A pr[eacute]cis of the acute toxicity studies follows:
    i. The acute oral LD50 is greater than 10,000
milligrams/kilograms (mg/kg) in rats, a result that confirms acute non-
toxicity through the oral route, and undergirds the risk assessment
finding that any amount of residues of polyoxin D zinc salt, if
consumed, is not a health concern.
    ii. The acute dermal LD50 in rats is greater than 2,000
mg/kg in rats, and demonstrates very low toxicity through dermal
exposure. While no significant dermal exposure is expected as a result
of pesticidal applications associated with these new food uses, these
data substantiate polyoxin D zinc salt's relative non-toxicity to both
occupational users and the general public.
    iii. The acute inhalation LC50 is greater than 2.17 mg/L
in rats, and shows no significant inhalation toxicity. Again, no
significant new inhalation exposure is expected; and relatedly, no
risks are expected for occupational users or the general public as a
result of these new food uses.
    iv. Primary dermal irritation in rabbits was considered slight,
which finding bolsters the information presented in the acute dermal
toxicity study.
    v. A hypersensitivity study on guinea pigs further demonstrated
that the active ingredient was not a dermal sensitizer. The acute
toxicity studies demonstrate that even if there were residues present
in food, there would be negligible toxic effects associated with
polyoxin D zinc salt.
    2. Mutagenicity. Data demonstrate that polyoxin D zinc salt is non-
mutagenic. Accordingly, residues associated with the new pesticidal
food uses of polyoxin D zinc salt are not expected to pose any risk to
humans with regard to mutagenicity. Studies submitted in support of the
original 1997 registration of polyoxin D zinc salt first showed the
active ingredient to be without mutagenic effect. While an Ames Assay
(Master Record Identification Number (MRID 433230-01)) showed polyoxin
D to be weakly mutagenic, a battery of three complementary mutagenicity
tests supported negative conclusions for mutagenicity. In further
support of that finding of non-mutagenicity, no maternal toxicity or
developmental toxicity were observed in a developmental toxicity study
submitted at that time (MRID 432618-36). More recently, two additional
studies were submitted in support of non-mutagenicity with regard to a
food use. A Tier II Mammalian Erythrocyte Micronucleus Study (OPPTS
870.5395; MRID 47145102) showed no mutagenic effect. The test material
was not toxic to male mice at any dose tested, and there were no
reported sex differences in response to the test. In a second study,
polyoxin D zinc salt was tested to the limit dose of 2,000 mg/kg on
mice. The mice showed no clinical signs or mortality, and there was no
significant increase in the frequency of micronucleated PCEs, further
indicating no mutagenic effect. The mutagenicity studies are sufficient
to confirm that there are no expected dietary, occupational, or non-
occupational risks of mutagenicity with regard to new food uses.
    3. Subchronic toxicity. Polyoxin D zinc salt has very low
subchronic oral toxicity, and demonstrates a lack of dietary risk at
the subchronic level. In a 90-Day Oral Toxicity study on rats (OPPTS
870.3100; MRID 47145101), polyoxin D zinc salt technical was
administered to ten rats. There were no toxicologically significant
treatment-related effects on mortality. Neurological assessments,
urinalysis, ophthalmology, hematology, clinical chemistry, and gross
and histologic pathology found no clinical signs of toxicologically
significant treatment-related effects. The no-observed-adverse-effect
level (NOAEL) in this study is 20,000 parts per million (ppm) (1,333
mg/kg/day) in females and 2,000 ppm (119 mg/kg/day) in males. The
lowest-observed-adverse-effect level (LOAEL) in males is 20,000 ppm
(1,166 mg/kg/day) based on decreased body

weight (bw) gain, food consumption and food efficiency; a LOAEL was not
observed in females. Based on the lack of meaningful subchronic
toxicological endpoints for the technical grade active ingredient
(TGAI), the fungi-exclusive mode of action as a chitin synthetase
inhibitor, and the related lack of toxic oral effect in mammals, there
are no subchronic oral toxicity concerns with polyoxin D zinc salt. It
is further noted that the proposed use patterns for this active
ingredient are not expected to result in any repeated and/or long-term
exposure by either the dermal or inhalation routes; and as a result, no
dermal or inhalation subchronic studies are required to establish this
food use.
    4. Developmental toxicity. Data demonstrate that polyoxin D zinc
salt is not a developmental or reproductive toxicant. These findings
further confirm polyoxin D zinc salt's lack of mammalian toxicity, and
demonstrate a lack of dietary effect consistent with its fungi-
exclusive mode of action. A Tier III Two Generation Reproduction
Toxicity Study (OPPTS 870.3800; MRID 47120904) on rats showed no
parental systemic toxicity or differences in bw gain of either
generation. No abnormal clinical signs were observed during the study
period in any generation. No significant differences were found between
treated and control groups with regard to the average number of live
births per litter, average bw of live pups, ossification failure of the
chest ossification center, or bone variation. No differences were found
in the number of stillbirths and weaning rate. No specific
abnormalities in postnatal growth or general behavior was found between
treated and control groups. No differences were detected in mating,
pregnancy, delivery, or nursing rate by generation between the treated
and control groups. No chemical effects were found in males or females.
The reproductive NOAEL for polyoxin D zinc salt is 1%; a LOAEL was not
identified. Again, the data indicate the fungistatic nature of active
ingredient and the capacity of polyoxin D zinc salt to pass through
mammalian digestive systems. In sum, the study demonstrated a clear
lack of reproductive toxicity regarding dietary exposure and supports
the Agency's conclusion that there is no risk of developmental toxicity
associated with the new food uses.
    5. Immunotoxicity. Polyoxin D zinc salt is not immunotoxic on a
dietary basis. No meaningful immunotoxicity endpoints (i.e., dietarily
possible) for polyoxin D zinc salt were identified. In an
immunotoxicity study based on dietary exposure (OPPTS 870.7800; MRID
47120901), polyoxin D zinc salt technical was administered to mice in
their diet for 28 days at various concentrations. There were no
compound-related deaths or effects on clinical observations, bw or food
consumption. There were no compound-related macroscopic findings noted,
and organ weights were unaffected. There were no compound-related
effects on the humoral immune response to the T-dependent antigen,
sRBC. This study shows the lack of dietary risk posed by the
immunotoxicity of polyoxin D zinc salt residues, and supports the
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance by further demonstrating
a lack of toxic endpoints.
    6. Chronic exposure/oncogenicity. Based on the data, polyoxin D
zinc salt is not a chronic toxicant or oncogen. Results of chronic
toxicity/oncogenicity studies (MRIDs 432618-38 and -39) indicated that
there were no significant toxicity or oncogenic responses in mice dosed
with polyoxin D zinc salt over 2 years. The NOAEL was determined to be
2,058.7 mg TGAI/kg bw/day in males and 2,469.8 mg TGAI/kg bw/day in
females. The data show the lack of chronic toxicity/oncogenicity posed
by dietary exposure to polyoxin D zinc salt, and further demonstrate
the fungistatic nature of the active ingredient - i.e. polyoxin D zinc
salt can pass through the mammalian digestive system regularly without
toxic effect.
    7. Effects on immune and endocrine systems. There is no available
evidence demonstrating that polyoxin D zinc salt acts is an endocrine
disruptor in humans. Based on negative responses obtained from
developmental toxicity studies, chronic exposure studies, and
oncogenicity studies (MRIDs 432618-36, -38 and -39), no adverse effects
to the endocrine or immune systems are known or expected. The lack of
evidence of endocrine disruption is consistent with polyoxin D zinc
salt's non-toxic profile, and supports this exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance.

IV. Aggregate Exposures

    In examining aggregate exposure, section 408 of FFDCA directs EPA
to consider available information concerning exposures from the
pesticide residue in food and all other non-occupational exposures,
including drinking water from ground water or surface water and
exposure through pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or buildings
(residential and other indoor uses).

A. Dietary Exposure

    Dietary risks to humans are considered negligible based on the lack
of dietary toxicological endpoints for polyoxin D zinc salt, and its
non-toxic mode of action as a fungi-specific chitin synthetase
inhibitor that passes through mammalian digestive systems. No acute,
subchronic, mutagenic, immunotoxic, reproductive, or chronic dietary
toxicity hazards were identified in any of the studies used to support
this exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Based on polyoxin D
zinc salt's virtual dietary non-toxicity for mammals, no aggregate
dietary exposure concerns are expected.
    1. Food. A Terrestrial Exposure Model (T-Rex, v. 1.2.3; EPA, 2005)
used to calculate terrestrial residue data confirms that it is highly
unlikely that there will be adverse effects resulting from the use of
polyoxin D zinc salt via the oral route of exposure. EPA's T-Rex
calculations delimit aggregate consumption of residues to no more than
40 ppm polyoxin D zinc salt, a level that is far below the highest
doses used in any of the toxicity testing. T-Rex residue modeling,
findings of negligible toxicity, and information confirming polyoxin D
zinc salt's fungi-specific mode of action demonstrate a lack of
aggregate dietary risk sufficient to support this exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance.
    2. Drinking water exposure. There is a small potential for trace
amounts of polyoxin D zinc salt to enter ground water or other drinking
water sources after a significant rainfall and surface water runoff,
and from incidental spray drift. While the active ingredient does
degrade in water over days, it still has the remote potential to reach
drinking water sources. Nonetheless, any residues resulting from the
scenarios in this unit are expected to be so diluted as to be
negligible. As a result, even if there is drinking water exposure, a
health risk to humans is considered negligible. Again, based on the
lack of toxicological endpoints for polyoxin D zinc salt, and its non-
toxic fungi-specific mode of action as a chitin synthetase inhibitor,
no dietary risks are expected with regard to drinking water exposure.

B. Other Non-Occupational Exposure

    No new non-occupational exposure is expected to result from the new
agricultural uses of polyoxin D zinc salt. However, the Agency notes
that no health risks are expected from any exposure to this active
ingredient in any event. A 1997 risk assessment of polyoxin D zinc salt
makes clear that

even the expected non-agricultural non-occupational exposures that are
associated with this active ingredient pose negligible risks. Polyoxin
D zinc salt is characterized by its negligible toxicity; it has a non-
toxic, fungistatic, fungi-specific mode of action, and it demonstrates
no mammalian dietary effects.
    1. Dermal exposure. No new non-occupational dermal exposures are
expected to result from the new agricultural uses of polyoxin D zinc
salt. Any new dermal exposure associated with this new agricultural use
pattern is expected to be occupational in nature.
    2. Inhalation exposure. No new non-occupational inhalation
exposures are expected to result from the new agricultural uses of
polyoxin D zinc salt. Any new inhalation exposure associated with this
new agricultural use pattern is expected to be occupational in nature.

V. Cumulative Effects

    Pursuant to section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA, EPA has considered
available information concerning the cumulative effects of polyoxin D
zinc salt residues and other substances that have a common mechanism of
toxicity. These considerations include the cumulative effects on
infants and children of polyoxin D zinc salt residues and other
substances with a common mechanism of toxicity. Because there is no
indication of mammalian toxicity, the Agency concludes that there are
no cumulative effects arising from polyoxin D zinc salt residues in or
on almonds, cucurbit vegetables, fruiting vegetables, ginseng, grapes,
pistachios, pome fruits, potatoes and strawberries.

VI. Determination of Safety for U.S. Population, Infants and Children

    Health risks to humans, including infants and children are
considered negligible. There is a lack of meaningful toxicological
endpoints for polyoxin D zinc salt. Moreover, polyoxin D zinc salt is
defined by its fungistatic non-toxic mode of action, and demonstrates
no mammalian effect. Accordingly, it is considered to have negligible
toxicity, and there are no acute or chronic dietary risk concerns for
sensitive subpopulations.
    1. U.S. population. The Agency has determined that there is
reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the U.S. population
from aggregated exposure to residues of polyoxin D zinc salt. This
includes all dietary exposures and other exposures for which there is
reliable information. The Agency has arrived at this conclusion based
on polyoxin D zinc salt's non-toxic fungi-specific mode of action, and
its observed non-toxic effect on mammals. The Agency finds that the
combination of registered turf use and the proposed crop uses of
polyoxin D zinc salt has a reasonable certainty of no harm to the U.S.
population.
    2. Infants and children. Section 408 of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold margin of exposure (safety) for
infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for
prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database
unless the EPA determines that a different margin of exposure (safety)
will be safe for infants and children. Based on all the reliable
available information the Agency reviewed on polyoxin D zinc salt, the
Agency concludes that there are no residual uncertainties for prenatal/
postnatal toxicity resulting from polyoxin D zinc salt, and that
polyoxin D zinc salt has relatively low toxicity to mammals from a
dietary standpoint, including infants and children. Accordingly, there
are no threshold effects of concern and an additional margin of safety
is not necessary to protect infants and children. Indeed, the available
data indicate that polyoxin D zinc salt has very low toxicity,
including to infants and children, and no increased sensitivity of
infants or children was indicated in any of the laboratory studies. In
sum, there is a reasonable certainty of no harm to infants and children
with regard to the proposed food uses of polyoxin D zinc salt.

VII. Other Considerations

A. Endocrine Disruptors

    Based on available data, no endocrine system-related effects have
been identified with the consumption of polyoxin D zinc salt. No
evidence of endocrine system effects was observed in the
immunotoxicity, subchronic, chronic, teratology or reproduction
studies.

B. Analytical Method

    Through this action, the Agency proposes an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance of polyoxin D zinc salt when used on
almonds, cucurbit vegetables, fruiting vegetables, ginseng, grapes,
pistachios, pome fruits, potatoes and/or strawberries, without any
numerical limitations for residues. EPA has determined that residues
resulting from the pesticidal uses of polyoxin D zinc salt would as a
matter of viable application be low, and that there are no significant
toxicity concerns regarding this active ingredient. As a result, the
Agency has concluded that an analytical method is not required for
enforcement purposes for this proposed use of polyoxin D zinc salt.

C. Codex Maximum Residue Level

    Through this action, the Agency proposes an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance of polyoxin D zinc salt when used on
almonds, cucurbit vegetables, fruiting vegetables, ginseng, grapes,
pistachios, pome fruits, potatoes and/or strawberries, without any
numerical limitations for residues. EPA has determined that residues
resulting from the pesticidal uses of polyoxin D zinc salt would as a
matter of viable application be low, and that there are no significant
toxicity concerns regarding this active ingredient. As a result, the
Agency has concluded that an analytical method is not required for
enforcement purposes for this proposed use of polyoxin D zinc salt.

VIII. Conclusions

    Based on the information submitted, and other information available
to the Agency, EPA is establishing an exemption from the tolerance
requirements pursuant to section 408(c) of FFDCA for residues of
polyoxin D zinc salt in or on almonds, cucurbit vegetables, fruiting
vegetables, ginseng, grapes, pistachios, pome fruits, potatoes and
strawberries.

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is
not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

X. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of this final rule in the Federal
Register. This final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: November 11, 2008.
Debra Edwards,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. Section 180.1285 is added to subpart D to read as follows:

Sec.  180.1285  Polyoxin D zinc salt; exemption from the requirement of
a tolerance.

    An exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for
the residues of the biochemical pesticide polyoxin D zinc when used as
a fungicide on almonds, cucurbit vegetables, fruiting vegetables,
ginseng, grapes, pistachios, pome fruits, potatoes and strawberries.
[FR Doc. E8-27485 Filed 11-18-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 91 (Thursday, May 13, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 26222]
[FR Doc No: 2021-10141]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA R9-2021-02; FRL-10021-96-Region 9]

Notice of Proposed Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order
on Consent With De Minimis Parties at the Omega Chemical Corporation
Superfund Site in Los Angeles County, California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed settlement; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (``CERCLA''), notice
is hereby given that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has
entered into a proposed settlement, embodied in an Administrative
Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent (``Settlement Agreement''),
with twenty-six parties that sent between one and three tons of waste
and one party that sent just over four tons of waste (the ``Settling De
Minimis Parties'') to a solvent and refrigerant recyling facility that
operated between 1976 and 1991 in Whittier, California, called the
Omega Chemical Corporation. Under the Settlement Agreement, the
Settling De Minimis Parties agree to pay EPA $1,222,328.66 to resolve
their liability for both past and future costs associated with the
cleanup of the Omega Chemical Corporation Superfund Site (``Omega
Site'') in Los Angeles County California.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 14, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Please contact Keith Olinger at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
(415) 972-3125 to request a copy of the Settlement Agreement. Comments
on the Settlement Agreement should be submitted in writing to Mr.
Olinger at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments should reference the Omega
Site and the EPA Docket Number for the Settlement Agreement, EPA R9-
2021-02. If for any reason you are not able to submit a comment by
email, please contact Mr. Olinger at<PHONE_NUMBER> to make alternative
arrangements for submitting your comment. EPA will post its response to
comments at https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0903349, EPA's web page for the Omega Site.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keith Olinger, Enforcement Officer
(SFD-7-5), Superfund Division, U.S. EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, CA 94105; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Phone (415) 972-
3125.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this proposed Settlement Agreement
is made in accordance with the Section 122(i) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C.
9622(i). The Settlement Agreement is a de minimis settlement agreement
pursuant to Section 122(g) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9622(g), whereby the
Settling De Minimis Parties, which are identified below, collectively
agree to pay EPA $1,222,328.66. The Settlement Agreement resolves the
Settling De Minimis Parties' liability for both past and future
response costs at the Omega Site and provides the Settling De Minimis
Parties with a site-wide covenant not to sue pursuant to Section
122(g)(2) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9622(g)(2). Groundwater contamination
extends approximately four-and-one-half miles south, southwest from the
former Omega Chemical Corporation facility, where the Settling De
Minimis Parties sent hazardous waste. Much of the plume of groundwater
contamination at the Omega Site lies beneath a large commercial/
industrial area where chemicals released at other facilities have
commingled with the contamination originating at the former Omega
Chemical facility. Pursuant to a Consent Decree entered on March 31,
2017, Docket No. 2:16-cv-02696 (Central District, California), between
the United States and other potentially responsible parties (``PRPs'')
at the Omega Site, EPA is obligated to share seventy percent of the
money collected from certain Settling De Minimis Parties under this
Settlement Agreement with certain PRPs that have incurred significant
costs cleaning up contamination at the Omega Site and will continue to
incur cleanup costs in the future. As of January 1, 2021, EPA had
incurred more than $45 million in costs related to the Omega Site and
EPA had recovered more than $35 million of its costs.
    EPA will consider all comments received on the Settlement Agreement
in accordance with the DATES and ADDRESSES sections of this Notice and
may modify or withdraw its consent to the Settlement Agreement if
comments received disclose facts or considerations that indicate that
the settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.

Parties to the Proposed Settlement

    Aaron Spelling Productions, Inc.; Air Distribution Technologies,
Inc.; City of Montclair; Denso Products and Services Americas, Inc.;
Eco-Air Products, Inc.; FAA Stevens Creek, Inc.; Fairway Chevrolet Co.;
Grove Auto Body; Haddick's Towing, Inc.; Hawthorne Machinery Co.; Lacey
Collision Center; Materion Precision Optics and Thin Film Coatings,
Inc.; Meggitt Defense Systems, Inc., as successor to Southwest
Aerospace Corp.; Metal Surfaces International, LLC; Microsemi Corp.;
National Oilwell Varco, as successor to Varco International, Inc.; New
Bedford Panoramex Corp.; Ontario Nissan; Orion TV Productions, Inc.;
Pierce Pacific Manufacturing, Inc.; Puregro Company, successor to Brea
Agricultural Service, Inc.; Roberts Consolidated Industries, Inc.;
Rocliff Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a United Truck Dismantlers; Shoreham
Towers Homeowners' Association; Tom Holmes, Inc.; Wells Fargo Bank,
National Association; Western Allied Corporation.

    Dated: May 7, 2021.
Enrique Manzanilla,
Director, Superfund Division, EPA Region 9.
[FR Doc. 2021-10141 Filed 5-12-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 201 (Tuesday, October 18, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 64341]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26846]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP06-275-003]

Big Sandy Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Cost and Revenue Study

    Take notice that on April 8, 2011, Big Sandy Pipeline, LLC filed
its cost and revenue study in compliance with the Commission's November
15, 2006 Order Issuing Certificate.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing a
protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons
unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is 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 e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Friday, October 21, 2011.

    Dated: October 11, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-26846 Filed 10-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: April 2, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 62)]
[Notices]
[Page 15737-15739]
[DOCID:fr02ap07-120]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Release No. 34-55519; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2007-025)

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Trading One-, Two-, and Three-Character Symbols

March 26, 2007.
    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 March 21, 2007, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'') 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 substantially prepared by Nasdaq. Nasdaq has filed this proposal
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(5)
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).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Nasdaq proposes to trade the securities of Delta Financial
Corporation using the three-character symbol ``DFC.''

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

    In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq 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. Nasdaq 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
    Historically, securities listed on Nasdaq have traded using four or
five character symbols.\5\ In 2005, however, Nasdaq announced its
intent to allow companies listed on Nasdaq to also use one-, two-, or
three-character symbols.\6\ Nasdaq announced a series of dates
throughout December 2006 and January and February 2007 where market
participants could test trading Nasdaq stocks using one-, two-, or
three-character symbols on weekends, in after hour sessions, and during
full day sessions.\7\ Beginning February 20, 2007, Nasdaq had the
ability to accept and distribute Nasdaq-listed securities with one-,
two-, or three-character symbols. Nasdaq reminded market participants
about this change again on March 1, 2007, stressing that ``[a]ll
customers should have completed their coding and testing efforts to
ensure their readiness to support 1-, 2- and 3-character NASDAQ-listed
issues.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ This includes securities listed on Nasdaq's predecessor
market, operated as a facility of the NASD.
    \6\ See Head Trader Alert 2005-133 (November 14, 2005),
available at: http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader/News/2005/headtraderalerts/hta2005-133.stm
 and Vendor Alert 2005-070 (November

14, 2005), available at: http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader/News/2005/vendoralerts/nva2005-070.stm.
 See also Head Trader Alert 2006-

144 (September 29, 2006), available at: http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader/News/2006/headtraderalerts/hta2006-144.stm
, Head Trader Alert

2006-193 (November 16, 2006), available at: http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader/News/2006/headtraderalerts/hta2006-193.stm
 and Vendor Alert 2006-065 (October 4, 2006), available at:

http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader/News/2006/vendoralerts/nva2006-065.stm
.

    \7\ See Head Trader Alert 2006-201 (December 6, 2006), available
at: http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader/News/2006/headtraderalerts/hta2006-201.stm
, Head Trader Alert 2007-008 (January 25, 2007),

available at: http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader/News/2007/headtraderalerts/hta2007-008.stm
, Head Trader Alert 2007-011

(January 30, 2007), available at: http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader/News/2007/headtraderalerts/hta2007-011.stm
, Head Trader Alert

2007-020 (February 7, 2007), available at: http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader/News/2007/headtraderalerts/hta2007-020.stm
, and Head Trader Alert 2007-034 (February 16, 2007),

available at: http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader/News/2007/headtraderalerts/hta2007-034.stm
.

    \8\ Head Trader Alert 2007-050 (March 1, 2007), available at:
http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader/News/2007/headtraderalerts/hta2007-050.stm
.

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

    Nasdaq believes that the changes to its systems to accommodate one-
, two-, and three-character symbols will promote competition among
exchanges and enhance the strength of the U.S. capital

markets. Specifically, Nasdaq believes that issuers should have the
freedom of choice and competition. As issuers face the important choice
of where to list their equities, the symbol an issuer currently uses
should not factor prominently in the listing decision process.
Similarly, the symbol that a market assigns to an issuer should not
serve as an anchor if the issuer wishes to transfer to a competing
market.\9\ As such, permitting the portability of this symbol will
enhance competition among exchanges. Furthermore, as a result of the
technological changes noted above, all Nasdaq systems, including the
Securities Information Processor (SIP), are able to support all NYSE-
and Amex-listed securities using their original symbols over its core
transaction and data platforms. Nasdaq states that this provides an
added level of redundancy and resiliency for the U.S. capital markets,
and is key to its ability to provide full back-up for other equity
markets in the event of a national or local emergency thereby enhancing
the strength of the U.S. capital markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In that regard, Nasdaq notes that symbols are freely
transferred when securities switch between the American Stock
Exchange (``Amex''), the New York Stock Exchange (``NYSE''), and
NYSE Arca. See, e.g., Yamana Gold Inc. (on January 12, 2007 switched
from Amex to NYSE keeping the symbol AUY), VAALCO Energy (on October
12, 2006 switched from Amex to NYSE keeping the symbol EGY), and the
transfer of 15 iShares ETFs from Amex to NYSE Arca announced on
September 27, 2006. Now that Nasdaq is also a national securities
exchange, allowing companies to maintain their symbol when
transferring to Nasdaq would be consistent with the practice of
other exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq now proposes to allow one company, Delta Financial
Corporation, to keep its current symbol, DFC, when it transfers from
Amex to Nasdaq on March 22, 2007.\10\ Investors were notified of this
change on March 12, 2007 when the company announced its transfer and
continued use of the symbol ``DFC'' \11\ and Nasdaq notified market
participants on the same day.\12\ Moreover, Nasdaq believes that
forcing the company to change its trading symbol will cause confusion
among its investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Nasdaq notes that Amex has raised no objections to Delta
Financial's continued use of the symbol DFC.
    \11\ See company press release ``Delta Financial to Keep Its
`DFC' Ticker on NASDAQ'' dated March 12, 2007, available at: http://www.snl.com/irweblinkx/file.aspx?IID=107286&FID=3528005
.

    \12\ See Head Trader Alert 2007-057 (March 12, 2007), available
at: http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader/News/2007/headtraderalerts/hta2007-057.stm.
 See also Vendor Alert 2007-020 (March 12, 2007),

available at: http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader/News/2007/vendoralerts/nva2007-020.stm
.

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

    Given the foregoing, Nasdaq believes that market participants were
provided adequate notice of this change and are prepared to accommodate
the trading of this company using the symbol DFC. Further, Nasdaq
believes that any change to the symbol will cause confusion among
investors and market participants. As such, Nasdaq proposes to begin
trading the common stock of Delta Financial Corporation on Nasdaq using
the symbol DFC on March 22, 2007. While this filing relates to the
transfer of this issuer, Nasdaq states that it remains committed to
working with the Commission and other markets to establish an equitable
and transparent symbol assignment plan.
2. Statutory Basis
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\13\ in general and with 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 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.
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \15\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(5) thereunder \16\ in
that it effects a change to an order-entry or trading system that: (i)
Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) does not impose any significant burden on competition;
and (iii) does not have the effect of limiting the access to or
availability of the system. As such, this proposed rule change is
effective upon filing with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-NASDAQ-2007-025 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2007-025.
This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is
used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. 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-NASDAQ-2007-025 and should be submitted on or before
April 23, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-5966 Filed 3-30-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 33 (Tuesday, February 21, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11214-11215]
[FR Doc No: 2017-03324]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14809-000]

Merchant Hydro Developers, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On December 19, 2016, Merchant Hydro Developers, LLC, filed an
application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the
Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the
Shenandoah Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project to be located near
Shenandoah Borough in Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania. The sole purpose
of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder
priority to file a license application

during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the
permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise
enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express
permission.
    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) As many as
two new upper reservoirs with a combined surface area of 470 acres and
a combined storage capacity of 7,050 acre-feet at a surface elevation
of approximately 1,750 feet above mean sea level (msl) created through
construction of new roller-compacted concrete or rock-filled dams and/
or dikes; (2) a new lower reservoir, including an existing abandoned
mine pit, with a surface area of 105 acres and a total storage capacity
of 7,200 acre-feet at a surface elevation of 1,210 feet msl; (3) as
many as three new 3,387-foot-long, 48-inch-diameter penstocks
connecting the upper and lower reservoirs; (4) a new 150-foot-long, 50-
foot-wide powerhouse containing two turbine-generator units with a
total rated capacity of 405 megawatts; (5) a new transmission line
connecting the powerhouse to a nearby electric grid interconnection
point with options to evaluate multiple grid interconnection locations;
and (6) appurtenant facilities. Possible initial fill water and make-up
water would come from local inflow to the abandoned mine pit, including
groundwater. The proposed project would have an annual generation of
1,181,385 megawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Adam Rousselle, Merchant Hydro Developers, LLC,
5710 Oak Crest Drive, Doylestown, PA 18902; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Monir Chowdhury; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-14809-000.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14809) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: February 14, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-03324 Filed 2-17-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 27 (Wednesday, February 9, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7102-7106]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2760]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security

15 CFR Part 748

[Docket No. 100826397-1059-02]
RIN 0694-AE98

Simplified Network Application Processing System, On-line
Registration and Account Maintenance

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) amends the Export
Administration Regulations to implement a mandatory on-line
registration process for obtaining an account to submit license
applications and similar documents electronically through SNAP-R. This
final rule sets forth the information that parties registering on-line
are required to provide to BIS and the duties that registered parties
have with respect to keeping information in their accounts current.
This rulemaking is consistent with the goals and principles of
Executive Orders 13563 and 12866, which are to enhance effectiveness
and efficiency and to promote transparency and openness in government,
and the Presidential Memorandum on Regulatory Flexibility, Small
Business, and Job Creation (January 18, 2011).

DATES: Effective date: March 11, 2011.
    Compliance dates: Beginning on April 11, 2011, all new SNAP-R
registrations must be made in accordance with this rule.
    Beginning on June 10, 2011 accounts of filing entities that do not
have account administrators will not be accessible until an existing
individual user for that entity logs-on to SNAP-R and registers as
account administrator.
    Beginning on September 8, 2011 the accounts of filing entities that
do not have an account administrator will become inactive. In order to
reactivate the account, filing entities will have to complete the
entire registration process that applies to new entities.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas W. Andrukonis, Director, Export
Management and Compliance Division, Office of Exporter Services,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Immediate Voluntary Implementation of On-Line Registration

    Beginning on February 9, 2011, BIS will accept on-line SNAP-R

registrations from parties who wish to submit them.

Background

    BIS administers an export licensing program pursuant to the Export
Administration Regulations (EAR). In connection with this program, BIS
requires most parties to submit license applications, classification
requests, encryption registrations, License Exception AGR notifications
and foreign national review requests in connection with the License
Exceptions APP and CIV (herein ``work items'') electronically via BIS's
Simplified Network Application Processing (SNAP-R) system. To use SNAP-
R, BIS required filing entities to register for an account through a
paper and facsimile registration process.
    On November 23, 2010, BIS published a proposed rule with request
for comments entitled ``Simplified Network Application Processing
System, On-line Registration and Account Maintenance'' (75 FR 71376) to
amend the EAR to replace the paper and facsimile process for
registering to use SNAP-R with an on-line account registration and
account maintenance process, and to make modifications to user accounts
in SNAP-R. In developing this rule, BIS considered ways to reduce
regulatory burden and provide flexibility, an approach consistent with
Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 and Presidential Memorandum on
Regulatory Flexibility, Small Business, and Job Creation (January 18,
2011). This rule will eliminate the current and archaic practice of
using a paper and facsimile based process for obtaining authorization
to submit work items electronically. It will also reduce the time
between initial submission of registration information and receipt of
authorization to use the electronic filing system. Finally, the system
will allow registered filing entities to add or remove individual users
without waiting for approval from BIS.
    The final day of the comment period on the proposed rule was
January 24, 2011. BIS received nine comments on the proposed rule.
Eight of the commenters expressed approval of the proposed changes. One
commenter expressed opposition to the proposed changes. Commenters who
expressed approval mentioned the following points as benefits of the
changes: The process would be faster than paper registration; the time
needed to add a new employee to a filing entity's account under the
paper registration system caused delays and interruptions in new
employee training; and on-line registration would free up government
employee time for other tasks. In addition, the fact that the new rule
would not require a corporate officer to sign registration-related
documents would simplify account maintenance within companies that use
the system.
    The reasoning of the commenters who favored the change generally
aligns with BIS's purposes in proposing this rule, i.e. reduced time
and effort to register for an on-line submission account, reduced time
and effort to maintain that account, faster accommodation of personnel
changes in companies that use the system, and more effective use of
existing resources in both the public and private sector.
    In addition to expressing general support for the rule, three of
the eight commenters who favored the rule offered suggestions related
to implementation of the rule or improvements to the SNAP-R system. A
summary of each suggestion and BIS's response is below.
    One commenter who favored the changes proposed by the rule noted
that in some instances paper might be a submitter's only option and
asked whether there would be a manual process in the future.
    BIS believes that its existing systems are adequate to accommodate
situations in which submitting paper is the only option. This rule
addresses the process of registering with BIS to submit license
applications and other documents to BIS on-line. This rule does not
change the text of Sec.  748.1(d)(1) of the EAR (15 CFR 748.1(d)(1)),
which provides conditions under which parties may make those
submissions to BIS by paper. Those circumstances include low volume (no
more than one submission in the past twelve months) and lack of access
to the Internet. None of those circumstances requires prior
registration with BIS. In practice, there are very few submissions made
via the paper submissions process in a given year (ten paper
submissions out of 26,803 total submissions in calendar year 2010). BIS
believes that because the agency has procedures in place for accepting
paper submissions, which do not require prior registration, a separate
paper-based registration process for on-line submissions via SNAP-R is
not needed. Those parties for whom paper is truly the only option need
not register, on-line or otherwise.
    One commenter, who favored the changes in the proposed rule, asked
that BIS clarify whether the system would function automatically, that
is, once an individual end-user designates himself or herself on-line
as an account administrator, would the system immediately accept the
action and generate a response or would BIS review the information and
respond later. If the response would be later, this commenter asked
that BIS state the estimated time-frame for a response.
    When an individual user registers as the account administrator for
a filing entity, all individual users for that filing entity will be
notified by an automatically generated e-mail at the e-mail address
currently recorded for those individual users in the SNAP-R system. All
but two of the account administrator's capabilities will be immediately
available to the new account administrator. There will be a two week
delay before the new account administrator will be able to reset
individual user passwords or change individual user e-mail addresses.
BIS intends that the combination of e-mail notification to all
individual users of the filing entity and the two week delay in
implementing these two functions will provide a safeguard to prevent
individual users who are not authorized by the filing entity to be the
account administrator from doing so. During the two week period, the
filing entity could contact BIS to notify the agency that the person
claiming to be the account administrator is not authorized to do so. If
BIS receives no notice during the two week period, the two delayed
account administrator functions would become active automatically.
    One commenter stated that it supported the changes in the proposed
rule but offered one recommendation concerning SNAP-R and one comment
concerning the process for making the transition from the paper based
registration and account maintenance system to the on-line registration
and account maintenance system. This commenter suggested that SNAP-R be
further revised to allow first party account administrators to
authorize access under a third party filer's company identification
number. The commenter noted that such a change would allow greater
flexibility to parties who wish to authorize third parties to submit on
their behalf and for the first and third parties to collaborate on
submissions. The commenter suggested that changes to SNAP-R concerning
the relationship between first and third parties would require
additional software development but likely could be accomplished
without amending the EAR.
    The EAR does not designate certain filers as first parties and
others as third parties although the paper-based SNAP-R registration
procedure does make this distinction. For this reason, BIS concurs that
regulatory amendment is not necessarily required to implement

changes to make the SNAP-R system more useful in situations in which an
agent submits license applications or other documents on behalf of a
principal. However, such changes would require further software
development. Moreover, BIS would want to take steps to assure itself
that any such changes would be useful to more than one party and that
the changes would not undermine the integrity and security of the on-
line submission system. Therefore, BIS is making no changes to the
proposed rule in response to this comment, but will continue to look
for ways to improve SNAP-R irrespective of whether the improvements
would require regulatory change.
    This commenter also noted that BIS's plan, to inactivate SNAP-R
accounts of the filing entities for which no individual user who has
logged-in and registered as that entity's company administrator within
the first 180 days of the effective date, could cause accounts of
infrequent users to be inactivated. The commenter stated that if BIS
intends to shut down accounts that have not been updated, it should
notify the account holder directly and advise it of the need to take
action.
    BIS proposed to inactivate those accounts that do not have a
registered account administrator beginning on the 181st day after the
effective date of the rule for two reasons. First, a large number of
SNAP-R accounts have not been used in years and may have been
established for companies that no longer export or that no longer
exist. BIS needs to make such accounts inactive to promote efficient
operation of the SNAP-R system. Second, BIS needs to complete the
transition from a paper based registration and account maintenance
system to an on-line system within a reasonable and certain period of
time. Assuring that all active accounts have account administrators is
integral to an effective on-line system. In addition, BIS notes that
because the effective date of this rule will be 30 days after
publication, the deactivation of accounts will actually take place 211
days after publication of the rule. That said, BIS recognizes that not
all parties who need to use the system are frequent users. BIS plans to
publicize the transition to the on-line registration system and the
deadlines for existing SNAP-R users to designate account administrators
through the on-line process through a variety of ways including:
Sending e-mail notices to user e-mail addresses that are in the SNAP-R
system; sending e-mail notifications to parties who subscribe to BIS's
listserv service; Web site postings; and announcements at BIS outreach
events. Finally, BIS notes that the only burden to a filing entity for
failing to have a registered account administrator by the deadline is
that the filing entity will have to complete the registration process
on-line as if it were a new user of the system. That registration
process will consist of providing basic identifying information and
certifying that it understands that it will be submitting documents to
the government electronically and agrees to the terms for doing so.
    One commenter expressed opposition to the procedures in the
proposed rule. That commenter noted that new SNAP users can be added
via the existing process and stated that the proposed changes would
waste the users' and BIS' time. BIS recognizes that filing entities
will need additional time to designate account administrators. However,
BIS believes that over time, the time savings of allowing filing
entities to manage their own accounts will exceed any time invested in
designating account administrators. Those time savings will include
elimination of the time spent while requests for changes are sent to
BIS and responses are returned to the requester. BIS notes that most
commenters recognized the net time savings and favored the proposal.
    Accordingly BIS is making no changes to the text of the proposed
rule in this final rule.
    How the SNAP-R on-line registration process will work.
    Organizations or individuals who submit work items are referred to
in revised Sec.  748.7 of the EAR as ``filing entities.'' Individuals
who act on behalf of filing entities are referred to as ``individual
users.'' For each filing entity, at least one individual user must act
as an ``account administrator.'' An account administrator is able to
submit work items on behalf of his or her filing entity and has
additional responsibilities within the on-line registration system.
    An account administrator can add and remove individual users to or
from the account of his or her filing entity. The account administrator
can also designate other individual users who are authorized to act on
behalf of the same filing entity as account administrators or can
terminate an individual user's account administrator status. The
account administrator can deactivate the account of an individual user
and reactivate the account of a previously deactivated individual user.
The account administrator can update the filing entity's identifying
information, such as name and address, and any individual user's
identifying information, such as name and telephone number. The account
administrator can also reset an individual user's password.
    BIS expects under this revised system, account administrators for
filing entities will handle routine changes to the filing entity's
accounts and BIS personnel will become involved only if necessary to
protect a government interest, such as preventing misuse of the SNAP-R
system, or if necessary to assist someone attempting to register on-
line or administer an account.
    Immediate acceptance of on-line registration for parties who wish
to use it.
    Beginning on February 9, 2011, BIS will accept on-line
registrations for both filing entities and account administrators from
parties who wish to submit them.
    Deadline for new filing entities to use electronic registration.
    Beginning on April 11, 2011, the on-line registration process will
be mandatory for all new registrants. Until that date, new registrants
can register via paper if they wish to do so.
    Requirement to designate an account administrator at the time of
registration.
    A person registering on-line for a filing entity that does not have
a SNAP-R account will be required to enter all of the identifying
information for the filing entity including a certification that the
person is authorized to register the filing entity and to act as
account administrator for the filing entity as well as his or her own
identifying information. That person will become the initial account
administrator for that filing entity.
    Deadlines for designating an account administrator if the filing
entity is not registered electronically.
    Filing entities that are registered to use SNAP-R on the effective
date of the final rule and filing entities that elect to use the paper
and facsimile based registration process prior to April 11, 2011 will
be required to designate an account administrator as described below.
    Prior to June 10, 2011, any individual user who is authorized to
submit work items on behalf of a filing entity will be able to continue
to access SNAP-R, submit new work items and perform any necessary tasks
in connection with pending work items. In addition, the first such
individual user who designates himself or herself as the account
administrator will be required to certify that he or she is authorized
to act as account administrator and will become the initial account
administrator. BIS will inform via e-mail all other individual users
who are

authorized to act for that filing entity of the identity of the newly
designated account administrator.
    On or after June 10, 2011, but before September 8, 2011, an
individual user from a filing entity that does not have at least one
account administrator will be able to access the SNAP-R system only:
(1) For the purpose of designating himself or herself as account
administrator for that filing entity and (2) certifying that he or she
is authorized to act as account administrator. As soon as one
individual user is designated as the account administrator, that
individual user as well as all of the other individual users from that
filing entity will regain full SNAP-R access.
    Beginning on September 8, 2011, all filing entity accounts for
which no account administrator has been designated will become
inactive. To use the account for any purpose, an individual will have
to log on to the SNAP-R Web site and furnish all of the information
that would be required to register as a new filing entity.

Rulemaking Requirements

    1. This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes
of E.O. 12866.
    2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is
required to respond to, nor is subject to a penalty for failure to
comply with, a collection of information, subject to the requirements
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA),
unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. This regulation contains
a collection previously approved by OMB under control number 0694-0096.
BIS believes that this rule will not materially affect the burden
imposed by that collection. Send comments regarding these burden
estimates or any other aspect of these collections of information,
including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Jasmeet Seehra,
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), by e-mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by fax to<PHONE_NUMBER>; and to the Regulatory
Policy Division, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of
Commerce, Room 2705, 14th Street and Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20230.
    3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications
as that term is defined under E.O. 13132.
    4. The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce
certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration that the proposed rule, if adopted in final form, would
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The basis for that certification was published in the
preamble to the proposed rule and is not repeated here. BIS received no
comments regarding the certification. As a result, a final regulatory
flexibility analysis is not required and one has not been prepared.

List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 748

    Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Accordingly, the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts
730-774) are amended as follows:

PART 748--APPLICATIONS (CLASSIFICATION, ADVISORY, AND LICENSE) AND
DOCUMENTATION

0
1. The authority citation for part 748 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.;
E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13222, 66
FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 12, 2010, 75
FR 50681 (August 16, 2010).

0
2. Section 748.7 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  748.7  Registering for electronic submission of license
applications and related documents.

    (a) Scope. This section describes the procedures for registering to
submit electronic documents to BIS. The procedures in this section
apply to submission of export and reexport license applications (other
than Special Comprehensive Licenses and Special Iraq Reconstruction
Licenses), classification requests, encryption registrations, License
Exception AGR notifications and foreign national review requests under
License Exceptions APP or CIV.
    (b) Registration and use of BIS's Simplified Network Applications
System--Redesign (SNAP-R). Parties wishing to submit electronically
must log on to https://snapr.bis.doc.gov/registration to register. Upon
initial registration, the party (the filing entity) will have to supply
the name of the entity that will be submitting documents electronically
and its address and the name, telephone number, facsimile number and e-
mail address of the person who will act as account administrator. The
person will be required to certify that the information so supplied is
correct and complete, that the person has authority to register the
entity that will be making electronic submissions and that the person
has authority to act as an account administrator for that entity.
    (c) Role of account administrator. The account administrator is
able to add and remove individual users to and from the account of the
filing entity for which it is the account administrator. The account
administrator can also make individual users account administrators and
can terminate an individual user's administrator status. The account
administrator can deactivate the account of an individual user and
reactivate the account of a previously deactivated individual user. The
account administrator can update the filing entity's identifying
information such as name and address and any individual user's
identifying information such as name, telephone number, facsimile
number and e-mail address. The account administrator can reset
individual users' passwords.
    (d) Role of individual users. An individual user may submit to BIS
export and reexport license applications (other than Special
Comprehensive Licenses and Special Iraq Reconstruction Licenses),
classification requests, encryption registrations, License Exception
AGR notifications and foreign national review requests under License
Exceptions APP or CIV.
    (e) Effect of submission to BIS. BIS may refuse to accept an
electronic submission if it has reason to believe that the individual
user making the submission lacks authority to do so. However, BIS is
not obligated to conduct any checks to determine whether an individual
user has the necessary authority and will generally treat users as
acting within their authority. Acting through their account
administrators, parties have the ability to remove an individual user
when that individual user is no longer authorized to make submissions
on behalf of that party to BIS and should do so promptly.
    (f) Requirement to keep identifying information accurate and
current.
    (1) Filing entities. Filing entities must, through their account
administrators, update their identifying information such as name,
address and telephone number in their SNAP-R account as necessary to
keep that information accurate and current.
    (2) Individual users. Individual users must, through their account
administrators, update their identifying information such as name,
telephone number, facsimile number and e-mail address in their SNAP-R
accounts as necessary to keep that information accurate and current.

    Dated: February 3, 2011.
Matthew S. Borman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-2760 Filed 2-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-33-P


[Federal Register: June 27, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 123)]
[Notices]
[Page 35275-35276]
[DOCID:fr27jn07-102]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55926; File No. SR-CBOE-2007-61]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change Relating to Extension of the iShares Russell 2000
Index Fund (IWM) Option Pilot Program Until January 18, 2008

 June 20, 2007.
    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 June 12, 2007, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially
prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposed rule change
as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) \3\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) 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).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE proposes to extend an existing pilot program that increases
the position and exercise limits for options on the iShares Russell
2000 Index Fund (``IWM options'') traded on the Exchange (``IWM Option
Pilot Program''). The text of the rule proposal is available on the
Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.org/legal), at the Exchange's

principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change, and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. CBOE 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 purpose of the proposed rule change is to extend the IWM Option
Pilot Program for an additional six-month period, through January 18,
2008,\5\ and to make non-substantive changes to simplify the rule text
describing the IWM Option Pilot Program. The IWM Option Pilot Program
increases the position and exercise limits for IWM options traded on
the Exchange.\6\ The Exchange is not proposing any other changes to the
IWM Option Pilot Program. The Exchange represents that it has not
encountered any problems or difficulties relating to the IWM Option
Pilot Program since its inception.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ January 18, 2008 is the third Friday of the month (or
expiration Friday), which is the day on which January 2008 IWM
options will expire.
    \6\ Exercise limits for IWM options are equivalent to the
position limits prescribed for IWM options in Rule 4.11.07 and the
increased exercise limits are only in effect during the IWM Option
Pilot Period. See Rule 4.12.02.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal that established the IWM Option Pilot Program was
designated by the Commission to be effective and operative upon filing
and provided that it would run from January 22, 2007 through July 22,
2007.\7\ In that filing, the Exchange explained that in June 2005, as a
result of a 2-for-1 stock split, the position limit for IWM options was
temporarily increased from 250,000 contracts (covering 25,000,000 IWM
shares) to 500,000 contracts (covering 50,000,000 IWM shares). At the
time of the split, the furthest IWM option expiration date was January
2007. Therefore, the temporary position limit increase was scheduled to
automatically revert to the pre-split level (as provided for in
connection with the Rule 4.11 Pilot Program) of 25,000 contracts after
expiration in January 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55176 (January 25,
2007), 72 FR 4741 (February 1, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the Exchange described in the proposal that established the IWM
Option Pilot Program, the Exchange believes that a position limit of
250,000 option contracts would prevent traders from adequately hedging
their options positions, thereby impairing their ability to provide
liquidity. Specifically, the Exchange stated that IWM options are \1/
10\ the size of options on the Russell 2000 Index (``RUT''), which have
a position limit of 50,000 contracts.\8\ Therefore, traders who trade
IWM options to hedge positions in RUT options are likely to find a
position limit of 250,000 contracts in IWM options too restrictive and
insufficient to properly hedge. For example, if a trader held 50,000
RUT options and wanted to hedge that position with IWM options, the
trader would need, at a minimum, 500,000 IWM options to properly hedge
the position. The Exchange additionally notes that index options on \1/
10\ the RUT have a position limit of 500,000 contracts, which is
consistent with and corresponds to the increased position limits
permitted under the IWM Option Position Limit Pilot.\9\ Therefore, the
Exchange continues to believe that a position limit of 250,000
contracts is too low and may adversely affect market participants'
ability to provide liquidity in this product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Rule 24.4(a).
    \9\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the Exchange also described in the proposal that established the
IWM Option Pilot Program, IWM options have grown to become one of the
largest options contracts in terms of trading volume. For example,
through May 29, 2007, year-to-date industry volume in IWM options has
averaged over 460,000 contracts per day, for a total of over 61 million
contracts. CBOE alone has averaged almost 250,000 IWM option contracts
per day during that time, for a total of almost 33 million contracts.
In contrast, QQQQ options, which have a position limit of 900,000
contracts, have averaged almost 575,000 contracts per day in 2007.
    The Exchange believes that maintaining the increased position and
exercise limits for IWM options will lead to a more liquid and more
competitive market environment for IWM options that will benefit
customers interested in this product. In fact, the Exchange has
received positive feedback from market participants, who have expressed
a desire that the IWM Option Pilot Program be renewed. For these
reasons, the Exchange believes that the above stated reasons justify
the IWM

Option Pilot Program and requests that the Commission extend the IWM
Option Pilot Program for an additional six-month time period, through
January 18, 2008.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\10\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ in particular, because it
is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose
any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act.

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 written comments
with respect to the proposed rule change.

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

    Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days after the date of filing (or such shorter time as the Commission
may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest), the proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and subparagraph (f)(6)
of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in the furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-CBOE-2007-61 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2007-61. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of CBOE. 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-CBOE-2007-61 and
should be submitted on or before July 18, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-12394 Filed 6-26-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P