                                    AGENDA
                     FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL (SAP)
	OPEN MEETING

                              December 8-9, 2010

              FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/
                     OPP Docket Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
                     Docket Number: EPA-HQ- OPP-2010-0772

                     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                        Conference Center - Lobby Level
                        One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.)
                  2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202

Scientific Issues Related to Insect Resistance Management for SmartStax(TM) Refuge-in-the-Bag, a Plant-Incorporated Protectant (PIP) Corn Seed Blend

                  Please note that all times are approximate
                      (See note at the end of the Agenda)

		Wednesday, December 8, 2010

9:00 A.M.	Opening of Meeting and Administrative Procedures  -
	Sharlene Matten, Ph.D., Designated Federal Official, Office of Science Coordination and Policy, EPA

9:05 A.M.	Introduction and Identification of Panel Members  -
	Steven Heeringa, Ph.D., Chair, FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel

9:10 A.M.	Welcome and Opening Remarks  -
            Steven Bradbury, Ph.D., Director, Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), EPA

9:15 A.M.	Introduction  -
            Keith A. Matthews, M.S., J.D., Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, OPP, EPA

9:20 A.M.	Preliminary Risk Assessment of a 5% SmartStax(TM) Seed Blend Targeting Lepidopteran and Corn Rootworm Pests  -
            Jeannette Martinez, M.S., Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, OPP, EPA

10:15 A.M.	BREAK

10:45 A.M.	PUBLIC COMMENTS

12:00 P.M.	LUNCH

1:00 P.M. 	CHARGE QUESTIONS  -
            Alan Reynolds, M.S., Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, OPP, EPA

Part A: Biology of European Corn Borer, Southwestern Corn Borer, Corn Earworm, and Corn Rootworm

	Charge Question 1

            European corn borer (ECB) has both local and long distance dispersal capability. Currently, the proportion and frequency of individuals in a population engaging in dispersal before or after mating is unclear. While it has been established that ECB mate in aggregation sits near cornfields, mark-release-recapture studies in the U.S. have typically had a low recapture success (<1%). Recently it was suggested that 1-day old female ECB may engage in obligate pre-mating dispersal (Dorhout et al. 2008).

            Please comment on the uncertainties regarding ECB movement including mating sites, pre-mating dispersal, and the proportion of the population engaging in long-distance dispersal. How might these aspects of ECB movement affect a potential seed blend strategy?

2:00 P.M.	Charge Question 2

            Scientific Advisory Panels (1998 and 2000) discouraged the Agency from the use of Bt seed mixtures to control lepidopteran target pests because substantial larval movement could be expected between Bt and non-Bt plants which could lead to more rapid selection of resistance. BPPD has reviewed new data developed by Dow and Monsanto simulating the effects of SmartStax on various instars of potentially mobile lepidoptera. These data provide evidence that SmartStax is highly toxic to 1st, 2nd, and 3[rd] instars. But, there was greater survivability among 4[th] and 5[th] instars. While it has been established that ECB disperse as neonates, there is some uncertainty with respect to lepidopteran propensity for dispersal off non-Bt plants as later instars. BPPD notes that simulation models incorporating data on high larval mortality on SmartStax plants have (in some cases) predicted that seed blends may be as durable as structured refuges.

            Please comment on ECB larval plant-to-plant movement including uncertainties about late-instar movement and the potential effect on the durability of a seed blend strategy.

3:00 P.M.	BREAK

            3:15 P.M.	Charge Question 3

            It is typically assumed that, since European corn borer (ECB) and southwestern corn borer (SWCB) are similar in many ways, ECB can serve as a surrogate for SWCB to address uncertainties regarding biology and genetics. The applicants' efficacy data, however, suggest that SmartStax is somewhat less toxic to older instars of SWCB. Results of a larval exposure study by Monsanto showed that SWCB survival was higher than ECB on SmartStax. Should some SWCB larvae disperse as older instars, the rate of adaptation to SmartStax could increase in a seed blend deployment. BPPD concluded that simulation models should incorporate such information in their analyses. There is currently a lack of data on the propensity of SWCB larval plant-to plant movement and on how ECB and SWCB differ in this respect, if at all.

            Please comment on the assumption that ECB is a suitable biological surrogate for SWCB and BPPD's concerns that a SmartStax seed blend may affect SWCB differently than ECB.

            4:00 P.M.	Charge Question 4

            Corn earworm (CEW) was not considered in the applicants' and EPA/ORD's analyses for a 5% SmartStax seed blend based on the assumption that the insect does not overwinter in the Corn Belt where the blend has been proposed. BPPD is concerned, however, that there could be areas in the southern portion of the Corn Belt where CEW may be able to successfully overwinter, particularly in less severe winters. Such areas may need to be identified because they could contribute to increased selection for CEW resistance to Bt corn (including the proposed 5% SmartStax seed blend).

            Please comment on the assumption that corn earworm does not successfully overwinter in the Corn Belt and poses less of a risk for resistance. If CEW can potentially overwinter in parts of the Corn Belt, should the insect be considered in the analysis of the proposed 5% SmartStax seed blend?

5:30 P.M.	Adjourn

                                    AGENDA
                     FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL (SAP)
	OPEN MEETING

                              December 8-9, 2010

              FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/
                     OPP Docket Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
                     Docket Number: EPA-HQ- OPP-2010-0772

                     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                        Conference Center - Lobby Level
                        One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.)
                  2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202

Scientific Issues Related to Insect Resistance Management for SmartStax(TM) Refuge-in-the-Bag, a Plant-Incorporated Protectant (PIP) Corn Seed Blend

                  Please note that all times are approximate
                      (See note at the end of the Agenda)

		Thursday, December 9, 2010

9:00 A.M.	Opening of Meeting and Administrative Procedures  -
	Sharlene Matten, Ph.D., Designated Federal Official, Office of Science Coordination and Policy, EPA

9:05 A.M.	Introduction and Identification of Panel Members  -
	Steven Heeringa, Ph.D., Chair, FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel

9:10 A.M.	Follow-up from Previous Day's Discussion  -
            Jeannette Martinez, M.S., Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, OPP, EPA

9:30 A.M.	Charge Question 5

            To assess dose expression for corn rootworm (CRW) Bt toxins, the level of survival (adult emergence) is typically compared between artificially infested Bt and non-Bt corn plots. However, density-dependent mortality in non-Bt plots can potentially confound the comparison by reducing overall survival and adult emergence. (Density-dependent mortality is not expected in Bt plots due to effects of the toxin on young larvae.) To account for this effect, the dose calculation can be adjusted by removing density-dependent mortality from the control plots. This effectively increases the dose mortality estimate by raising the number of larvae present in non-Bt plots relative to the surviving larvae in Bt plots.

            For the SmartStax toxins, Dow/Monsanto made a density-dependent adjustment to their dose estimates based on density/survival relationships developed by Onstad et al. (2006). The resulting dose mortality profile was: Cry34/35Ab1 (99.75%), Cry3Bb1 (99.75%), and Cry34/35Ab1/Cry3Bb1 pyramid (99.95%). On the other hand, BPPD has also considered separate work by Hibbard et al. (2010), which suggests that density-dependent mortality occurs at higher egg density levels than those assumed by Dow/Monsanto. In light of this research, BPPD recommended in its 2009 risk assessment of SmartStax that dose should also be evaluated without a density-dependent adjustment. The non-adjusted dose profile for the SmartStax toxin is: Cry34/35Ab1 (94.2%), Cry3Bb1 (97.5%), and Cry34/35Ab1/Cry3Bb1 pyramid (98.2%).

            Please comment on dose estimates for the SmartStax toxins (Cry34/35Ab1 and Cry3Bb1) targeting corn rootworm given the different interpretations of density-dependent mortality.

10:15   A.M.	BREAK

10:30   A.M.	Charge Question 6

	Northern and western corn rootworm studies have shown that male emergence in 5% seed blends can be variable and may be up to 60 times lower compared to emergence in non-Bt plots (Data submitted by Monsanto). This information was not included in any of the models used in the SmartStax seed blend analysis. The SAP (2009) concluded that a reduction in the number of males from Bt seed blends could have a negative impact on the effective refuge. BPPD is concerned with the potentially negative effects a reduction in male emergence might have on product durability.

	Please comment on the potential effects of lowered male emergence of Northern and Western corn rootworm on the durability of the seed blend and whether this information should be incorporated into the risk assessment.

Part B: Modeling of Resistance Evolution

11:15   A.M.	Charge Question 7

	The durability of the proposed 5% SmartStax seed blend strategy was compared to the durability of a 5% structured refuge for lepidoptera and corn rootworm target pests. Monsanto developed a deterministic three locus model for ECB/SWCB and Dow created a stochastic two locus model for CRW. Separate analyses were conducted using EPA/ORD's two locus and three locus deterministic, probabilistic model to estimate the risk of resistance evolution with a 5% seed blend and structured refuge. The applicants and EPA/ORD each made conservative assumptions, though of differing degrees, for parameters determined to be sensitive in the models. For example, more conservative initial resistance allele frequencies and fitness assumptions significantly lowered the time to resistance in EPA/ORD's model for ECB and SWCB. In Monsanto's modeling of ECB and SWCB, a greater degree of dispersal between compliant and non-compliant fields significantly affected the estimated time to resistance.

            Please comment on the appropriateness of the assumptions and inputs used for the following parameters in the Monsanto, Dow, and EPA/ORD models:

                     * Initial resistance allele frequency for single traits Cry1A.105, Cry2Ab2, Cry1F, Cry34/35Ab1, and Cry3Bb1 for all modeled pests;
                     * Survival/fitness for all modeled pests; and
                     * Dispersal for ECB and SWCB as modeled by Monsanto and EPA/ORD.
12:00 P.M.	LUNCH

1:00 P.M.	Charge Question 8

	EPA/ORD encountered challenges in the lepidopteran modeling with partitioning non-multiplicative interactions that occurred between more than two resistance genes since the mortality caused by each locus was not independent. With two gene pyramids this non-additivity can be assigned to the single two locus interaction, but in a three gene pyramid there are three possible two locus interactions. In the absence of data, this non-additivity was partitioned equally among the three two locus interactions. As more than two Bt genes are pyramided, this problem will have to be addressed so that resistance evolution in the target pests to these products can be more accurately simulated.

	Does the Panel have any recommendations for distributing non-multiplicative interactions in models to evaluate multi-gene pyramided products?

2:00 P.M.	Charge Question 9

	Based on a review of the submitted simulation modeling, the preliminary conclusions are:

 1) For CRW, a 5% seed mixture and a 5% structured refuge had comparable durability in both the EPA and Dow models;

 2) For ECB, a 5% seed mixture was less durable than a 5% structured refuge in simulations with EPA's model.  However, ECB resistance did not evolve within 158 generations in any of the simulations with the 5% seed mixture, similar to the level of durability predicted by Monsanto's model. There was no difference in durability between the 5% seed mixture and the 5% structured refuge in Monsanto's model. Resistance did not evolve to either refuge option within 100 generations (the extent to which the model was run);

 3) For SWCB, a 5% seed mixture was less durable (78 generations) than a 5% structured refuge (118 generations) in EPA's model simulations. Conversely, with Monsanto's model there was no difference in the prediction for durability between the 5% seed mixture and the 5% structured refuge. Resistance did not evolve to either refuge option within 100 generations (the limit of the model simulations).

            Please comment on the reliability of the estimates of resistance evolution by each of the three models in light of the biological and parameter uncertainties identified by BPPD.

3:30 P.M.	ADJOURN

Please be advised that agenda times are approximate; when the discussion for one topic is completed, discussions for the next topic will begin.  For further information, please contact the Designated Federal Official for this meeting, Dr. Sharlene Matten, via telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 5 (Wednesday, January 8, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1345-1346]
[FR Doc No: 2014-00114]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0596; Airspace Docket No. 13-ACE-11]

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Holdrege, NE

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class E airspace at Holdrege,
NE. Decommissioning of the Holdrege non-directional radio beacon (NDB)
at Brewster Field Airport has made airspace reconfiguration necessary
for standard instrument approach procedures and for the safety and
management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.
Geographic coordinates also would be adjusted.

DATES: 0901 UTC. Comments must be received on or before February 24,
2014.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. You
must identify the docket number FAA-2013-0596/Airspace Docket No. 13-
ACE-11, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments
through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the
public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any
final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket
Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the
building at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone: (817) 321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2013-0596/
Airspace Docket No. 13-ACE-11.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the Central Service Center, 2601
Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking<PHONE_NUMBER>, to
request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR), Part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface at Brewster Field Airport, Holdrege, NE.,
for standard instrument approach procedures at the airport. Airspace
reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Holdrege
NDB and the cancellation of the NDB approach, thereby removing the 7-
mile segment extending from the 6.6-mile radius of the airport.
Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of IFR
operations at the airport. Geographic coordinates would also be
adjusted to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
    Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order
7400.9X, dated August 7, 2013 and effective September 15, 2013, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in
the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant

regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a
Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since
this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated,
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would amend controlled airspace at Brewster Field Airport,
Holdrege, NE.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

    The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9X,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 7, 2013, and
effective September 15, 2013, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ACE NE E5 Holdrege, NE [Amended]

Holdrege, Brewster Field Airport, NE
    (Lat. 40[deg]27'08'' N., long. 99[deg]20'11'' W.)

Kearney VOR
    (Lat. 40[deg]43'32'' N., long. 99[deg]00'19'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.6-mile radius of Brewster Field Airport, and within 2.6
miles each side of the Kearney VOR 222[deg] radial extending from
the 6.6-mile radius to 11 miles northeast of the airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on December 18, 2013.
David P. Medina,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2014-00114 Filed 1-7-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: June 19, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 119)]
[Notices]
[Page 34923]
[DOCID:fr19jn08-51]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2426-197]

California Department of Water Resources and the City of Los
Angeles; Notice of Availability of Final Environmental Assessment

June 12, 2008.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC)
regulations, 18 CFR Part 380, the Office of Energy Projects staff
(staff) reviewed the application for amendment of project license for
the California Aqueduct Project, located on Piru Creek in California
and prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the project. A draft
EA was prepared and issued for public comment on March 1, 2007. In this
final EA, staff analyzes the potential environmental effects of the
proposed minimum flow modification and concludes that amending the
license as proposed with staff-recommended additional measures would
not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment.
    A copy of the final EA is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room, or it may be viewed on the Commission's Web
site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``e-Library'' link. Enter the
docket number P-2426-197 (excluding the last three digits in the docket
number field) to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-866-208-
3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    You also may register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    For further information, please contact Rebecca Martin by telephone
at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-13810 Filed 6-18-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Memorandum

Subject:		Telephone conversations between Nathan Topham and Counsel for 				Association of Battery Recyclers

Dates:			May 16, 2013; July 24, 2013; September 26, 2013

Telephone conversations took place on May 16, July 24, and September 26 of 2013 between Nathan Topham of USEPA and Mark DeLaquil. Mr. DeLaquil serves as counsel for the Association of Battery Recyclers (ABR) and East Penn.

On the dates listed above, Mr. DeLaquil and Mr. Topham spoke of the status and expected timeline of the anticipated direct final rule in response to ABR's petition for reconsideration.

Additionally, Mr. Topham and Mr. DeLaquil discussed the status and expected timeline of EPA's response to a request for an alternative standard submitted by East Penn.


[Federal Register: November 21, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 224)]
[Notices]
[Page 65574-65576]
[DOCID:fr21no07-54]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1071; FRL-8156-4]

Pesticides; Availability of Updated Schedule for Registration
Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY:  EPA is announcing the availability of an updated schedule for
the pesticide registration review program, the periodic review of all
registered pesticides mandated by section 3(g) of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). This program began
in fiscal year (FY) 2007 after the registration review rule became
effective. Twenty-five pesticides have since entered the registration
review process. This updated schedule provides the timetable for
opening dockets for the next four years of the registration review
program--FY 2008 to 2011--and includes information on the FY 2007
registration review cases.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kennan Garvey, Special Review and
Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
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 hold
pesticide registrations. Pesticide users or other persons interested in
the regulation of the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides may also
be interested in this action. Potentially affected entities may
include, but are not limited to:
     Producers of pesticide products (NAICS code 32532).
     Producers of antifoulant paints (NAICS code 32551).
     Producers of antimicrobial pesticides (NAICS code 32561).
     Producers of nitrogen stabilizer products (NAICS code
32531).
     Producers of wood preservatives (NAICS code 32519).
    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. To determine
whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should
carefully examine the applicability provisions in 40 CFR 155.40 of the
regulatory text of the Federal Register of August 9, 2006 (71 FR 45719)
(FRL-8080-4). 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 Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

    1. Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under
docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1071. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard

copy, at the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal
Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are
from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr.

II. Background

A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA is issuing an updated schedule for the registration review
program, the Agency's periodic review of all registered pesticides
mandated by section 3(g) of FIFRA. This updated schedule provides the
timetable for opening dockets for the next four years of the program--
FY 2008 to 2011. (See the Federal Register of October 11, 2006 (71 FR
59786, FRL-8096-8); http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2006/October/Day-11/p16483.htm
.

    The Pesticide Registration Improvement Act of 2003 was recently
amended and extended. The Act provides for the continuation of annual
pesticide maintenance fees and authorizes their use for registration
review. The Act also requires EPA to complete registration review
decisions by October 1, 2022 for all pesticides registered as of
October 1, 2007. To ensure meeting this requirement, EPA will open
approximately 70 pesticide registration review dockets annually
beginning in fiscal year 2009 and continuing through 2017 so that
almost all currently-registered pesticides have dockets opened by 2017.
Some biopesticide dockets will be opened in 2018 through 2020. The
Agency anticipates that this scheduling will provide adequate lead
times to complete registration review decisions for all currently-
registered pesticides by 2022. For the first several years of the
program, EPA will be developing a pipeline of pesticides under review
so that it will have the capacity to make approximately 70 decisions
each year. EPA expects a total of 722 pesticide cases comprising 1,135
pesticide active ingredients to undergo registration review by 2022.
    Each pesticide's place on the schedule is generally determined by
its baseline date -- the date of its last substantive review -- with
the oldest cases going first. The baseline date for a pesticide that
was subject to reregistration is the date of the Reregistration
Eligibility Decision (RED). The baseline date for pesticides that were
not subject to reregistration is the registration date of the first
product containing the active ingredient. Although the schedule
generally is constructed chronologically, some registration review
cases are grouped in the schedule for greater efficiency. For example,
pesticides that are chemically related or use-related (e.g.,
organophosphate and carbamate chemical classes, the coppers group, and
the pyrethroids, pyrethrins, and syngergists group) generally will be
reviewed during the same time frame.
    Background information on the program is provided at: http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/
.

    An explanation of the schedule is at: http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/explanation.htm
.

    The current schedule is available at: http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/schedule.htm
.

B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

    EPA is announcing this updated schedule for the registration review
program as provided in 40 CFR 155.42(d) and 155.44 of the Procedural
Regulations for Registration Review: Final Rule (http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2006/August/Day-09/p12904.htm
). The Agency may

consider issues raised by the public or registrant when reviewing a
posted schedule, to schedule a pesticide registration review, or to
modify the schedule of a pesticide registration review as appropriate.
This schedule will be updated at least once every year.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and
pests.

    Dated: November 7, 2007.
Peter Caulkins,
Acting Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E7-22382 Filed 11-20-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 76 (Thursday, April 19, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17457-17459]
[FR Doc No: 2018-08157]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83050; File No. SR-GEMX-2018-12]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Codify Within
Rule 718 the Data Feeds on GEMX

April 13, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on April 4, 2018, Nasdaq GEMX, LLC (``GEMX'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to codify within Rule 718, which rule is
currently reserved, the data feeds that are currently offered on GEMX.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://nasdaqgemx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to codify within Rule
718, which rule is currently reserved, the data feeds that are
currently offered on GEMX and previously filed in prior rule changes as
described in more detail below. The Exchange proposes to rename Rule
718 ``Data Feeds'' and list the various data feed offerings within that
rule.
    The Exchange has previously filed a rule change which describes the
various data offerings.\3\ The data offerings contained in that rule
change included: the Nasdaq GEMX Real-time Depth of Market Raw Data
Feed (``Depth of Market Feed''), the Nasdaq GEMX Order Feed (``Order
Feed''), the Nasdaq GEMX Top Quote Feed (``Top Quote Feed''), and the
Nasdaq GEMX Trades Feed (``Trades Feed''). Each of the data offerings
are described in more detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80649 (May 10,
2017), 82 FR 22595 (May 16, 2017) (SR-GEMX-2017-07) (Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Establish INET Ports) (``Prior Filing'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Universal Changes
    The Exchange notes it proposes various universal amendments to its
data feeds for consistency and clarity. References to ``instrument''
will be replaced by the more specific language ``options series.''
Where the Exchange previously referred to ``trading status'' those
words will be replaced with language which specifically explains the
information for status, which is, ``whether the option series is
available for trading on GEMX and identifies if the series is available
for closing transactions only.'' The word ``customer'' will be replaced
with the defined term ``Priority Customer.'' \4\ References to the word
``cumulative,'' when referring to volume, will be replaced with more
specific language namely, ``daily trading,'' to refer to the volume.
These aforementioned amendments are made, where applicable, within the
data feeds described below in more detail. Finally, the Exchange is
adding language in Rule 718(a) to make clear that the data feeds
pertain to GEMX trading information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The term ``Priority Customer'' means a person or entity that
(i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) does not place
more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a
calendar month for its own beneficial account(s). See GEMX Rule
100(a)(41A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Depth of Market Feed
    In a Prior Filing the Exchange described the Depth Feed as
providing aggregate quotes and orders at the top five price levels on
the Exchange, and provides subscribers with a consolidated view of
tradable prices beyond the BBO, showing additional liquidity and
enhancing transparency for GEMX traded options. The data provided for
each instrument includes the symbols (series and underlying security),
put or call indicator, expiration date, the strike price of the series,
and trading status. In addition, subscribers are provided with total
quantity, customer quantity, price, and side (i.e., bid/ask). This
information is provided for each of the five indicated price levels on
the Depth Feed. The feed also provides participants of imbalances on
opening/reopening.
    In codifying the feed description, the Exchange proposes a few
amendments to the description in the Prior Filing in addition to the
universal changes mentioned above. For the Depth of Market Feed, the
Exchange is removing the words ``Real-time'' and ``Raw'' because all
the feeds are real-time and contain raw data. Removing these words
conforms the language of all the feeds. The Exchange proposes to
replace ``Exchange'' with ``GEMX'' for clarity. Also, the Exchange is
expanding the description of total quantity to ``total aggregate
quantity'' including Public Customer \5\ aggregate quantity and
Priority Customer aggregate quantity. The Exchange is amending a
description of the imbalances on opening/reopening to note the
imbalances are order and not participant imbalances. Finally a
typographical error is being amended in the last sentence of this data
feed to remove an extraneous ``of'' in the sentence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``Public Customer'' means a person or entity that
is not a broker or dealer in securities. See Rule 100(a)(42).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Order Feed
    In a Prior Filing the Exchange described the Order Feed as
providing information on new orders resting on the book. In addition,
the feed also announces auctions. The data provided for each instrument
includes the symbols (series and underlying

security), put or call indicator, expiration date, the strike price of
the series, and trading status. The feed also provides participants of
imbalances on opening/reopening.
    In codifying the feed description, the Exchange proposes a few
amendments to the description in the Prior Filing in addition to the
universal changes mentioned above. The Exchange is amending the order
feed to include the word ``all'' before auctions to make clear all
auction information is included. The Exchange is adding examples of the
information provided on new orders resting on the book, e.g. price,
quantity and market participant capacity. The words ``market
participant'' are intended to make clear which capacity is referred to
for the information. The Exchange is amending a description of the
imbalances on opening/reopening to note the imbalances are order and
not participant imbalances. Also, a typographical error is being
amended in the last sentence of this data feed to remove an extraneous
``of'' in the sentence.
Top Quote Feed
    In a Prior Filing the Exchange described the Top Quote Feed as one
that calculates and disseminates its best bid and offer position, with
aggregated size (Total & Customer), based on displayable order and
quote interest in the options market system. The feed also provides
last trade information along with opening price, cumulative volume,
high and low prices for the day. The data provided for each instrument
includes the symbols (series and underlying security), put or call
indicator, expiration date, the strike price of the series, and trading
status.
    In codifying the feed description, the Exchange proposes a few
amendments to the description in the Prior Filing in addition to the
universal changes mentioned above. The Exchange proposes to amend the
Top Quote Feed to make clear that aggregated size included total size,
Public Customer size in the aggregate and also Priority Customer size
in the aggregate. The Exchange is replacing the term ``options market
system'' with the defined term ``System.'' \6\ The Exchange also
proposes to add a sentence, similar to the Depth of Market Feed and
Order Feed which provides ``The feed also provides order imbalances on
opening/reopening.'' This sentence should have been included with this
feed as well. The universal changes described above apply as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Rule 100(a)(53).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trades Feed
    In a Prior Filing the Exchange described the Trades Feed as
displaying last trade information along with opening price, cumulative
volume, high and low prices for the day. The data provided for each
instrument includes the symbols (series and underlying security), put
or call indicator, expiration date, the strike price of the series, and
trading status.
    The Exchange is only amending the description of the Trades Feed as
described in the universal changes.
    The Exchange notes that market participants are charged for
subscriptions to these products.\7\ The Exchange believes that
codifying these data feeds within the Exchange's Rulebook will bring
greater transparency to its Rules as well as the data which is
available on the Exchange. The amendments are also intended to provide
greater clarity and transparency concerning the data offerings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Schedule of Fees, Section V, Market Data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
``Act''),\8\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5)
of the Act,\9\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism for a free and open market and a national market system,
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. By
codifying the various data feed offerings, which have already been
filed for in another rule change,\10\ will bring greater transparency
to the Exchange's Rules. Also, the content of each data feed is
described within the Rule for ease of reference. The Exchange believes
that the proposed rule change is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest as it provides information relating
to the data available on the Exchange for the benefit of its Members
within its Rules and adds greater transparency to these offerings.
Finally, the amendments seeks to add greater clarity to the data
offerings and conform the text of the offerings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \10\ See note 3 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\11\ the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden
on intermarket or intra-market competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The data feed
offerings are available to any market participant. The Exchange's
proposal seeks to codify the data offerings in a rule for ease of
reference and transparency within the Rulebook. The amendments seeks to
add greater clarity to the data offerings and conform the text of the
offerings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

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

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \14\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \15\ permits the Commission to
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange states that
waiving the operative delay will allow it to immediately reflect the
Exchange's data feed offerings within its Rules and bring greater
transparency to these data feed offerings. The Commission believes that
waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection
of investors and the public interest. Therefore, the Commission hereby
waives the operative delay and

designates the proposed rule change as operative upon filing.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \16\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-GEMX-2018-12 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-GEMX-2018-12. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (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 website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-GEMX-2018-12 and should be submitted on
or before May 10, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-08157 Filed 4-18-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P