[Federal Register: August 4, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 150)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 45311-45316]
[DOCID:fr04au08-7]

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

Part III

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 180

Inert Ingredients; Extension of Effective Date of Revocation of Certain
Tolerance Exemptions with Insufficient Data for Reassessment; Final
Rule

Pesticide Inert Ingredients: Status of Revoked Tolerance Exemptions;
Notice

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0230; FRL-8372-7]

Inert Ingredients; Extension of Effective Date of Revocation of
Certain Tolerance Exemptions with Insufficient Data for Reassessment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document moves the effective date of the revocation of
certain inert ingredient tolerance exemptions with insufficient data
for reassessment as set forth in the Federal Register on August 9, 2006
(71 FR 45415).

DATES: In the final rule published August 9, 2006 (71 FR 45421):
    1. The effective date is delayed from August 9, 2008, to August 9,
2009, for the following amendments to Sec.  180.910: 2.a., c., i.
through k., m. through o., s., t., w. through aa., and cc.
    2. The effective date is delayed from August 9, 2008, to August 9,
2009, for the following amendments to Sec.  180.920: 3.a., b., e.
through k., m. through p., s., y., z., bb., cc., ff., gg., ii., ll.
through nn., and ss.
    3. The effective date is delayed from August 9, 2008, to August 9,
2009, for the following amendments to Sec.  180.930: 4.b., c., d., f.,
l., n., o., s. through w., cc., and ee. through jj.
    4. The effective date is delayed from August 9, 2008, to August 9,
2009, for the following amendments to Sec.  180.940: 5.a.i., ii., and
5.c.i., ii., iv., vii., and viii.
    Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before
October 3, 2008, 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-2006-0230. All documents in the
docket are listed in the index for the docket. 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<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Angulo, Registration Division
(7505P), 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. 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. To determine
whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should
carefully examine the applicability provisions in Unit II. If you have
any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

A. Background.

    In a final rule published in the Federal Register on August 9, 2006
(71 FR 45415) (FRL-8084-1), EPA revoked inert ingredient tolerance
exemptions because insufficient data were available to the Agency to
make the safety determination required by FFDCA section 408(c)(2). In
reassessing the safety of the tolerance exemptions, EPA considered the
validity, completeness, and reliability of the data that are available
to the Agency [FFDCA section 408 (b)(2)(D)] and the available
information concerning the special susceptibility of infants and
children (including developmental effects from in utero exposure)
[FFDCA section 408 (b)(2)(C)]. EPA concluded it had insufficient data
to make the safety finding of FFDCA section 408(c)(2) and revoked the
inert ingredient tolerance exemptions identified in the final rule
under 40 CFR 180.910, 180.920, 180.930, and 180.940, with the
revocations effective on August 9, 2008.
    EPA has received communications from pesticide registrants and
inert ingredient manufacturers expressing interest in supporting
certain inert ingredient tolerance exemptions that were revoked in the
final rule of August 9, 2006. EPA developed voluntary guidance
describing how interested parties could support these revoked tolerance
exemptions, including consultations with the Agency about how they can
demonstrate support, identifying test materials, and providing evidence
that a laboratory has been hired to conduct the study. The voluntary
guidance document, entitled ``Guidance for Supporting the Inert
Ingredients Subject to the Revocation Notice of August 9, 2006'', is
available on EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/inerts/.
    In the interest of keeping the stakeholders informed about
activities that may affect these revoked tolerance exemptions, EPA
published the support status of each of the revoked tolerance
exemptions in the Federal Register of November 2, 2007, (72 FR 62232)
(FRL-8155-4), and indicated whether the Agency had received a
demonstration of intent to support (such as described in the guidance
document). Be advised that the information provided in today's notice
or the November 2, 2007 (72 FR 62232) notice on the revoked inert
ingredients does not guarantee or in any way bind the Agency to
reinstate tolerance exemptions or establish new tolerance exemptions.
EPA cannot guarantee that the parties will, in fact, submit any data at
all. Additionally, it is possible that the data submitted to support a
tolerance exemption may not support a safety finding under FFDCA
section 408(c)(2). In these cases, the tolerance exemption will not be
reinstated nor will a new one be established. It is important to note
that several parties have indicated that they may want to support only
a portion of a tolerance exemption expression that includes a range of
chemicals. At this time, EPA does not know exactly what range of
chemicals within a tolerance exemption will eventually be supported by
data. Until the data are submitted and reviewed, EPA will not know what
portion, if any, of a current tolerance

exemption can be reinstated. If the results of the data permit, a
supported exemption may be reinstated in whole, or a new tolerance
exemption may be established if only a part of a revoked exemption is
supported by the data. EPA recommends that registrants relying on the
continued existence of a particular tolerance exemption contact the
chemical's supplier to confirm their plans for supporting the
exemption.

B. Moving the Effective Date of the Revocation for Supported Tolerance
Exemptions

    EPA has received requests for an extension of the revocation date
from pesticide registrants and inert ingredient manufacturers who have
demonstrated their intent to support certain inert ingredient tolerance
exemptions. For each of these supported tolerance exemptions, EPA has
received data development plans and schedules with all data projected
to be submitted by January 2009. EPA has determined that these parties
have shown a good-faith effort to develop studies in a timely manner
and have followed EPA's guidance (see guidance document) describing how
interested parties can support the revoked tolerance exemptions. EPA
recognizes that repeat-dose studies may take about a year to conduct,
and this does not include any preliminary studies that often must be
completed beforehand (e.g., range finding). EPA will then analyze the
submitted data and develop risk assessments prior to making a safety
finding and reinstatement determination. EPA, therefore, concludes that
additional time is necessary for study generation and the development
of EPA's risk assessments, and that the effective date of the
revocation of the supported tolerance exemptions should be moved by one
year to August 9, 2009.
    In addition, two other revoked tolerance exemptions received an
acceptable demonstration of support and the effective date of the
revocation is now August 9, 2009. In the Federal Register on August 9,
2006 (71 FR 45415), the Agency revoked two inert ingredient tolerance
exemptions with insufficient data under 40 CFR part 180. They were
inadvertently removed from the CFR some time ago but are considered to
be active tolerance exemptions subject to reassessment as required by
the FFDCA section 408(q). The effective date of the revocation of the
following two tolerance exemptions is now August 9, 2009: 1. Sec.
180.910: ``[alpha]-Alkyl(C12-C15)-[omega]-
hydroxypoly(oxyethylene) sulfate, ammonium, calcium, magnesium,
potassium, sodium, and zinc salts; the poly(oxyethylene) content
averages 3 moles.'', and 2. Sec.  180.930: ``[alpha]-Alkyl
(C12-C15)-[omega]-hydroxypoly(oxyethylene)
sulfate and its ammonium, calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium, and
zinc salts; the poly(oxyethylene) content averages 3 moles.''
    It is important to note that this action does not move the
effective date of those tolerance exemptions revoked in the Federal
Register on August 9, 2006 (71 FR 45415) for which there has been no
expression of an intent to support. Elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register is a document providing the revocation date of each of
the inert ingredient tolerance exemptions revoked because of
insufficient data on August 9, 2006. Tolerance exemptions with no
expression of an intent to support are revoked as of August 9, 2008.
All commodities containing residues of these revoked inert ingredients
on food are adulterated under FFDCA 408 if the residues are the result
of applications of pesticide products made after August 9, 2008. At
this time, EPA is no longer accepting or processing applications for
registrations for food-use products containing a tolerance exemption
that expires on August 9, 2008 unless accompanied by a petition for a
new tolerance or exemption under the Pesticide Registration Improvement
Renewal Act (PRIA 2), together with all necessary supporting data.
Registrants who submitted a registration application for a food-use
formulation containing an inert ingredient with an expiring tolerance
exemption may submit a new application for registration with only those
inert ingredients that are approved for the label's use sites. If the
registration application is subject to PRIA 2, including registration
applications submitted under PRIA 2 that include a petition for a new
or amended food-use inert ingredient, the following Web site provides
useful information: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/fees/questions/
pria21day_wrksht.pdf. Currently approved food-use inert ingredient
tolerance exemptions are found in 40 CFR part 180 (http://www.epa.gov/
opprd001/inerts/lists.html). Contact EPA's Inert Ingredient Assessment
Branch at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for information about how to establish a
new inert ingredient.

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

    A ``tolerance'' represents the maximum level for residues of
pesticide chemicals legally allowed in or on raw agricultural
commodities and processed foods. Section 408 of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a,
as amended by FQPA, Public Law 104-170, authorizes the establishment of
tolerances, exemptions from tolerance requirements, modifications in
tolerances, and revocation of tolerances for residues of pesticide
chemicals in or on raw agricultural commodities and processed foods.
Without a tolerance or exemption, food containing pesticide residues is
considered to be unsafe and therefore ``adulterated'' under FFDCA
section 402(a), 21 U.S.C. 342(a). Such food may not be distributed in
interstate commerce (21 U.S.C. 331(a)). For a food-use pesticide to be
sold and distributed, the pesticide must not only have appropriate
tolerances under FFDCA, but also must be registered under Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136 et
seq.). Food-use pesticides not registered in the United States must
have tolerances in order for commodities treated with those pesticides
to be imported into the United States. Under FFDCA Section
408(e)(1)(B), 21 U.S.C. 346a(e)(1)(B), EPA may take action
establishing, modifying, suspending or revoking a tolerance exemption.

III. Delayed Effective Date for Certain Tolerance Exemptions

    The amendatory designations listed in this unit are reprinted from
the final rule published in the Federal Register issue of August 9,
2006 (71 FR 45415) for the convenience of the user. The structure
mirrors the amendatory designations in the original document. The
asterisks represent those amendatory designations that go into effect
August 9, 2008. The amendatory designations shown are those with the
effective date delayed until August 9, 2009.

Section 180.910

* * * * *
    a. [alpha]-Alkyl (C9-C18-[omega]-
hydroxypoly(oxyethylene) with poly(oxyethylene) content of 2-30 moles.
* * * * *
    c. [alpha]-Alkyl (C6-C14)-[omega]-
hydroxypoly(oxypropylene) block copolymer with polyoxyethylene;
polyoxypropylene content is 1-3 moles; polyoxyethylene content is 4-12
moles; average molecular weight (in amu) is approximately 635.
* * * * *
    i. Ethylene oxide adducts of 2,4,7,9-tetramethyl-5-decynediol, the
ethylene oxide content averages 3.5, 10, or 30 moles.

    j. [alpha]-Lauryl-[omega]-hydroxypoly(oxyethylene), average
molecular weight (in amu) of 600.
    k. [alpha]-Lauryl-[omega]-hydroxypoly(oxyethylene) sulfate, sodium
salt; the poly(oxyethylene) content is 3-4 moles.
* * * * *
    m. [alpha]-(p-Nonylphenyl)-[omega]-hydroxypoly(oxyethylene) mixture
of dihydrogen phosphate and monohydrogen phosphate esters and the
corresponding ammonium, calcium, magnesium, monoethanolamine,
potassium, sodium, and zinc salts of the phosphate esters; the nonyl
group is a propylene trimer isomer and the poly (oxyethylene) content
averages 4-14 moles or 30 moles.
    n. [alpha]-(p-Nonylphenyl)-[omega]-hydroxypoly(oxyethylene)
sulfate, ammonium, calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium, and zinc
salts; the nonyl group is a propylene trimer isomer and the
poly(oxyethylene) content averages 4 moles.
    o. Polyglyceryl phthalate ester of coconut oil fatty acids.
* * * * *
    s. Sodium diisobutylnaphthalenesulfonate.
    t. Sodium dodecylphenoxybenzenedisulfonate.
* * * * *
    w. Sodium monoalkyl and dialkyl (C8-C16)
phenoxybenzenedisulfonate mixtures containing not less than 70% of the
monoalkylated product.
    x. Sodium mono- and dimethylnaphthalenesulfonates, molecular weight
(in amu) 245-260.
    y. Sodium mono-, di-, and tributyl naphthalenesulfonates.
    z. Sodium mono-, di-, and triisopropyl naphthalenesulfonate.
    aa. Sodium N-oleoyl-N-methyltaurine.
* * * * *
    cc. [alpha]-[p-(1,1,3,3-Tetramethylbutyl)phenyl]-[omega]-
hydroxypoly(oxyethylene) produced by the condensation of 1 mole of p-
(1,1,3,3-tetramethylbutyl)phenol with a range of 1-14 or 30-70 moles of
ethylene oxide: if a blend of products is used, the average range
number of moles of ethylene oxide reacted to produce any product that
is a component of the blend shall be in the range of 1-14 or 30-70.
* * * * *

Section 180.920

* * * * *
    a. [alpha]-Alkyl (C12-C18)-[omega]-
hydroxypoly(oxyethylene) copolymers with poly(oxypropylene);
polyoxyethylene content averages 3-12 moles and polyoxypropylene
content 2-9 moles.
    b. [alpha]-Alkyl (C10-C16)-[omega]-
hydroxypoly(oxyethylene) mixture of dihydrogen phosphate and
monohydrogen phosphate esters and the corresponding ammonium, calcium,
magnesium, monoethanolamine, potassium, sodium, and zinc salts of the
phosphate esters; the poly(oxyethylene) content averages 3-20 moles.
* * * * *
    e. [alpha]-Alkyl(C12-C18)-[omega]-hydroxypoly
(oxyethylene/oxypropylene) hetero polymer in which the oxyethylene
content averages 13-17 moles and the oxypropylene content averages 2-6
moles.
    f. [alpha]-Alkyl (C10-C16)-[omega]-
hydroxypoly(oxyethylene)poly(oxypropylene) mixture of di- and
monohydrogen phosphate esters and the corresponding ammonium, calcium,
magnesium, monoethanolamine, potassium, sodium, and zinc salts of the
phosphate esters; the combined poly(oxyethylene) poly(oxypropylene)
content averages 3-20 moles.
    g. [alpha]-Alkyl (C12-C18)-[omega]-
hydroxypoly(oxyethylene/oxypropylene) hetero polymer in which the
oxyethylene content is 8-12 moles and the oxypropylene content is 3-7
moles.
    h. [alpha]-Alkyl (C12-C15)-[omega]-
hydroxypoly(oxyethylene/oxypropylene) hetero polymer in which the
oxyethylene content is 8-13 moles and the oxypropylene content is 7-30
moles.
    i. [alpha]-Alkyl (C21-C71)-[omega]-
hydroxypoly (oxyethylene) in which the poly(oxyethylene) content is 2
to 91 moles and molecular weight range from 390 to 5,000.
    j. n-Alkyl(C8-C18)amine acetate.
    k. Amine salts of alkyl (C8-C24)
benzenesulfonic acid (butylamine, dimethylaminopropylamine, mono- and
diisopropylamine, mono- , di- , and triethanolamine).
* * * * *
    m. N,N-Bis[[alpha]-ethyl-[omega]-hydroxypoly(oxyethylene)
alkylamine; the poly(oxyethylene) content averages 3 moles; the alkyl
groups (C14-C18) are derived from tallow, or from
soybean or cottonseed oil acids.
    n. N,N-Bis(2-hydroxyethyl)alkylamine, where the alkyl groups
(C8-C18) are derived from coconut, cottonseed,
soya, or tallow acids.
    o. N,N-Bis 2-([omega]-hydroxypolyoxyethylene) ethyl) alkylamine;
the reaction product of 1 mole N,N-bis(2-hydroxyethyl)alkylamine and 3-
60 moles of ethylene oxide, where the alkyl group (C8-
C18) is derived from coconut, cottonseed, soya, or tallow
acids.
    p. N,N-Bis-2-([omega]-hydroxypolyoxyethylene/polyoxypropylene)
ethyl alkylamine; the reaction product of 1 mole of N,N-bis(2-
hydroxyethyl alkylamine) and 3-60 moles of ethylene oxide and propylene
oxide, where the alkyl group (C8-C18) is derived
from coconut, cottonseed, soya, or tallow acids.
* * * * *
    s. [alpha]-(Di-sec-butyl)phenylpoly(oxypropylene) block polymer
with poly(oxyethylene); the poly(oxypropylene) content averages 4
moles, the poly(oxyethylene) content averages 5 to 12 moles, the
molecular.
* * * * *
    y. Linoleic diethanolamide (CAS Reg. No. 56863-02-6).
    z. Methyl bis(2-hydroxyethyl)alkyl ammonium chloride, where the
carbon chain (C8-C18) is derived from coconut,
cottonseed, soya, or tallow acids.
* * * * *
    bb. Methylnaphthalenesulfonic acid--formaldehyde condensate, sodium
salt.
    cc. Methyl poly(oxyethylene) alkyl ammonium chloride, where the
poly(oxyethylene) content is 3-15 moles and the alkyl group
(C8-C18) is derived from coconut, cottonseed,
soya, or tallow acids.
* * * * *
    ff. Naphthalenesulfonic acid-formaldehyde condensate, ammonium and
sodium salts.
    gg. Partial sodium salt of N-lauryl-[alpha]-iminodipropionic acid.
* * * * *
    ii. Primary n-alkylamines, where the alkyl group (C8-
C18) is derived from coconut, cottonseed, soya, or tallow
acids.
* * * * *
    ll. Sodium 1,4-dihexyl sulfosuccinate.
    mm. Sodium 1,4-diisobutyl sulfosuccinate.
    nn. Sodium 1,4-dipentyl sulfosuccinate.
* * * * *
    ss. N,N,N',N''-Tetrakis-(2-hydroxypropyl) ethylenediamine.
* * * * *

Section 180.930

* * * * *
    b. [alpha]-Alkyl (C12-C15)-[omega]-
hydroxypoly(oxyethylene/oxypropylene) hetero polymer in which the
oxyethylene content is 8-13 moles and the oxypropylene content is 7-30
moles.
    c. [alpha]-Alkyl (C8-C10)
hydroxypoly(oxypropylene) block

polymer with polyoxyethylene; polyoxypropylene content averages 3 moles
and polyoxyethylene content averages 5-12 moles.
    d. [alpha]-Alkyl (C6-C14)-[omega]-
hydroxypoly(oxypropylene) block copolymer with polyoxyethylene;
polyoxypropylene content is 1-3 moles; polyoxyethylene content is 7-9
moles; average molecular weight (in amu) approximately 635.
* * * * *
    f. Amine salts of alkyl (C8-C24)
benzenesulfonic acid (butylamine; dimethylamino propylamine; mono- and
diisopropyl- amine; and mono- , di-, and triethanolamine).
* * * * *
    l. Ethylene oxide adducts of 2,4,7,9-tetramethyl-5-decynediol, the
ethylene oxide content averages 3.5, 10, or 30 moles.
* * * * *
    n. [alpha]-Lauryl-[omega]-hydroxypoly(oxyethylene), average
molecular weight (in amu) of 600.
    o. [alpha]-Lauryl-[omega]-hydroxypoly(oxyethylene), sulfate, sodium
salt; the poly(oxyethylene) content is 3-4 moles.
* * * * *
    s. Naphthalenesulfonic acid and its sodium salt.
    t. [alpha]-(p-Nonylphenyl)-[omega]-hydroxypoly(oxyethylene) mixture
of dihydrogen phosphate and monohydrogen phosphate esters and the
corresponding ammonium, calcium, magnesium, monoethanolamine,
potassium, sodium, and zinc salts of the phosphate esters; the nonyl
group is a propylene trimer isomer and the poly(oxyethylene) content
averages 4-14 moles.
    u. [alpha]-(p-Nonylphenyl)-[omega]-hydroxypoly(oxyethylene)
sulfate, and its ammonium, calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium, and
zinc salts; the nonyl group is a propylene trimer isomer and the
poly(oxyethylene) content averages 4 moles.
    v. [alpha]-(p-Nonylphenyl)-[omega]-hydroxypoly(oxyethylene)
sulfate, and its ammonium, calcium, magnesium, monoethanolamine,
potassium, sodium, and zinc salts; the nonyl group is a propylene
trimer isomer and the poly(oxyethylene) content averages 4-14 or 30-90
moles of ethyiene oxide.
    w. Polyglyceryl phthalate esters of coconut oil fatty acids.
* * * * *
    cc. Sodium diisobutylnaphthalenesulfonate.
* * * * *
    ee. Sodium isopropylnaphthalenesulfonate.
    ff. Sodium monoalkyl and diakyl (C8-C13)
phenoxybenzenedisulfonate mixtures containing not less than 70% of the
monoalkylated product.
    gg. Sodium mono- and dimethylnaphthalenesulfonate, molecular weight
(in amu) 245-260.
    hh. Sodium mono-, di-, and tributylnaphthalenesulfonates.
    ii. Sodium N-oleoyl-N-methyl taurine.
    jj. [alpha]-[p-(1,1,3,3-Tetramethylbutyl)phenyl]-[omega]-
hydroxypoly(oxyethylene) produced by the condensation of 1 mole of p
(1,1,3,3-tetramethylbutyl)phenol with a range of 1-14 or 30-70 moles of
ethylene oxide: if a blend of products is used, the average range
number of moles of ethylene oxide reacted to produce any product that
is a component of the blend shall be in the range of 1-14 or 30-70.
* * * * *

Paragraph (a) to Section 180.940

* * * * *
    i. [alpha]-Alkyl(C10-C14)-[omega]-
hydroxypoly (oxyethylene) poly(oxypropylene) average molecular weight
(in amu), 768 to 837.
    ii. [alpha]-Alkyl(C12-C18)-[omega]
hydroxypoly (oxyethylene) poly(oxypropylene) average molecular weight
(in amu), 950 to 1120.
* * * * *

Paragraph (c) to Section 180.940

* * * * *
    i. [alpha]-Alkyl(C10-C14)-[omega]-hydroxypoly
(oxyethylene) poly (oxypropylene) average molecular weight (in amu),
768 to 837.
    ii. [alpha]-Alkyl(C11-C15)-[omega]-
hydroxypoly (oxyethylene) with ethylene oxide content 9 to 13 moles.
* * * * *
    iv. [alpha]-Alkyl(C12-C18)-[omega]-
hydroxypoly (oxyethylene) poly(oxypropylene) average molecular weight
(in amu), 950 to 1120.
* * * * *
    vii. Naphthalene sulfonic acid sodium salt, and its methyl,
dimethyl and trimethyl derivatives.
    viii. Naphthalene sulfonic acid sodium salt, and its methyl,
dimethyl and trimethyl derivatives alkylated at 3% by weight with
C6-C9 linear olefins.
* * * * *

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This rule changes the effective date of the revocation of certain
tolerance exemptions under section 408(d) of FFDCA. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted tolerance exemption actions
from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning
and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of
significance, this rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This rule does not
contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., or 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). 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); or OMB review or any Agency action under Executive
Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). 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).
    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq), the Agency hereby certifies that this action will not have a
significant negative economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The factual basis for this certification is included in Unit
II.B.8.
    In addition, the Agency has determined that this action will not
have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an
accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various

levels of government.'' This rule directly regulates growers, food
processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States. This action
does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency has
determined that this rule does not have any ``tribal implications'' as
described in Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 6,
2000). Executive Order 13175 requires EPA to develop an accountable
process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in
the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.''
``Policies that have tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive
order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.''
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on tribal
governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this rule.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: July 23, 2008.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, 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.

Sec.  180.910  [Amended]

0
2. In the final rule published August 9, 2006 (71 FR 45421), the
effective date is delayed from August 9, 2008, to August 9, 2009, for
the following amendments to Sec.  180.910: 2.a., c., i. through k., m.
through o., s., t., w. through aa., and cc.

Sec.  180.920  [Amended]

0
3. In the final rule published August 9, 2006 (71 FR 45421), the
effective date is delayed from August 9, 2008, to August 9, 2009, for
the following amendments to Sec.  180.920: 3.a., b., e. through k., m.
through p., s., y., z., bb., cc., ff., gg., ii., ll. through nn., and
ss.

Sec.  180.930  [Amended]

0
4. In the final rule published August 9, 2006 (71 FR 45421), the
effective date is delayed from August 9, 2008, to August 9, 2009, for
the following amendments to Sec.  180.930: 4.b., c., d., f., l., n.,
o., s. through w., cc., and ee. through jj.

Sec.  180.940  [Amended]

0
5. In the final rule published August 9, 2006 (71 FR 45421), the
effective date is delayed from August 9, 2008, to August 9, 2009, for
the following amendments in paragraph (a) to Sec.  180.940: 5.a.i. and
ii.
0
6. In the final rule published August 9, 2006 (71 FR 45421), the
effective date is delayed from August 9, 2008, to August 9, 2009, for
the following amendments in paragraph (c) to Sec.  180.940: 5.c.i.,
ii., iv., vii. and viii.

[FR Doc. E8-17458 Filed 8-1-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 92 (Friday, May 11, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27757-27758]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11361]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13305-004]

Whitestone Power and Communications; Notice of Application
Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests,
Ready for Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Comments,
Recommendations, Terms and Conditions, and Fishway Prescriptions, and
Waiving the Timing Requirement for Filing Competing Development
Applications

    Take notice that the following hydrokinetic pilot project license
application has been filed with the Commission and is available for
public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Pilot Project License.
    b. Project No.: 13305-004.
    c. Date filed: April 17, 2012.
    d. Applicant: Whitestone Power and Communications.
    e. Name of Project: Whitestone Poncelet River-In-Stream-Energy-
Conversion Project (also known as the Microturbine Hydrokinetic River-
In-Stream-Energy-Conversion Project)
    f. Location: The proposed project would be located on the Tanana
River near Delta Junction, Alaska. The project does not affect federal
lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 USC 791a-828c.
    h. Applicant Contact: Steven M. Selvaggio, Whitestone Power and
Communications, P.O. Box 1630, Delta Junction, Alaska 99737; phone:
(907) 895-4938.
    i. FERC Contact: Dianne Rodman, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, and email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests, comments,
recommendations, terms and conditions, and fishway prescriptions: 30
days from the issuance of this notice; reply comments are due 60 days
from the issuance date of this notice.
    Motions to intervene, protests, comments, recommendations, terms
and conditions, and fishway prescriptions may be filed electronically
via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions
on the Commission's Web site 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>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
(202) 502-8659. Although the Commission strongly encourages electronic
filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file, mail an
original and seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person on the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. This application has been accepted for filing and is now ready
for environmental analysis.
    l. Project Description: The project would consist of: (1) A 12-
foot-wide, 16-foot-diameter Poncelet undershot water wheel; (2) a 34-
foot-long, 19- to 24-foot-wide aluminum-frame floatation platform
mounted on a 34-foot-long, 3.5-foot-diameter high-density-polyethylene
(HDPE) pontoon and a 34-foot-long, 3-foot-diameter HDPE pontoon; (3) a
100-kilowatt turbine/generator unit; (4) a 33-foot-long, 3.5-foot-wide
gangway from the shore to the floating pontoon; (5) three anchoring
cables to secure the floatation platform to the shore, comprising a 30-
foot-long primary safety tether, a 117-foot-long primary cable, and a
100-foot-long secondary cable; (6) an approximately 900-foot-long
transmission cable from the floatation platform to an existing Golden
Valley Electric Association distribution line; and (7) appurtenant
facilities. The project is anticipated to operate from April until
October, with an estimated annual generation of 200 megawatt-hours.
    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at

http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support. A
copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address
in item h above.
    Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    n. Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene
in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure,
18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to
take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments
filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with
the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any
comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or
before the specified comment date for the particular application.
    All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title
``PROTEST,'' ``MOTION TO INTERVENE,'' ``COMMENTS,'' ``REPLY COMMENTS,''
``RECOMMENDATIONS,'' ``TERMS AND CONDITIONS,'' or ``FISHWAY
PRESCRIPTIONS;'' (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant
and the project number of the application to which the filing responds;
(3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person
protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments,
recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must set forth
their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of
18 CFR 4.34(b) except to the extent that this notice establishes
deadlines different from those in the regulation. Agencies may obtain
copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any
protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative
of the applicant specified in the particular application. A copy of all
other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by
proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by
the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b)
and 385.2010.
    o. Procedural Schedule:
    The application will be processed according to the following Hydro
Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made as
appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filing of recommendations, terms and     June 1, 2012.
 conditions, and fishway prescriptions.
Commission issues Single Environmental   July 31, 2012.
 Assessment (EA).
Comments on EA.........................  August 30, 2012.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    p. Waiver of deadline to file competing applications filed pursuant
to a notice of intent:
    Any qualified applicant desiring to file a competing application
must submit to the Commission, on or before the specified intervention
deadline date, a competing development application or a notice of
intent to file such an application. Section 4.36(b)(2) of the
Commission's regulations, which allows 120 days from the specified
intervention deadline date for interested parties to file competing
development applications in which timely notices of intent have been
submitted, is hereby waived. Due to the expedited nature of the pilot
project licensing procedures, the submission of a timely notice of
intent will instead allow an interested person to file the competing
development application no later than 30 days after the specified
intervention deadline date. Applications for preliminary permits will
not be accepted in response to this notice.
    A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address,
and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an
unequivocal statement of intent to submit a development application. A
notice of intent must be served on the applicant named in this public
notice.

    Dated: May 2, 2012.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-11361 Filed 5-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 105 (Monday, June 1, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33231-33234]
[FR Doc No: 2020-11646]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88939; File No. SR-ISE-2020-20]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Exchange's Pricing Schedule at Options 7

May 26, 2020.
    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 May 11, 2020, Nasdaq ISE, LLC (``ISE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed
rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been
prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's Pricing Schedule at
Options 7, as described further below.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://ise.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal office of
the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Pricing Schedule at Options 7
to: (i) Adjust the Market Maker Plus regular maker rebate for SPY, QQQ,
and IWM, and (ii) modify its QCC and Solicitation Rebate program. The
Exchange has designated the proposed pricing changes to be operative on
May 1, 2020. Each change is described below.
    ISE initially filed the proposed rule change on April 30, 2020 (SR-
ISE-2020-19). On May 11, 2020, ISE withdrew that filing and submitted
this this filing.
Market Maker Plus
    The Exchange currently operates a Market Maker Plus program for
regular orders in Select \3\ and Non-Select Symbols,\4\ which provides
tiered incentives to Market Makers \5\ based on the percentage of time
spent quoting at the national best bid or offer (``NBBO'').\6\ Market
Makers that qualify for this program will not pay the maker fee of
$0.11 per contract (in Select Symbols) or $0.70 (in Non-Select
Symbols), and will instead receive incentives based on the applicable
Market Maker Plus Tier for which they qualify. Market Makers are
evaluated each trading day for the percentage of time spent on the NBBO
for qualifying series that expire in two successive thirty calendar day
periods beginning on that trading day.\7\ A Market Maker Plus is a
Market Maker who is on the NBBO a specified percentage of the time on
average for the month based on daily performance in the qualifying
series for each of the two successive periods described above. If a
Market Maker would qualify for a different Market Maker Plus tier in
each of the two successive periods described above, then the lower of
the two Market Maker Plus tier fees or rebates would apply to all
contracts.\8\ A Market Maker's worst quoting day each month for each of
the two successive periods described above, on a per symbol basis, is
excluded in calculating whether a Market Maker qualifies for this
incentive.\9\ These general qualification requirements will remain
unchanged with the modifications to the applicable Market Maker Plus
incentives described herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Select Symbols'' are options overlying all symbols listed
on the Exchange that are in the Penny Pilot Program.
    \4\ ``Non-Select Symbols'' are options overlying all symbols
except Select Symbols.
    \5\ The term ``Market Makers'' refers to ``Competitive Market
Makers'' and ``Primary Market Makers'' collectively. See Options 1,
Section 1(a)(21).
    \6\ See Options 7, Section 3, note 5.
    \7\ Qualifying series are series trading between $0.03 and $3.00
(for options whose underlying stock's previous trading day's last
sale price was less than or equal to $100) and between $0.10 and
$3.00 (for options whose underlying stock's previous trading day's
last sale price was greater than $100) in premium.
    \8\ Market Makers may enter quotes in a symbol using one or more
unique, exchange assigned identifiers--i.e., badge/suffix
combinations. Market Maker Plus status is calculated independently
based on quotes entered in a symbol for each of the Market Maker's
badge/suffix combinations, and the highest tier achieved for any
badge/suffix combination quoting that symbol applies to executions
across all badge/suffix combinations that the member uses to trade
in that symbol. Only badge/suffix combinations quoting a minimum of
ten trading days within the month is used to determine whether the
Market Maker Plus status has been met and the specific tier to be
applied to the Market Maker's performance for that month.
    \9\ A Market Maker who qualifies for Market Maker Plus Tiers 2
or higher in at least four of the previous six months will be
eligible to receive a reduced Tier 2 incentive in a given month
where the Market Maker does not qualify for any Market Maker Plus
tiers. For Select Symbols, this rebate is the applicable Tier 2
rebate reduced by $0.08 per contract. For Non-Select Symbols, this
fee is the Tier 2 fee increased by $0.08 per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For SPY, QQQ, and IWM, the Exchange currently provides the below
maker rebates based on the applicable Market Maker Plus tier for which
the Market Maker qualifies.

                            SPY, QQQ, and IWM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Market maker plus tier (specified      Regular maker   Linked maker
               percentage)                    rebate          rebate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1..................................         ($0.00)             N/A
(70% to less than 80%)..................
Tier 2 (80% to less than 85%)...........         ($0.18)         ($0.15)

Tier 3 (85% to less than 90%)...........         ($0.22)         ($0.19)
Tier 4 (90% or greater).................         ($0.26)         ($0.23)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to replace Market Maker Plus Tier 1 with
new Tier 1a and Tier 1b. As proposed, the Market Maker Plus Tier
qualification requirements and associated incentive will be as follows:
(1) 50% to less than 65% to qualify for the $0.00 per contract Tier 1a
regular maker rebate (i.e., free executions instead of paying the $0.11
per contract maker fee), and (2) 65% to less than 80% to qualify for
the $0.05 per contract Tier 1b regular maker rebate. Current Market
Maker Plus Tiers 2-4 as set forth above and the associated maker
rebates will remain unchanged under this proposal. In addition, the
Exchange will not offer any linked maker rebates for proposed Tiers 1a
and 1b.
    The proposed changes are intended to fortify Market Maker
participation in the Exchange's Market Maker Plus program for SPY, QQQ,
and IWM. By lowering the percentage of time required to be spent
quoting at the NBBO that is necessary to qualify for the $0.00 and
$0.05 per contract regular maker rebates in Tier 1a and Tier 1b,
respectively, the Exchange seeks to make it easier for Market Makers to
qualify as Market Maker Plus in SPY, QQQ, and IWM, and to better enable
existing Market Maker Plus participants to maintain their
qualifications as such. By fortifying participation in this program,
the Exchange believes that the proposed changes will continue to
encourage Market Makers to post quality markets in SPY, QQQ, and IWM,
thereby improving trading conditions for all market participants
through narrower bid-ask spreads and increased depth of liquidity
available at the inside market.
QCC and Solicitation Rebate
    Currently, Members using the Qualified Contingent Cross (``QCC'')
\10\ and/or other solicited crossing orders, including solicited orders
executed in the Solicitation,\11\ Facilitation \12\ or Price
Improvement Mechanisms (``PIM''),\13\ receive rebates for each
originating contract side in all symbols traded on the Exchange.\14\
Once a Member reaches a certain volume threshold in QCC orders and/or
other solicited crossing orders during a month, the Exchange provides
rebates to that Member for all of its QCC and solicited crossing order
traded contracts for that month. The applicable rebates are applied on
QCC and solicited crossing order traded contracts once the volume
threshold is met. Members receive the rebate for all QCC and/or other
solicited crossing orders except for QCC and solicited orders between
two Priority Customers,\15\ which do not receive any rebate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ A QCC Order is comprised of an originating order to buy or
sell at least 1000 contracts that is identified as being part of a
qualified contingent trade, as that term is defined in Supplementary
Material .01 to Options 3, Section 7, coupled with a contra-side
order or orders totaling an equal number of contracts. See Options
3, Section 7(j).
    \11\ The Solicited Order Mechanism is a process by which an
Electronic Access Member (``EAM'') can attempt to execute orders of
500 or more contracts it represents as agent against contra orders
that it solicited. Each order entered into the Solicited Order
Mechanism shall be designated as all-or-none. See Options 3, Section
11(d).
    \12\ The Facilitation Mechanism is a process by which an EAM can
execute a transaction wherein the EAM seeks to facilitate a block-
size order it represents as agent, and/or a transaction wherein the
EAM solicited interest to execute against a block-size order it
represents as agent. See Options 3, Section 11(b).
    \13\ The PIM is a process by which an EAM can provide price
improvement opportunities for a transaction wherein the EAM seeks to
facilitate an order it represents as agent, and/or a transaction
wherein the EAM solicited interest to execute against an order it
represents as agent. See Options 3, Section 13.
    \14\ See Options 7, Section 6.A.
    \15\ A ``Priority Customer'' is a person or entity that is not a
broker/dealer in securities, and does not place more than 390 orders
in listed options per day on average during a calendar month for its
own beneficial account(s), as defined in Options 1, Section
1(a)(37).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this time, the Exchange proposes to no longer provide the QCC
and Solicitation Rebate to solicited orders executed in PIM. The
Exchange has observed that few members have received this rebate, with
little associated volume.\16\ To effect this change, the Exchange
proposes to remove the reference to PIM in Section 6.A. In addition,
the Exchange proposes to add a new defined term ``Solicited Orders,''
which will encompass QCC orders and/or other solicited orders executed
in the Solicitation and Facilitation Mechanisms, and use this defined
term throughout Section 6.A to make clear what types of solicited
crossing orders will qualify the Member for the QCC and Solicitation
Rebate. The volume thresholds and applicable rebates will remain
unchanged under this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ For example, of the contract sides that qualified for the
QCC and Solicitation Rebate in March 2020, less than 1% of that
volume represented solicited PIM orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\17\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\18\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any
facility, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposed changes to its Pricing Schedule are
reasonable in several respects. As a threshold matter, the Exchange is
subject to significant competitive forces in the market for options
securities transaction services that constrain its pricing
determinations in that market. The fact that this market is competitive
has long been recognized by the courts. In NetCoalition v. Securities
and Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit stated as follows: ``[n]o one
disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC
explained, ,`[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers
of securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing
agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for
execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share
percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly,
regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker
dealers' . . . .'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (DC Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities

markets. In Regulation NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve
the current market model, the Commission highlighted the importance of
market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also,
recognized that current regulation of the market system ``has been
remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader
forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005),
70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Numerous indicia demonstrate the competitive nature of this market.
For example, clear substitutes to the Exchange exist in the market for
options security transaction services. The Exchange is only one of
sixteen options exchanges to which market participants may direct their
order flow. Within this environment, market participants can freely and
often do shift their order flow among the Exchange and competing venues
in response to changes in their respective pricing schedules. As such,
the proposal represents a reasonable attempt by the Exchange to
increase its liquidity and market share relative to its competitors.
Market Maker Plus
    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to its Market Maker
Plus program for SPY, QQQ, and IWM are reasonable and equitable for
several reasons. As noted above, the Exchange's proposal is intended to
fortify participation in this program and improve market quality on
ISE. The Exchange's proposal to lower the required percentage of time
spent at the NBBO to qualify for Market Maker Plus Tiers 1a and 1b will
improve the overall incentive to Market Makers to participate in this
program by making it easier for Market Makers to qualify for Market
Maker Plus in SPY, QQQ, and IWM. By broadening the Market Maker Plus in
this manner, the Exchange will encourage new participants in the
program and help ensure that existing Market Maker Plus participants
continue to qualify as such.
    The Exchange will apply the proposed changes to SPY, QQQ, and IWM
as they are three of the most actively traded symbols on ISE, and the
Exchange therefore believes that incentivizing liquidity in these three
names will have a significant and beneficial impact on market quality
on the Exchange. Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed Tier
1a and Tier 1b qualifications for SPY, QQQ, and IWM will continue to
require Market Makers to quote at the NBBO for a significant percentage
of time in order to glean the benefits of the associated
incentives.\21\ For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that
its proposal will further encourage Market Makers to maintain tight
markets in SPY, QQQ, and IWM, thereby increasing liquidity and
attracting additional order flow to the Exchange, which will benefit
all market participants in the quality of order interaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ As proposed, a Market Maker would need to be on the NBBO
50% to less than 65% of the time to qualify for the Tier 1a rebate
of $0.00, and 65% to less than 80% of the time for the Tier 1b
rebate of $0.05.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed changes to the Market
Maker Plus program for SPY, QQQ, and IWM are not unfairly
discriminatory as all Market Makers can qualify for this program by
meeting the requirements that are designed to incentivize Market Makers
to maintain quality markets. In addition, the Exchange continues to
believe that it is not unfairly discriminatory to offer rebates under
this program to only Market Makers. Market Makers, and in particular,
those Market Makers that participate in the Market Maker Plus program
and achieve Market Maker Plus status, add value through continuous
quoting and are subject to additional requirements and obligations
(such as quoting obligations) that other market participants are not.
QCC and Solicitation Rebate
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to no longer provide
the QCC and Solicitation Rebate to solicited orders executed in PIM. As
noted above, few Members have received this rebate for solicited PIM
orders, and related volume is low.\22\ As such, the Exchange believes
that the proposed elimination will have minimal impact on Members.
Furthermore, the Exchange notes that it already offers competitive
pricing for PIM orders. For instance, the Exchange currently assesses a
fee of $0.10 per contract for regular and complex PIM orders to all
market participants (other than Priority Customers for which the
Exchange currently charges no fee), which is significantly lower than
the Exchange's other transaction fees, including the fees assessed to
other Crossing Orders.\23\ Furthermore, this $0.10 per contract fee may
be further reduced if the non-Priority Customer executes a certain ADV
threshold in PIM in a given month.\24\ Accordingly, the Exchange
believes that its pricing structure for PIM, with the proposed changes,
will continue to encourage market participant PIM activity, including
solicited PIM activity, and will streamline its PIM incentive
structure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See supra note 16.
    \23\ A ``Crossing Order'' is an order executed in the Exchange's
Facilitation Mechanism, Solicited Order Mechanism, PIM or submitted
as a QCC order. For purposes of this Pricing Schedule, orders
executed in the Block Order Mechanism are also considered Crossing
Orders. Today, the Exchange charges all non-Priority Customers a
$0.20 per contract fee for regular and complex Crossing Orders
except PIM orders. Priority Customers are not charged Crossing Order
fees. See Options 7, Section 3 and Section 4.
    \24\ See Options 7, Section 3, note 13 (setting forth discounted
PIM fees for regular orders) and Section 4, note 9 (setting forth
discounted PIM fees for complex orders).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that its proposal is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because with the proposed changes, no market
participant will receive the rebate for solicited PIM orders.
Accordingly, the Exchange's proposal will apply uniformly to all market
participants.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
    In terms of intra-market competition, the Exchange does not believe
that its proposal will place any category of Exchange market
participant at a competitive disadvantage. The proposed changes to the
Market Maker Plus program for SPY, QQQ, and IWM are intended to improve
market quality by fortifying and encouraging participation in this
program. As discussed above, the Exchange believes that its proposal
will encourage all Market Makers to improve market quality by providing
significant quoting at the NBBO in SPY, QQQ, and IWM, which in turn
improves trading conditions for all market participants through
narrower bid-ask spreads and increased depth of liquidity available at
the inside market, thereby attracting additional order flow to the
Exchange. As it relates to the proposed elimination of the rebate for
solicited PIM orders, the Exchange believes that its proposal will
continue to encourage market participant activity in PIM given the
Exchange's competitive PIM pricing structure, as discussed above.
Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes will
continue to attract order flow to the Exchange, thereby encouraging
additional volume and liquidity to the benefit of all market
participants.
    In terms of inter-market competition, the Exchange notes that it
operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants
can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee

levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities
available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment,
the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive
with other options exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify
their own fees in response, and because market participants may readily
adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the
degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on
competition is extremely limited.
    Moreover, as noted above, price competition between exchanges is
fierce, with liquidity and market share moving freely between exchanges
in reaction to fee and rebate changes. In sum, if the changes proposed
herein are unattractive to market participants, it is likely that the
Exchange will lose market share as a result. Accordingly, the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of
members or competing order execution venues to maintain their
competitive standing in the financial markets.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \25\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \26\ thereunder.
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \26\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ISE-2020-20 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-ISE-2020-20. 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-ISE-2020-20 and should be submitted on
or before June 22, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-11646 Filed 5-29-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 18, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 116)]
[Notices]
[Page 33478]
[DOCID:fr18jn07-51]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-482-000]

Tuscarora Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Tariff Filing

June 11, 2007.
    Take notice that on June 7, 2007, Tuscarora Gas Transmission
Company (Tuscarora) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff,
Original Volume No. 1, First Revised Sheet No. 10, to become effective
July 9, 2007.
    Tuscarora states that this tariff sheet is being submitted to add
tariff language that will clarify the pipeline's ability to offer firm
transportation service with differing Maximum Transportation Quantity
levels throughout a shipper's contract term.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests 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. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Sec.  154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone
filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on
the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before
the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions 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 or intervention 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, D.C. 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>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-11643 Filed 6-15-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Index of Input Data Sets for the Ohio RUM Model of Ohio Reach Information and Attributes ( rch_ info. sd2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DCN 37757 National Demand Survey Respondent Data ( fullset2. sd2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DCN 37758 Matrix of Zip Codes and Distances to Recreational Sites ( matrix4. sd2) . . . . . . DCN 37759 User Defined Formats for SAS ( formats. sc2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DCN 37760 Additional Data for Out of State Fishing Anglers ( outstate. sd2) . . . . . . . . . . . . DCN 37761